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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 11/21/26 is acknowledged.
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 17 is 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.
In claim 17, the use of the term “PVA” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. While it appears that PVA is intended to represent polyvinyl alcohol, it is noted that PVA is also commonly used to represent polyvinyl acetate and potentially other compounds. Therefore, the abbreviation should be spelled out.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016103.
Song discloses a composite radius filler material. The radius filler includes a first bundle of fibers having a first length and a second bundle of fibers having a second length that is shorter than the first length. See paragraph 0004. The use of fibers having different lengths helps achieve balanced characteristics or properties in different directions. See paragraph 0019. The structure may further include third fibers which are shorter than the first or second fibers. See paragraph 0062. The radius filler can have a paste like structure which is equated with having a variable geometry. See paragraph 0075.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016103.
Song discloses a composite radius filler material. The radius filler includes a first bundle of fibers having a first length and a second bundle of fibers having a second length that is shorter than the first length. See paragraph 0004. The use of fibers having different lengths helps achieve balanced characteristics or properties in different directions. See paragraph 0019. The structure may further include third fibers which are shorter than the first or second fibers. See paragraph 0062. The radius filler can have a paste like structure which is equated with having a variable geometry. See paragraph 0075.
The radius filler can further include ceramic or carbon particles. See paragraph 0022. Note that silicon carbide is a well-known and conventional type of ceramic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed silicon carbide as the ceramic particle in Song.
Claim(s) 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016103 in view of Konopaske et al, WO 2023/122009.
Song discloses a composite radius filler material. The radius filler includes a first bundle of fibers having a first length and a second bundle of fibers having a second length that is shorter than the first length. See paragraph 0004. The use of fibers having different lengths helps achieve balanced characteristics or properties in different directions. See paragraph 0019. The structure may further include third fibers which are shorter than the first or second fibers. See paragraph 0062. The radius filler can have a paste like structure which is equated with having a variable geometry. See paragraph 0075.
Song differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose employing silicon carbide tows or incorporating polyvinyl alcohol fibers into the structure.
However, Konopaske discloses incorporating sacrificial yarns such as polyvinyl alcohol into preforms such as radius fillers. See paragraphs 0035, 0054 and 0064-0065. The fibers making up the structures can further include silicon carbide tows. See paragraph 0008. The use of polyvinyl alcohol sacrificial yarns provides spaces for infiltration between the tows for a matrix material. See paragraph 0043.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a silicon carbide tow in view of their art recognized suitability for this purpose as taught by Konopaske. It further would have been obvious to have employed polyvinyl alcohol yarns in order to provide spaces for infiltration between the tows.
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016103 in view of Rossi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0217508
Song discloses a composite radius filler material. The radius filler includes a first bundle of fibers having a first length and a second bundle of fibers having a second length that is shorter than the first length. See paragraph 0004. The use of fibers having different lengths helps achieve balanced characteristics or properties in different directions. See paragraph 0019. The structure may further include third fibers which are shorter than the first or second fibers. See paragraph 0062. The radius filler can have a paste like structure which is equated with having a variable geometry. See paragraph 0075.
Song differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose employing braided tows.
However, Rossi discloses radius filler materials. Rossi discloses that the fibers can be braided and encompassed by woven fabric sleeves in order to further stabilize the structure and reduce cracking. See paragraphs 0008, 0010 and 0074. Rossi discloses cutting the braided structures to desired length depending on the structure into which the radius filler will be disposed. See paragraph 0085.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have braided the fiber tows and to have provided sleeves in order to improve the stability of the structure and reduce crack propagation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789