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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-11, 13-15, and 17-26 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 2 recites, “at least one -ply” and should read “at least one [[-]]ply” for consistency among the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the proportion" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the proportion" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the proportion" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 also recites, “and the proportion of the carbon fibres to the total number of fibres is between 50%” in lines 3-5 and does not provide a second value for the total numbers of carbon fibers to be “between” and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 13-15, and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappes et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0066675 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
472
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kappes et al. discloses an aircraft turbomachine housing (Fig. 2), comprising an annular casing (60, fan containment casing, Fig. 1) extending about an axis (Z, Fig. 2) and having an internal annular surface (Fig. 1 shown by the outline of the inner surface of the nacelle 60), the aircraft turbomachine also comprising an annular abradable support cartridge (68) which is attached against said internal annular surface (Fig. 1, Fig. 2), the abradable support cartridge has a reinforced coating comprising a fibrous texture reinforcement embedded in a resin matrix ([0020]), the fibrous texture reinforcement comprising a stack of fibrous texture plies (Fig. 9, 88, 90),
wherein the stack of plies comprises plies made of at least a first and second carbon fibre fabric ([0020]; indicates 88 as carbon fibre fabric and there is a plurality of them), and
at least one ply (90) which is made of a material with fibres having a density lower than the carbon fibres ([0020], 90 is indicated as PBO, “Another desirable characteristic of the PBO composite 90 is that it has a lower density compared to other comparable fibers such as Kevlar®.”; the Examiner further notes, from previously provided material data sheets, that the bulk density of carbon-carbon composite is 1.75g/cc and Kevlar® is 1.44 g/cc, and therefore PBO is less dense than carbon fibres as claimed) and in that plies of said stack of plies of fibrous texture form a reinforcement area (66) at a downstream portion (at least a portion of the cartridge is downstream of the fan blade 70) and
wherein the plies made from the first carbon fibre fabric is disposed above the at least one ply made of the material with fibres having a density lower than the carbon fibres (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one ply forms a local allowance (Fig. 1, Y; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one ply extends over more than half an axial length of the abradable support cartridge (Fig. 2, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one ply forms a radially inner coating of the abradable support cartridge (Fig. 9, 90 the radially inner most layer).
Regarding claim 6, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one ply is configured to form an outer wall of a duct of the turbomachine (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one ply also forms a peripheral layer on an upstream side and/or a downstream side of the abradable support cartridge (Fig. 2, the plies form an upstream portion and a downstream portion in relation to the blade 70).
Regarding claim 8, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the at least one -ply is a woven fabric of a material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre ([0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 8 as above, wherein said woven fabric is pre-impregnated with resin ([0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 8 as above, wherein a thickness of mixed woven fabric made of carbon fibre and the material with fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre is stacked radially outwardly on the wove fabric made of the material with fibre having a density lower than the carbon fabric (Fig. 9, [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the abradable support cartridge comprises a honeycomb core ([0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 13 as above, a face of the honeycomb core is free of the at least one material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre or glass fiber ply (Fig. 9, 72 is abutting 88 a carbon fibre ply and therefore has a face free of the PBO).
Regarding claim 15, Kappes et al. discloses an aircraft turbomachine (Fig. 1, 50) comprising the aircraft turbomachine housing according to claim 1 as above.
Regarding claim 17, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the stack of plies comprises at least one ply sandwiched between two thicknesses of carbon fibre plies (Fig. 9; [0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the stack of plies further comprises plies made of a third carbon fibre fabric (Fig. 9; [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 18 as above, wherein the plies made of the third carbon fibre fabric are adjacent to the plies of the second carbon fibre fabric (Fig. 9, [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 18 as above, wherein the plies made of the third carbon fibre fabric are adjacent to plies made of the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre (Fig. 9, [0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the plies made of the first carbon fibre fabric comprise at least three to five plies (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 22, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the plies made of the first carbon fibre fabric comprise at least three to six plies (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 23, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 18 as above, wherein the plies made of the first carbon fibre fabric comprise at least three to five plies (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 24, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 10 as above, wherein the thickness of mixed woven fabric made of carbon fibre and the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre, the proportion of the fibre of the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre to the total number of fibres is between 40 and 60%, and the proportion of carbon fibres to the total number of fibres is between 60 and 40% (Fig. 9 shows a plurality of layers of carbon fibre 88 and a plurality of layers of PBO 90, there appear to be 8 layers or carbon fibre and 8 layers or PBO which results in a proportion of 50%).
Regarding claim 25, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 10 as above, wherein the thickness of mixed woven fabric made of carbon fibre and the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre, the proportion of the fibre of the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre to the total number of fibres is between 45 and 55%, and the proportion of carbon fibres to the total number of fibres is between 55 and 45% (Fig. 9 shows a plurality of layers of carbon fibre 88 and a plurality of layers of PBO 90, there appear to be 8 layers or carbon fibre and 8 layers or PBO which results in a proportion of 50%).
Regarding claim 26, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 10 as above, wherein in the thickness of mixed woven fabric made of carbon fibre and the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre, the proportion of the fibre of the material fibre having a density lower than the carbon fibre to the total number of fibres is 50%, and the proportion of the carbon fibres to the total number of fibres is between 50% (Fig. 9 shows a plurality of layers of carbon fibre 88 and a plurality of layers of PBO 90, there appear to be 8 layers or carbon fibre and 8 layers or PBO which results in a proportion of 50%).
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappes et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0066675 A1) in view of Cheung (US PGPUB 2019/0136871 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kappes et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, Kappes et al. does not disclose, “wherein the at least one ply is made of glass fibre, and wherein the thickness of carbon fibre plies is stacked radially outwardly on said glass fibre ply.”
Kappes et al. does disclose, “The fan track liner 72 may be abradable and can be constructed in a variety of manners and can be made of one or more materials such as metallic, plastic, composite, honeycomb, or others known in the art. [0019]”
Cheung teaches, in the field of composite fan cases, “The S-glass face sheet galvanically separates the aluminum honeycomb of layer 34 from the carbon fiber in layer 32 thereby reducing and/or preventing galvanic corrosion between the aluminum honeycomb and the carbon fiber plies. [0022]”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify containment casing of Kappes et al. to have a glass ply between the honeycomb core and the remainder of the casing, as both references are in the same field of endeavor and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, ““The S-glass face sheet galvanically separates the aluminum honeycomb of layer 34 from the carbon fiber in layer 32 thereby reducing and/or preventing galvanic corrosion between the aluminum honeycomb and the carbon fiber plies. [0022]”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745