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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0058860) and in view of Sager (4585152).
Regarding Claim 1: Caruso et al. disclose a method for repairing a thermoplastic composite component (thermoplastic rotor blade [0038] and [0042]), comprising: preparing at least one repair patch configured to conform with a defect region of the thermoplastic composite component, the defect region having a periphery that defines the defect region (Figures 9-12), the at least one repair patch comprising a thermoplastic composite material; providing a thermoplastic interface film configured to conform with at least a part of the at least one repair patch, the thermoplastic interface film having a melt temperature; disposing the thermoplastic interface film between a surface of the thermoplastic composite component disposed at the periphery of the defect region and the at least one repair patch(the interface film (62) and patch (comprising additional layers of 62 and 63), Figure 11 and [0053]-[0055]); and heating the thermoplastic interface film to its melt temperature using an ultrasonic welder (Caruso et al. describe welding (including ultrasonic welding)[0010], given those teachings a person would have found ultrasonic welding to be an obvious type of welding), and subsequently allowing the thermoplastic interface film to cool, thereby welding the at least one repair patch to the thermoplastic composite component ([0057] Figures 9-12). Caruso et al fails to explicitly set forth that the ultrasonic welder is manually traversable and configured to produce excitation waves in a range of about 20 kHz to about 40 kHz.
Sager et al teaches the use of a hand manipulable ultrasonic welder (col 4, lines 6-12).
It would have been obvious to have modified the ultrasonic welder of Caruso by making it handheld as taught by Sager because there is not inventiveness to switching between manual and automatic, and further because it enables control that guarantees the user can avoid damaging prolonged contact (col 4, lines 2-5). Still further Sager et al teaches and makes obvious that a welder may be configured to utilize 20kHz as shown at col 3, line 65). Still further, as shown in MPEP 2144, there is legal precedent to the obviousness relating to manual activity, separability, and adjustability all of which are aligned with and comparable to switching out an automatic device for one that is manual. Still further, the Examiner takes Official notice that the KHz range and the use of manual machinery is notoriously well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the heating is a manual process ([0052]-[0057], “operator can easily hold the layer over the defect to allow slower cooling”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 2. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the step of heating the thermoplastic interface film to its melt temperature using the ultrasonic welder includes applying a force to an area of the repair patch to be welded thereby holding the repair patch against the thermoplastic interface film and wherein the method includes maintaining the force while the thermoplastic interface film is allowed to cool below the melt temperature of the thermoplastic interface film ([0053]-[0057], “operator can easily hold the layer over the defect to allow slower cooling”).
Regarding Claims 5-7: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. fail to specifically disclose wherein the heating includes manually manipulating the ultrasonic welder relative to the periphery of the defect region or wherein the manual manipulation includes producing a plurality of spot welds or wherein the manual manipulation includes traversing the ultrasonic welder to produce a continuous weld line. However, given Caruso et al. disclosure of ultrasonic welding it is the Examiner’s position that the operator of said ultrasonic welding device would operate the ultrasonic welder in a manner consistent with its design. In other words, absent a showing of unexpected results it is the Examiner’s position that the described ultrasonic welding would necessarily include some or all of the described welding steps.
Regarding Claim 8: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the at least one repair patch is a plurality of repair patches that collectively conform with the defect region of the thermoplastic composite component (Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 9: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the thermoplastic composite component and the at least one repair patch comprise the same material (the materials of the thermoplastic are described the composite also comprises a foam core which is not the same material. (the interface film (62) has a higher melt temperature than the foam core but melting points of the thermoplastic components are relatively close to each other, Figure 11 and [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 10: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the thermoplastic composite component comprises a first thermoplastic composite material and the at least one repair patch comprises a second thermoplastic composite material different from the first thermoplastic composite material (the interface film has a melt temperature higher than the composite (62), Figure 11 and [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic interface film melt temperature is equal to or less than a melt temperature of the thermoplastic composite component (the interface film has a melt temperature higher than the composite (62), Figure 11 and [0053]-[0055]).
Further regarding Claim 12: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the initial rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the thermoplastic interface film melt temperature is equal to or less than a melt temperature of the at least one repair patch (the interface film (62) and patch (comprising additional layers of 62 and 63), Figure 11 and [0053]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 13: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the defect region includes a hole and the method includes modifying the hole to a predetermined geometry, and the repair patch is prepared to conform with the predetermined geometry ([0053]-[0057] Figures 9-12) additionally Caruso et al. describes it is conventionally known to manipulate (grind) the defect before repair [0006]).
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic composite component comprises at least one of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw mate rials, metal fibers or polymer fibers (the rotor blade is described as being thermoplastic material reinforced with fibers [0053], said fibers are described in [0009]).
Regarding Claim 15-17: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 1. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the thermoplastic composite, the at least one repair patch and the interface film comprises a thermoplastic material comprising at least one of polyamide (PA), polyamide-imide (PAI), polyarylsulfone (PAS), polyethersulfone (PES), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyphthalamide (PPA), poly ether ketone ketone (PEKK), or poly aryl ether ketone (PAEK) (the thermoplastic materials of the invention are described in [0009][0047]).
Regarding Claim 18: Caruso et al. disclose a method for repairing a thermoplastic composite component (thermoplastic rotor blade [0038] and [0042]), comprising: providing a repair patch configured to cover a defect region of a thermoplastic composite component and at least a portion of a surface of the thermoplastic composite component peripheral to the defect region, the at least one repair patch comprising a thermoplastic composite material; providing a thermoplastic interface film configured to conform with at least a part of the repair patch, the thermoplastic interface film having a melt temperature; disposing the thermoplastic interface film between the surface of the thermoplastic composite component peripheral to the defect region and the repair patch; and heating the thermoplastic interface film to its melt temperature using an ultrasonic welder (Caruso et al. describe welding (including ultrasonic welding)[0010], given those teachings a person would have found ultrasonic welding to be an obvious type of welding), and subsequently holding the welded area until the thermoplastic interface film cools below its melt temperature ([0052]-[0057], “operator can easily hold the layer over the defect to allow slower cooling”).
Further regarding Claim 19: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 18. Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the step of heating the thermoplastic interface film to its melt temperature using the ultrasonic welder includes applying a force to an area of the repair patch to be welded thereby holding the repair patch against the thermoplastic interface film, and the force is maintained while the welded area is held until the thermoplastic interface film is cooled below its the melt temperature ([0052]-[0057], “operator can easily hold the layer over the defect to allow slower cooling”).
Regarding Claim 20: Caruso et al. disclose the invention as described above in the rejection of Claim 19. Caruso et al. describe welding (including ultrasonic welding)[0010], given those teachings a person would have found ultrasonic welding to be an obvious type of welding)Caruso et al. further disclose wherein the heating includes manually manipulating the ultrasonic welder relative to the surface portion of the thermoplastic composite component peripheral to the defect region. Given Caruso et al. disclosure of ultrasonic welding it is the Examiner’s position that the operator of said ultrasonic welding device would operate the ultrasonic welder in a manner consistent with its design. In other words, absent a showing of unexpected results it is the Examiner’s position that the described ultrasonic welding would necessarily include some or all of the described welding steps.
Many of the instant claims are so broad that they could also be rejected over Duggal (US 2024/0209241).
Regarding claim 22, the Examiner notes that this limitation is set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 Joseph S Del Sole whose telephone number is (571)272-1130. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday - Friday, 9-5.
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, Gary Welch can be reached. 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.
JOSEPH S. DEL SOLE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1700
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100