Ex Parte Tang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2016

11862350 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/862,350 0912712007
63759 7590 04/19/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei-Pai Tang
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
07-0314-US-NP 9892
EXAMINER
CHANG, SUNRAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI-PAI TANG, MICHAEL R. CHAPMAN,
and ROBERT A. KISCH
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1, 10, and 26-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for optimizing automated laydown of a
plurality of doublers, comprising:
selecting a path, comprising an order in which an
automated tape head may laydown the plurality of doublers in a
composite ply in a sequence of a composite layup, a doubler
comprising a plurality of tape courses, each doubler in the
plurality of doublers spatially separated from each other doubler
in the plurality of doublers;
determining a travel cost associated with the path; and,
minimizing the travel cost by revising the path to create
a selected path.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, and 26-43 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellants' admitted prior art
(Spec. i-fi-12---6 (hereinafter "AAPA")), in view of Guyder (US 4,907,164;
Mar. 6, 1990). 1
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 28, 29, 31-38, and 40-43.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
2
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
Appellants ; Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Office Action failed to state a prima facie obviousness
rejection against claim 1 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, does not disclose "minimizing the travel
cost by revising the path to create a selected path," as in claim 1.
Guyder is silent as to "revising the path to create a selected path,"
as claimed. Guyder discloses determining an ordering of tool
paths in order to reduce required tool retractions. In Guyder,
each tool path is a cut to be made in a tool. Guyder discloses
ordering these tool paths according to physical requirements so
that a number of tool retractions is minimized. However, Guyder
is silent as to "minimizing the travel cost by revising the path to
create a selected path," as in claim 1. Guyder only discloses
ordering the tool paths to minimize the number of tool
retractions. Guyder is silent as to "revising" a path.
Appeal Br. 10-11; emphasis added.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Office Action failed to state a prima facie obviousness
rejection against claim 1 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, does not disclose "determining a travel
cost associated with the path," as in claim 1.
Guyder is silent as to "determining a travel cost associated with
the path." Guyder does not disclose "a travel cost," as claimed.
Guyder is directed to ordering tool paths according to physical
requirements so that a number of tool retractions is minimized.
Guyder is concerned with physical requirements for milling
including minimizing tool retractions. Guyder is silent as to
"travel cost." A review ofGuyder does not present an equivalent
3
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
to a "travel cost," as damed [sic].
The Office Action failed to state a prima facie obviousness
rejection against claim 10 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, does not disclose "determining a travel
cost for each of the plurality of paths,"' as in claim 10.
Guyder is silent as to "determining a travel cost for each of the
plurality of paths." As discussed above, Guyder does not
disclose "a travel cost," as claimed. Guyder is directed to
ordering tool paths according to physical requirements so that
a number of tool retractions is minimized. Guyder is concerned
with physical requirements for milling including minimizing
tool retractions. Guyder is silent as to "determining a travel
cost for each of the plurality of paths." A review of Guyder
does not present an equivalent to a "travel cost," as damed [sic].
Appeal Br. 11, 13-14, emphasis added.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Office Action failed to state a prima facie obviousness
rejection against claim 26 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, does not disclose "the travel cost
comprises a distance traveled, by the tape head, between the
plurality of doublers, and wherein the distance traveled
comprises a distance to complete laydown of the plurality of
doublers using the path," as in claim 26.
[T]he background section of the current application does not
disclose a "travel cost," as claimed. The background section of
the current application only discloses that current tape head
paths are controlled based on the order doublers are laid down.
The background section further discloses that software
programmers may determine the order the doublers are laid
down based on their own personal experiences. However, the
4
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
background section of the current application does not disclose
a "travel cost. "
The Office Action failed to state a prima facie obviousness
rejection against claim 27 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, does not disclose "wherein the travel cost
comprises a time required for the tape head to travel between the
plurality of doublers and complete laydown of the plurality
doublers using the path," as in claim 27.
[T]he background section of the current application does not
disclose a "travel cost," as claimed. The background section of
the current application only discloses that current tape head
paths are controlled based on the order doublers are laid down.
The background section further discloses that software
programmers may determine the order the doublers are laid
down based on their own personal experiences. However, the
background section of the current application does not disclose
a "travel cost. "
Appeal Br. 14--15; emphasis added.
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Office Action failed to state a prima facie obviousness
rejection against claim 30 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, does not disclose "a start gate," or "a stop
gate," as in claim 30.
[T]he background section of the current application does not
disclose . •• "a start gate," or "a stop gate," as claimed. The
background section of the current application only discloses
that current tape head paths are controlled based on the order
doublers are laid down. The background section further
discloses that software programmers may determine the order
the doublers are laid down based on their own personal
5
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
experiences. However, the background section of the current
application does not disclose . .. "a start gate," or "a stop gate."
Appeal Br. 16, emphasis added.
5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
10 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Office Action combines the rejections of claims 1, 10 and
39. However, the Office Action does not present rejections
against the features of claims 10 or 3 9. Appellant[s '] notes that
claims 10 and 39 contain features not found in claim 1. For
example, the Office Action does not present rejections against
"identifying a plurality of paths for the tape head between a
plurality of doublers in a composite ply in a sequence of a
composite layup," as in claim 10. Further, the Office Action
does not present rejections against "determining a travel cost
for each of the plurality of paths," as in claims 10 and 39.
Appeal Br. 13, emphasis added.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being
unpatentable?
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 10 as being
unpatentable?
3. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 26 and 27 as being
unpatentable?
4. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 30 as being
unpatentable?
5. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 39 as being
unpatentable?
6
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
When considering obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For example, "[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
taken (Non-Final Act. 2-10); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-12) in response to the Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Guyder teaches a method for generating two-dimensional
tool paths and optimizing the ordering of the tool paths for milling of
cavities for molds and dies. 2 Guyder, Abstract; see also Guyder, col. 4,
2 Appellants additionally argue that: (a) travel cost caused by off-part motion
of machinery is a previously unrecognized problem in composite
manufacturing; and (b) the Office Action's characterization of the
Background section of Appellants' Specification (i.e., AAPA) is incorrect
because AAP A does not disclose that off-part motion of machinery is a
7
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
11. 42-54. Appellants argue that Guyder's optimization of an order of tool
paths does not teach "revising [a] path," as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4. However, this argument is not persuasive, as this
argument contradicts Appellants' Specification which equates revising an
order in which a tape head lays down doublers with revising a path for the
tape head. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-19-10, 30, 35. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Guyder' s optimization of the order of tool paths by reordering
the tool paths teaches "revising [a] path," as recited in claim 1. 3 Non-Final
Act. 5-6; Ans. 9. We further agree that, in combining AAP A and Guyder,
the Examiner is merely applying the rationale stated in KSR that a
combination of known elements according to known methods is obvious
absent any unexpected results. Non-Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we are also not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellants' argument fails to either distinguish the claimed
"travel cost" from Guyder' s tool retraction, or refer to a limiting definition
of "travel cost" in either Appellants' claims or Specification. Appeal Br.
11-14. Instead, Appellants' Specification merely states that "travel cost
may be measured in terms of time, distance, or other factors ... which
previously recognized problem. Appeal Br. 9-10, 12. Despite these
arguments, we conclude that Guyder teaches the recognition of the problem
of off-tool movement (i.e., tool retraction) and further teaches a solution to
the problem by reordering the generated tool paths to minimize tool
retractions. See Guyder, col. 1, 11. 50-52; col. 2, 11. 18-23, 52-58; col. 3,
11. 13-18; col. 4, 11. 42-52.
3 Even further, Guyder also teaches reorganizing (i.e., revising) an individual
tool path to have a different start point to avoid a tool retraction. See
Guyder, col. 6, 11. 34--37.
8
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
quantify off-part motion of the tape head." Spec. il 30 (emphasis added).
Thus, travel cost can be any quantification of off-part motion of a tool.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Guyder' s tool retraction teaches
a "travel cost," as recited in claims 1 and 10. Non-Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 9--
10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that AAP A teaches a
controller that controls overall movement of an automatic tape head that lays
down composite tape. Non-Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 11; see also Spec. i-fi-13-6.
We further agree that the overall movement of the tape head is associated
with both: (a) a distance traveled, and (b) a time required for the travel.
Non-Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 11. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that AAPA
teaches both "a distance traveled, by the tape head, between the plurality of
doublers ... wherein the distance traveled comprises a distance to complete
laydown of the plurality of doublers using the path," as recited in claim 26,
and "a time required for the tape head to travel between the plurality of
doublers and complete laydown of the plurality doublers using the path," as
recited in claim 27. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 26 and
27.
As to Appellants' above contention 4, we are also not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Claim 30 defines a "start gate" as a location at which the
tape head starts laying tape and a "stop gate" as a location at which the tape
head stops laying tape. Further, Appellants' Specification fails to provide
any further limiting definition of "start gate" and "stop gate." We agree that
AAP A teaches a tape head path, which will have a start location and a stop
location. Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 11-12. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
9
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
that AAP A teaches a "start gate" and a "stop gate" as recited in claim 30.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 30.
As to Appellants' above contention 5, we are also not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Guyder teaches "identifying a plurality of paths," as recited
in claim 10, because Guyder teaches identifying finishing tool paths. See,
e.g., Guyder, col. 4, 11. 42--43. Further, as previously discussed, Guyder's
tool retraction teaches a "travel cost," as recited in claims 10 and 39.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 39. 4
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 26--43
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1, 10, and 26--43 are not patentable.
4 Appellants additionally argue that the Office Action failed to present a
prima facie rejection against the claims because the Office Action did not
present rejections against the claim language. Appeal Br. 10, 13. Instead,
the Office Action presented statements regarding the references, and,
according to Appellants, did not analyze the subject matter "as a whole." Id.
We do not find this argument persuasive. The Federal Circuit has held that
the Patent and Trademark Office carries its procedural burden of
establishing aprimafacie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132,
in notifying the applicant by stating the reasons for its rejection, or objection
or requirement, together with such information and references as may be
useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of the
application. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We conclude
that the Examiner provided more than sufficient reasoning for a prima facie
case of obviousness.
10
Appeal2014-003936
Application 11/862,350
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 10, and 26-43 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11