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 Amendments
Applicant filed a response on 12/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to claim 12 limitation “the mandrel is a group of at least two mandrel with smaller cross sections, either stacked, or laterally juxtaposed”.
Arguments were fully considered. However, argued features of the mandrel(s) are unclear. The rejection previously presented is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is presented including 112(b) rejections addressing clarity issues of the mandrel(s).
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.
Claim 12-20 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 12 recites “producing a pre-impregnated fibrous preform of said at least one hollow longitudinal body by draping a fabric pre-impregnated with a thermosetting resin around a mandrel, by means of which said at least one hollow longitudinal body made from non-polymerised thermosetting composite material supported by a
mandrel is obtained.” It is unclear if “a mandrel” is the same mandrel as previously recited or a different mandrel.
Claim 12 recites “the mandrel is a group of at least two mandrels with smaller cross sections, either stacked, or laterally juxtaposed” and “removing the mandrel from the at least one hollow longitudinal completely polymerized body, wherein said mandrel is made from a solid elastic material and wherein said mandrel is removed from said at least one hollow longitudinal completely polymerized body by elongation traction of the solid elastic material of said mandrel causing a reduction in a cross section of said mandrel.”
It is unclear if the claimed “the mandrel” in claim 12 is in reference to the first claimed mandrel or the at least two mandrels with smaller cross sections.
Based on the specification, the claim is interpreted to require the following:
wherein, for said at least one hollow longitudinal body, the mandrel is a group
of at least two sub-mandrels with smaller cross sections, either stacked, or laterally juxtaposed and
removing the at least two sub-mandrel from the at least one hollow longitudinal completely polymerized body, wherein said at least two sub-mandrels are made from a solid elastic material and wherein said at least two sub-mandrels are removed from said at least one hollow longitudinal completely polymerized body by elongation traction of the solid elastic material of said at least two sub-mandrels causing a reduction in cross sections of said at least two sub-mandrels.
Accordingly, claim 15 limitation “each mandrel is made from flexible elastomer” will be interpreted as --each sub-mandrel is made from a flexible elastomer--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendrick (EP2,813,352) in view of Engwall (US 7,293,737) and Held (PG-PUB 2002/0136847).
Regarding claim 12, Kendrick teaches a method for manufacturing a stiffened part, the stiffened part being formed by at least two elements made from thermoset composite material (Figure 3-5 and [0011]), including at least a body of a first structure (Figure 3-5 and Col 3, Ln 61- Col 4, Ln 26), the first structure including at least one hollow longitudinal body having at least one open end (Figure 4 and Col 8, LN 9-38), the method comprising the following successive steps:
for each body of the first structure, either producing a fibrous preform of the body by draping a fabric around a mandrel and impregnating the fibrous preform with a thermosetting resin or producing a pre-impregnated fibrous preform by draping a fabric pre-impregnated with a thermosetting resin around a mandrel, by means of which a body made from non-polymerized thermosetting composite material supported by a mandrel is obtained (Figure 6, steps 603- 607; [0022]-[0023], [0030], [0031]),
supplying the second structure, the second structure being made of an uncured, partially cured, or fully cured thermosetting material (Figures 4-7 and [0009]-[0011]);
assembling elements forming the part, each element being juxtaposed with, or stacked on at least one other element (Figure 4-6, [0013], [0037]);
depositing a layer of non-polymerized thermosetting adhesive on a zone of contact between said first structure and said second structure [0059]-[0060];
completely polymerizing the assembly by heat treatment ([0011], [0037]);
cooling the mandrels and removing stopping active inflation [0013] and [0038]-[0042];
removal of the mandrel from said at least one hollow longitudinal completely polymerized body by an exposed end (Figure 6, step 611 and [0059]).
Kendrick teaches the mandrel applies pressure to the wrapped layers upon heating the mandrel due to thermal expansion [0016], [0039].
Kendrick does not teach:
(1) for at least one body, the mandrel is a group of at least two sub-mandrels with smaller cross sections, either stacked or laterally juxtaposed;
(2) said at least two sub-mandrels are made from a solid elastic material, wherein said at least two sub-mandrels are removed from said at least one hollow longitudinal completely polymerized body by elongation traction of the solid elastic material of said at least two sub-mandrels causing a reduction in cross sections of said at least two sub-mandrels.
As to (1), Engwall teaches co-curing composite stringers using a mandrel comprising a plurality of strips (Figure 2). Engwall teaches each stringer is preformed and generally defines a channel or recess, and a mandrel is positioned in said channel or recess such that the mandrel may provide support to the stringer during subsequent layup (Col 4, ln 26-54). Engwall teaches a plurality of strips are inserted within the opening of the mandrel before inserting the mandrel into the channel (Col 5, ln 39-56). Engwall teaches because the strips 14 are pliable and individually capable of sliding axially within the mandrel 12, the strips can have a variety of cross-sectional shapes (Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 55-Col 5, ln 9). Engwall teaches the greater the number of strips 14, i.e., smaller cross-section, the more flexible the mandrel 12 is, such that more complex contours may be achieved with a greater number of strips (Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 55-Col 5, ln 9). Engwall teaches the strips are preferably made of a polymeric material (Col 5, ln 23-37), and the mandrel is formed of any elastomeric material, such as Teflon coated silicone or hard rubber (Col 4, ln 39-54). Engwall teaches removal of the strips by hand (Figure 3 and Col 6, ln 18-36). Engwall teaches the strips 14 may
have a coefficient of thermal expansion that is higher than the surrounding stringer 10 and aircraft skin 16 such that the strips expand when heated to apply additional pressure during curing, but also contract upon cooling to aid in removal of the strips from the mandrel 12 (Col 5, ln 23-38).
Both Kendrick and Engwall are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to molding hollow composites. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Kendrick, in particular the mandrel of Kendrick, with a mandrel comprising a plurality of strips, a known suitable thermally-expansive mandrel as taught by Engwall, to yield the predictable result of molding under heat and pressure using an expansible core.
As to (2), Held teaches a method of manufacturing a hollow article using a flexible mandrel and rigid mandrel (Figures 2-4). Held teaches the flexible mandrel is formed of a flexible, stretchable material, such as silicone rubber, and has a high thermal coefficient of expansion so that when it is heated, it tends to expand to exert pressure in an inner surface of a preform [0035]-[0036], [0045]. Held teaches the flexible mandrel is pulled to remove it from the cavity of the cured composite (Figure 4). Held teaches the mandrel may stretch to reduce its cross-sectional dimension or diameter to further simplify the removal of the mandrel from the opening of the composite [0047].
Both Kendrick and Held are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to molding hollow composites. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Kendrick in view of Engwall, in particular the sub-mandrels, with silicone rubber material, a known suitable material for a thermally-expansive mandrel as taught by Held, to yield the predictable result of molding under heat and pressure using an expansible core.
Both Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches thermally-expansive sub-mandrels removed from the cavity of a mandrel by pulling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the process of Kendrick in view of Engwall with removing the sub-mandrels through elongation traction of said at least two sub-mandrels, thereby causing a reduction in a cross section of said at least two sub-mandrels, as taught by Held for the benefit of an easier and smoother removal of said mandrel.
Regarding claim 14, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein among the elements forming the part, there are furthermore at least one sheet or fabric pre-impregnated with thermosetting resin, this sheet or fabric being applied, during the assembly step, one at least one body by stacking one wrapped mandrel assembly on another (Kendrick, Figure 4, 5, and 7 and [0011], [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein each mandrel is made from flexible elastomer (Held, [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the first structure comprises at least two bodies, said bodies being juxtaposed and/or stacked, such that two adjacent bodies contact by lateral wall (Kendrick, Figures 4, 5, and 7).
Regarding claim 17, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the first structure includes a first row of juxtaposed bodies and a second row of juxtaposed bodies, the first and second rows being stacked with an offset between the bodies in the first row and the bodies in the second row (Kendrick, Figures 4, 5, and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the first structure by itself alone forms the stiffened part (Kendrick, Figures 3, 4, 5, and 7).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendrick (EP2,813,352) in view of Engwall (US 7,293,737) and Held (PG-PUB 2002/0136847), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Kunishima (PG-PUB 2015/0147504).
Regarding claim 13, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein a plurality of mandrels are wrapped with multiple layers of composite material layers (Kendrick, [0035]).
Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held does not teach before the assembly step, a deposition of an adhesive film between the first and second structures.
Kunishima teaches a process of bonding structures using a heat-adhesive film [0078], comprising a step of winding a prepreg sheet 26 around an outer peripheral surface 231A of a core 231, step of interposing the heat-adhesive film 30 between the prepreg sheet 26 and the outer peripheral surface 16A, wherein the heat-adhesive film 30 is sandwiched between the outer peripheral surface 16A and the prepreg sheet 26 in the radial direction of the core 231 and is bonded to the outer peripheral surface 16A and the prepreg sheet 26 [0077]-[0078]. Kunishima teaches by baking and curing the prepreg sheet 26, the heat-adhesive film 30 is bonded to the prepreg sheet 26 and
the outer peripheral surface 16A more firmly. Kunishima teaches when the heat-adhesive film 30 including the epoxy resin is used, the adhesion strength with the prepreg sheet 26 including the epoxy resin is further increased, and heat resistance is also improved [0077]-[0078].
Wrapping a prepreg structure with a heat-adhesive film is a known technique for improving bonding of the structure to other elements, as taught by Kunishima. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the suitable technique of Kunishima to improve the process of Kendrick in the same manner with the heat-adhesive film wrapped around the wrapped mandrels for the benefit of improving adhesion strength of the prepreg. Because each wrapped mandrel includes a layer of the heat-adhesive film, when stacked as taught by Kendrick, the film of Kendrick in view of Kunishima would be disposed between two non-polymerized elements.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendrick (EP2,813,352) in view of Engwall (US 7,293,737) and Held (PG-PUB 2002/0136847), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Wilson (US 6,609,592).
Regarding claim 19, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the core is used to make a sandwich panel (Kendrick, Figure 1-3), such as for aircraft applications (Kendrick, [0008]), wherein the composite core can adhesively bond to an upper or lower skin (i.e., sandwich panel) (Kendrick, [0009]). Kendrick teaches the first structure is at least partially incorporated in the second structure and/or juxtaposed on a surface of the second structure (Kendrick, Figure 3).
Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held does not teach the stiffened part furthermore comprising a second structure made from thermoset composite material, distinct from the first structure.
Wilson teaches a process of manufacturing an acoustic panel, the process comprising bonding a honeycomb core to a thermoset backing sheet with a film adhesive (Col , ln 40-46; Col 8, Ln 1-30; and Col 9, Ln 4-7). Wilson teaches the panel is used for as a noise attenuation panel for attenuating noise produced by aircraft engines (Col 1, Ln 1-8).
Both Kendrick and Wilson are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing a sandwich panel. Kendrick does not teach the particular material of the skin layers, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a thermoset composite material is a known suitable backing layer for a sandwich panel for aircraft applications, as taught by Wilson. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known suitable skin material of Wilson as the skin layer of Kendrick to yield the predictable result of providing a skin layer for an aircraft sandwich panel.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendrick (EP2,813,352) in view of Engwall (US 7,293,737) and Held (PG-PUB 2002/0136847), as applied to claim 12, in further view of Sadones (English Translation of FR2502852).
Regarding claim 20, Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held teaches the process as applied to claim 12, wherein the stiffened part is used in a sandwich panel for a variety of applications in aircrafts, randomes, enclosures, air vehicles, space vehicles, etc. (Kendrick, Figure 3 and [0008]-[0009]).
Kendrick in view of Engwall and Held does not teach the stiffened part is a satellite antenna reflector.
Sadones teaches a large antenna reflector for satellite communications comprising several panels of sandwich panels comprising a honeycomb core (Figure 1, item 1 and [0009]).
Both Kendrick and Sadones are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing sandwich panels comprising a honeycomb core. Kendrick suggests a variety of applications for the honeycomb core, including space applications. Sadones teaches a known suitable application for honeycomb core-based sandwich panels as an antenna reflector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the core of Kendrick as a stiffened part for a satellite antenna reflector, a known suitable application as taught by Sadones and suggested by Kendrick.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights