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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 6, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-11 and 18-19 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 1 recites “the stack of prepreg composite plies” which lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests the following amendment in claim 1, line 3, “a stack of prepreg composite plies”.
Claims not listed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
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) 1-6, 10-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19813104 in view of Woolum (US 4,936,939).
(Claims 1, 12) DE 19813104 (fig. 1; see the whole attached English translation, reference paragraphs are to the English translation) discloses a vacuum bagging method ([0003], “a rubber bag vacuum process”) of fabricating a composite material (i.e., fibers and a matrix material) into a composite part (i.e., fiber composite components) (e.g., [0001]), the method comprising:
applying at least one semi-permeable membrane 6 over a preform 4 including fibers and a matrix material [0005], wherein the preform 4 is a semi-finished fiber product pre-impregnated with the matrix material (prepregs) [0015],[0026], wherein the semi-permeable membrane comprises a porous plastic material and has a thickness of approximately 0.002 to 0.008 inches ([0009]-[0010], 10µ to 60µm(0.00039in to 0.00236in));
compressing the at least one semi-permeable membrane 6 and the preform 4 together (fig. 1; [0003], [0024]-[0025], a vacuum film (vacuum bag) is placed over the membrane 6 and the preform 5 and the entire structure is evacuated with a vacuum pump to compress the membrane 6 and the preform 5 via the evacuated vacuum bag); and
heating the at least one semi-permeable membrane 6 and the preform 4 to cure the preform 4 into the composite part ([0003], [0025], cured in an autoclave via a temperature-vacuum cycle adapted to the materials used (obvious for temperature to heat if used materials require heat for curing; note that Woolum (US 4,936,939: col. 5, lines 32-60) discloses heating in an autoclave for curing));
wherein the prepregs 4 are pre-impregnated with the matrix material prior to applying the at least one semi-permeable membrane 6 and wherein the semi-permeable membrane 6 retains the matrix material in the prepregs 4 during said compressing and said heating ([0006]-[0008], [0015], [0019], [0023]-[0025]).
However, DE 19813104 does not disclose the prepregs being a stack of prepreg plies, or the prepreg plies being pre-impregnated with a ceramic matrix.
Woolum (US 4,936,939) discloses a vacuum bagging method of fabricating a composite material into a composite part (fig. 1; col. 2, line 25, to col. 6, line 12), the method comprising arranging a plurality of composite plies (prepregs) 22 pre-impregnated with a ceramic matrix, containing solid ceramic particles (powdered ceramic) in suspension, into a stack of prepreg composite plies which are then vacuum bagged to form the composite part (col. 2, lines 25-64; the plies are saturated (pre-impregnated) with a slurry (matrix) including ceramic powder (particles); col. 4, line 56, to col. 5, line 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the prepregs of DE 19813104 to be a stack of a stack of prepreg composite plies wherein the prepreg plies are pre-impregnated with a ceramic matrix, as disclosed by Woolum (US 4,936,939), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the prepregs known to be operable in the art.
As to claim 12, Woolum (US 4,936,939) further discloses the vacuum bagging method including arranging a plurality of composite plies pre-impregnated with a ceramic matrix, containing solid ceramic particles in suspension, into the stack (col. 4, line 56, to col. 5, line 26). It would have been further obvious to modify the method to include arranging a plurality of composite plies pre-impregnated with a ceramic matrix, containing solid ceramic particles in suspension, into the stack, as disclosed by Woolum (US 4,936,939), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the vacuum bagging method known to be operable in the art.
As to claim 2 and 12, DE 19813104 discloses the method wherein the semi-permeable membrane 6 includes at least one plastic sheet having a plurality of pores large enough to allow volatile gasses to escape therethrough during curing but equal to or smaller than the matrix material ([0006]-[0010], PU or PTFE films (plastic sheet), pores are sized to allow escape of gas and to retain the matrix material, the exact pore sizes depends on the matrix materials). In the combination, the powdered ceramic of the matrix material would include solid ceramic particles or clusters of the solid ceramic particles suspended in the ceramic matrix, and thus it would have been further obvious to size the pores to be equal to or smaller than solid ceramic particles or clusters of the solid ceramic particles suspended in the ceramic matrix because such sizes would have been found in finding operable pore sizes depending upon the matrix materials for retaining the matrix materials in view of the teachings of DE 19813104.
As to claims 3 and 13, in DE 19813104, it is inherent that the plurality of pores of the at least one semi- permeable membrane 6 would be sufficiently rigid to not collapse under vacuum pressure from the vacuum bagging process, or else the membrane would not function as intended (gas escapes and matrix retained during vacuum bagging). Woolum (US 4,936,939) discloses the vacuum bagging conditions including pressures of from about 25 PSI to about 200 PSI, preferably 50 to 100 PSI (col. 5, lines 50-55). Thus, it would have been further obvious to modify the plurality of pores of the at least one semi- permeable membrane to be sufficiently rigid to not collapse under vacuum pressure up to approximately 100 PSI with a reasonably expectation of success because such known vacuum bagging pressures are known in the art and because such modification would enable the membrane to be operable as intended for such known pressures in the art.
As to claims 4-5 and 14-15, DE 19813104 further discloses
(Claims 4, 14)the method wherein the semi-permeable membrane is a two-part material including a first layer 6 and a second layer 7, wherein the first layer 6 is the at least one plastic sheet positioned facing the prepregs 4 and the second layer 7 is a woven material sheet facing away from the prepregs 4, such that the first layer 6 is between the prepregs 4 and the second layer 7 (fig. 1; [0011]-[0014], [0022], fabrics (woven material) and/or nonwovens (7) are inserted between the membrane 6 and the vacuum film 13, the fabric 7 and the membrane 6 can be laminated together to form a two layer membrane); and
(Claims 5, 15) wherein the first layer 6 is comprised of polyurethane [0009].
As to claims 6 and 16, DE 19813104 further discloses that the second layer 7 is a fabric adjacent the vacuum bag 13 (fig. 1, [0011]-[0014], [0022]). Woolum (US 4,936,939) discloses further discloses a fabric 26 adjacent a vacuum bag 28, wherein the fabric is a polyester fabric. It would have been further obvious, to modify the second layer (fabric adjacent to the vacuum bag) to be comprised of nylon or polyester, as disclosed by Woolum (US 4,936,939), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the fabric adjacent to the vacuum bag.
As to claims 10 and 18, DE 19813104 discloses that the membrane 6 is used in an autoclave via a temperature-vacuum cycle adapted to the materials used during vacuum bagging [0025], and thus it is obvious, if not inherent, that the membrane 6 is autoclave compatible for the pressures and temperatures used in the autoclave for the materials used during vacuum bagging. Woolum (US 4,936,939) discloses vacuum bagging conditions including curing in an autoclave at pressures of from about 25 PSI to about 200 PSI, preferably 50 to 100 PSI and at temperatures of about 104 to about 232 (219.2 to 449.6°F), preferably 120 to 180 °C (248 to 356 °F) (col. 5, lines 50-60). Thus, it would be
further obvious to modify the at least one permeable membrane to be autoclave compatible up to
approximately 100 PSI and up to approximately 350 °F with a reasonable expectation of success because such pressures and temperatures in an autoclave for vacuum bagging are known in the art, as disclosed by Woolum (US 4,936,939), and because such modification would enable the membrane to be operable as intended for such known autoclave pressures and temperatures in the art.
As to claim 11, DE 19813104 further discloses the method wherein the step of compressing the at least one semi-permeable membrane 6 and the prepregs 4 comprises vacuum bagging the at least one semi-permeable membrane 6 and the prepregs under a vacuum bag 13 or impermeable membrane 13, wherein the vacuum bag 13 or impermeable membrane 13, under vacuum, compresses the prepregs 4 (fig. 1, [0003], [0024], negative pressure from vacuum pump causes evacuation and compressing of the prepregs via the evacuated vacuum bag).
As to claim 19, DE 19813104 further discloses the method wherein the step of compressing the semi-permeable membrane 6 and the preform 4 further comprises sealing the semi-permeable membrane 6 and the preform 4 under a vacuum bag 13 or impermeable membrane 13 and
applying a pressure differential to the vacuum bag 13 or the impermeable membrane 13, compressing
the preform 4 (fig. 1; [0003], [0017]-[0025], vacuum bag 13 is placed over the membrane 6 and the preform 4, and evacuated by vacuum (pressure differential) by vacuum pump to compress the preform 4).
Claim(s) 7-9, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 19813104 in view of Woolum (US 4,936,939) as applied to claims 1-6, 10-16 and 18-19 above, and further in view of Mortimer et al. (US 2018/0361682).
DE 19813104 and Woolum (US 4,936,939) do not disclose the limitations of claims 7-9 and 17.
Mortimer et al. (US 2018/0361682) discloses a vacuum bagging method of fabricating a composite material into a composite part [0009]-[0010], [0086], wherein a resin (matrix) of a prepreg stack is from 30 to 45 percent of the total weight of the stack [0058]-[0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the weight percent of the ceramic matrix to an overall weight of the stack to be
35 to 45 percent, to be 37 to 43 percent, or to be 40 to 42 percent because such weight percents would
have been found in finding operable weight percents with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the teachings of Mortimer et al. (US 2018/0361682) of 30 to 45 percent.
As to claim 20, all the limitations of claim 20 read on the limitations of claims 1 and 12 (see above for rejection of the limitations of claims 1 and 12), except for the limitation of wherein each of the plurality of composite plies contains approximately 35 percent to 45 percent of the ceramic matrix by weight relative to an overall weight of the stack of the plurality of composite plies pre-impregnated with the ceramic matrix. Mortimer et al. (US 2018/0361682) is applied as above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify each of the plurality of composite plies to contain approximately 35 percent to 45 percent of the ceramic matrix by weight relative to an overall weight of the stack of the plurality of composite plies pre-impregnated with the ceramic matrix because such weight percents would have been found in finding operable weight percents with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the teachings of Mortimer et al. (US 2018/0361682) of 30 to 45 percent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments relative to Filsinger and Bernetich are now moot because they are not used in the prior art rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights