DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2015/0056433 to MacAdams in view of WO-2018/101245 to Kaji.
Regarding Claim 1-10, 12-14 and 17
MacAdams teaches a method for producing a composite comprising providing a first and second composite substrate comprising a substrate comprising a first curable resin having a first faying surface and may comprise additional plies (barrier ply) comprising a second curable resin adjacent to the first fraying surface and a second faying surface and a bonding ply comprising a third curable resin adjacent to the second faying surface and a third faying surface MacAdams teaches that the bonding ply may be partially cured while the additional plies may be fully cured during a first curing step (Id.). (MacAdams, abstract, fig. 1-3). MacAdams teaches coupling the first and second composite substrate by a joining ply comprising a fourth curable resin between the bonding plies of the first and second composite substrates and curing (Id., claim 8). MacAdams teaches that the bonding ply and the additional plies (barrier ply, substrate) may comprise prepreg tape comprising reinforcement fibers, between 20 and 80% of resin, and epoxide and amine hardener in an amount of between 0.01 and 1 relative to the epoxy component (Id., paragraph [0035]-[0040], [0052]-[0055]). MacAdams teaches that the adhesive (fourth curable resin) also may comprise an epoxide and a hardener (Id., paragraph [0058] and [0060]). In the event it is shown that MacAdams does not disclose the claimed invention, including the claimed ranges, with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because MacAdams discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination, and MacAdams discloses each of the ranges which substantially overlap with the claimed ranges, to successfully practice the invention of MacAdams based on the totality of the teachings of MacAdams.
MacAdams does not specifically teach that an additional ply (barrier ply) necessarily prevents mixing of the first curable resin with the third curable resin. However, Kaji teaches a composite multilayer stack comprising a barrier layer, wherein the barrier layer is preferable uncured or semi-cured and is achieved by controlling the basis weight of the fiber reinforcement of the layer such as between 50 and 250 gsm which overlaps the claimed range of between 10 and 500 gsm, the barrier layer will prevent mixing between layers and result in improved mechanical properties (Kaji, paragraphs [0029]-[0033], [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the method of making a layered composite of MacAdams, and to utilize as the central layer(s) a barrier layer as taught by Kaji, motivated by the desire to form a conventional cured multilayer composite having improved mechanical properties.
Regarding Claims 11 and 15
The prior art combination does not appear to teach the thickness of each layer. However, it should be noted that the thickness of the bonding ply and the thickness of the barrier ply are result effective variables. As the thickness of the barrier ply increases, the material exhibits increased strength at the expense of weight, stiffness and cost. As the thickness of the joining ply increases the material exhibits increased adhesion and durability at the expense of weight and cost. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the thickness of the layers since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness in order to provide the desired balance between strength, stiffness, durability and cost.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2015/0056433 to MacAdams in view of Kaji as applied to claims 1-15 and 17 above, in view of USPN. 5,236,972 to Reinhart.
Regarding Claim 16
MacAdams does not appear to teach that the joining ply comprises a prepreg tape comprising reinforcing fibers. However, Reinhart teaches a prepreg adhesive tape comprising reinforcement fibers suitable for use in aircraft and missile structures (Reinhart, abstract, column 1, lines 50-58). Reinhart teaches that the embedded fibers provide stiffness and strength to the composite material (Id., column 1, lines 22-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of MacAdams and to utilize as the joining ply, a fiber reinforced prepreg tape as taught by Reinhart, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite having improved strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights