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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–10 and 16–20 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11–15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curley (US 5,447,411) in view of Evans (US 2004/0146393 A1).
Curley teaches a method of forming an aircraft engine composite containment system, wherein the method includes providing an elastomeric liner 3 that includes ceramic tiles 5 encapsulated with elastomer 6. Curley abstract, 3:1–22, Figs. 1, 2. A thin layer of adhesive is then applied to the surface of liner 3 to adhere a layer of fabric 8. Id. at 3:23–42, Figs. 2, 3a. Subsequent alternating layers of adhesive 7 and fabric 8 may be added to the first fabric layer 8 to form fibrous backing layer 4. Id. As such, the outermost layer of the fibrous back layer 4 serves as an outer shell that extends circumferentially about an axial centerline of the composite containment system forming an outer radial surface of the system. Id. For examination purposes, the subsequent fabric layers and the adhesive used to both them together constitute the claimed thermoplastic composite material as some adhesive 7 may impregnate the fabric layers 8. Id. at 3:52–62.
PNG
media_image1.png
546
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Curley fails to teach bonding a thermoplastic film layer to the liner using an adhesive, but instead adheres a fabric layer.
Evans teaches the formation of a jet aircraft fan case containment design, wherein film layers of polyurethane may be used to reduce the amount of reinforcing fibers, like Kevlar®, that are used in a fan casing, thereby reducing its cost of production. Evans abstract, ¶ 7.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced at least the first fabric layer of Curley with thermoplastic polyurethane motivated by desire to reduce the cost of manufacturing the aircraft engine composite containment system. Claim 8 is rejected as the adhesive of Curley and the thermoplastic film layer of Evans may be polyurethane. Claim 9 is rejected as the binder used in Curley may be a polymer other than polyurethane. See Curley at 3:20–22.
Claim(s) 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curley and Evans as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2017/0198714 A1).
Curley fails to teach that the elastomer used to wrap the ceramic tiles is ethylene propylene-diene monomer (EPDM) rubber.
Lin teaches the formation of a fan blade containment system that includes a layer of ceramic tiles, wherein the tiles are bonded to each other and a surrounding layer using elastomer, including polyurethane and EPDM. Lin abstract, ¶ 30.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the polyurethane elastomer of Curley with EPDM because Lin teaches the functional equivalency of the two elastomers in making fan blade containment systems. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curley and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Backhouse (US 2017/0282466 A1).
Curley fails to teach the use of an automated fiber placement assembly to deposit the thermoplastic composite material.
Backhouse teaches the formation of composite bodies, such as fan casings, that include carbon fiber-reinforced composite material tapes using an automated fiber placement assembly. Backhouse abstract, ¶¶ 5, 30, 47. The carbon fibers use in the tape may be continuous. See id. ¶¶ 31, 47.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have deposited the thermoplastic composite material with an automated fiber placement assembly motivated by the desire to have more control over the placement of the fiber material relative to doing the work by hand.
Claim 6 is rejected as the fibers used in the fabric layers of Curley may include thermoplastic fibers, such as those made from polyethylene. Curley at 3:23–42.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curley and Evans as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Hosoda (US 2018/0154614 A1).
Curley fails to teach applying a plasma surface treatment to the thermoplastic film layer prior to bonding the thermoplastic film layer to the liner.
Hosoda teaches a method for producing a product comprising a fiber-reinforced composite material, wherein a film is treated with a plasma surface treatment to introduce adhesive functional groups to improve its adhesion to other layers. Hosoda abstract, ¶¶ 12, 75–79.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the film of Curley with a plasma surface treatment to improve the film’s adhesion to the liner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786