DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a self-healing system, classified in C08K7/22; and
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a method for in-situ healing, classified in C08F2/48.
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the method may comprise near infrared radiation.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their divergent subject matter and different classification;
(b) the inventions require searches that are not necessarily coextensive; and
(c) the prior art applicable to one invention may be not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Ragan Buckley on 5/6/26, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
It is noted that claim 3 recites polyamide as a species of thermoset polymer. Although the claim does not rise to the level of indefiniteness under 112(b), given that a skilled artisan would recognize thermoplastic polyamides as structural polymers, applicant to advised to provide clarification or additional information on the structural units of a polyamide thermoset as a structural polymer, so as to make the record clear.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry (US 2007/0087198 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8-10 and 12-14, Dry teaches a system for self-repairing matrices, wherein the system includes repair agents retained in and/or on vessels, such as hollow fibers, within the matrix, wherein the vessels rupture upon impact, releasing the modifying chemicals. Dry teaches self-repair of impact damage in composite materials (Ab., [0027]-[0030], [0105]-[0117], [0132], ref. claims).
Disclosed genus of matrices include polymeric matrices, such as of polyolefins. polyurethanes, polyamides, polyacrylics, epoxy systems and polyetherether ketone (PEEK) (read on structural polymer (a)) [0088]-[0091], [0205].
Disclosed genus of repair conduits include fibers, such as hollow repair fibers and channels, including hollow optical fibers, wherein the repair conduits as fibers or channels have a diameter in the range of 100-1200 micrometers, i.e., encompass micro-channels [0104], wherein the repair conduits may be in plurality, and dispersed through the matrix material ([0021], [0025], [0095]-[0104], Fig. 1 and 2). Thus, hollow optical fibers having a diameter in the range of 100-1200 micrometers read on claimed (b) and (c).
Dry is silent on a system comprising a structural polymer, a plurality of optical fibers/polymer waveguides and a plurality of microchannels in one single embodiment as in the claimed invention.
At the outset, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Given the teaching in Dry on suitable polymeric matrix materials and suitable fibers/conduits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare a composite system comprising a structural polymer and a plurality of hollow optical fibers through the matrix material.
Furthermore, the phrase “configured to” in the wherein clause of claim 1 is the capability of the claimed system. If the prior art structure is capable of delivering a curing composition comprising a photo-polymerizable liquid monomer to at least one site of damage in the system, then it meets the wherein clause. In the instant case, given that Dry’s composite system obviates the positively recited components (a) of (c) of claim 1, the composite system would be capable of delivering the curing composition to damage sites as in claim 1, absent evidence to the contrary. In addition, the prior art composite system of overlapping scope would be capable of delivering compositions within the scope of claims 8-10, and would be capable of delivering a curing composition of claim 1 to damage sites within the scope of claims 12-14.
Regarding claim 6, disclosed fibers as repair conduits include hollow optical fibers (read on waveguides) [0024], [0097]. Dry further teaches that typical organic fibers may be formed from polymers [0097], i.e., may be polymer waveguides which would be capable of achieving light transmission. Additionally, Dry does not teach fibers as having a dedicated cladding.
Regarding claim 7, Dry teaches that multiple fibers or channels may be interwoven and interconnected to form a grid or matrix of conduits, wherein the fibers may be hollow optical fibers [0102], [0097].
Regarding claim 11, Dry teaches fibers and fillers may be dispersed as structural reinforcing materials in the matrix material, wherein the disclosed reinforcing materials include glass fibers, polymer fibers, etc., and a variety of other functional additives as particulates [0117]-[0126]. Incorporating such fibrous and/or particulate materials in the disclosed polymeric matrices would reasonably be expected to provide for translucent or opaque systems, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry (US 2007/0087198 A1), in view of Anahara et al. (JP 05-138787 A, machine translation).
As an alternative rejection, regarding claims 1-4, 8-10 and 12-14, incorporating the discussion on Dry from paragraph 7 above, Dry teaches genus of repair conduits including fibers that can be filled with a modifying agent, wherein said fibers can be made with polymers, glass etc., and have a diameter in the range of 100-1200 micrometers, wherein the repair conduits may be in plurality, and dispersed through the matrix material ([0021], [0025], [0095]-[0104], Fig. 1 and 2). Thus, disclosed repair conduits having a diameter in the range of 100-1200 micrometers read on claimed (c) and may be embedded in the matrix polymer.
Dry is silent on a composite comprising a plurality of repair conduits embedded in the polymer and a plurality of optical fibers through the structural polymer.
As state din paragraph 9 above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The secondary reference to Anahara is in a related field of endeavor and directed to a laminated composite material (Title), having optical fibers embedded in a cured matrix, wherein the ends of the optical fibers are connected to a light projecting device. The composite system has the capability of constantly monitoring a shape change inside the composite material and has the function of notifying of the current state of strain generated inside in real time. The light transmitting fiber is deformed inside with the deformation of the laminated composite material, causing a change in the optical transparency of the fiber and causing a difference in the magnitude of the input and the output signals detecting the magnitude of the deformation in the laminated composite material (Overview, [0006]-[0014]).
In view of the advantages taught it Anahara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide for a composite system comprising a plurality of repair conduits dispersed in the polymer matrix for transporting modifying materials to damage sites, and including optical fibers capable of constantly monitoring a shape change inside the composite material and notifying of the current state of strain generated inside in real time.
Furthermore, the discussion from paragraph 10 above on the phrase “configured to” in the wherein clause of claim 1. In the instant case, given that composite system of the combination may include a structural polymer matrix, a plurality of embedded repair conduits, and optical fibers, i.e., components (a)-(c) of claim 1, it must be capable of - delivering the curing composition to damage sites as in claim 1, delivering compositions within the scope of claims 8-10, and delivering a curing composition of claim 1 to damage sites within the scope of claims 12-14.
Regarding claim 5, Anahara teaches that optical fibers may be plastic optical fibers having a core material and a coating material of low refractive index as cladding [0018]-[0120].
Regarding claims 7 and 11, the discussion from paragraphs 12 and 13 above are incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Satya Sastri at (571) 272 1112. The examiner can be reached 9.30AM-6.00PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Robert Jones can be reached at (571)-270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Satya B Sastri/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights