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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed claims do not teach or reasonably convey that applicant had possession of the concept of the core being a material other than honeycomb or foam or another type of core known in the aircraft arts. A different structural class of material includes a resin film, corrugated cardboard, fabric, paper, concrete, etc. which are not reasonably taught by the originally filed disclosure.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, it is unclear what is meant by the term “different structural classes” as this does not appear to be a term in the aircraft manufacturing arts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Register et al.(US Publication 2020/0262160).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Register et al. teaches a method for making a repair tool by applying a first cured sheet to a contoured surface having an abnormality and conforming it to the contoured surface, applying an adhesive layer to the first sheet and conforming it to the contour, and applying a second cured sheet(core) to the adhesive and conforming it to the contour, and applying a third sheet to the second and conforming it to the contour.(Figure 1; [0034]) The adhesive is cured and then the tool is removed from the contoured surface. The damaged area is then replaced with an uncured composite material and the tool is reapplied. The composite material is then cured.( [0031]-[0040]; [0049]) An adhesive sheet is a different structural class of material from a composite sheet and is considered a lightweight material.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20, the stack contains a plurality of adhesive layers and composite sheets, so one of the adhesive layers can be the core while others are considered adhesive layers by the claim. It is noted the claim is open and does not require the adhesive layer to be directly containing the core. An adhesive is applied between the sheets and is at least partially cured.([0026];[0039])
Regarding claim 7, Register et al. discloses that each facesheet can comprise two sheets of fiber material.[0021]
Regarding claim 10, Register et al. discloses the stack of layer can be applied to a normal contoured surface that matches the shape of the abnormal surface.[0032]
Regarding claim 16, Register et al. discloses that each facesheet can comprise two sheets of fiber material.[0021]
Regarding claim 18, Register et al. discloses applying pressure via a vacuum bag to compact the stack, which is then heated to cure.([0038]-[0039]) One in the art would understand the vacuum was maintained during the heating as Figure 6 shows both the vacuum bag(140) and the heat source.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Register et al. as applied above and further in view of Garhart(US Publication 2018/0264759)
Register et al. does not disclose the curing temperatures of the various components. Garhart discloses shaping a layer to a contour to be repaired and curing it at a reduced temperature or room temperature to avoid comprising the base structure the layer is applied to.[0003] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to cure the adhesive layers of the repair tool at a reduced or room temperature since this would avoid comprising the base structure as taught by Garhart.[0003] While the reference does not teach the curing temperature of the repair material relative to the curing temperature of the adhesive of the tool, one in the art would appreciate that the curing temperature of the adhesive of the tool would be less than that of the repair part since such composites require heat(THERMOsetting) and room temperature does not require heat to achieve.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, a temperature 1.8 times a curing temperature of room temperature is a curing temperature of at least 50 C. It is extremely well-known and conventional to use thermosetting materials with a curing temperature over 50C in airplanes and it would have been obvious for this reason.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Register et al. as applied to claims 3 and 12 above and further in view of Bertrand(US Publication 20189/0016107) and Garhart
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Register et al. does not disclose the curing temperatures of the various components. Bertrand discloses the adhesive film can be partially cured while it is on the repair surface but not that is it fully cured after removal from the surface.[0032] Garhart discloses shaping a layer to a contour to be repaired and curing it at a reduced temperature or room temperature to avoid comprising the base structure the layer is applied to.[0003] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to partially cure the adhesive layers of the repair tool on the repair surface as taught by Bertrand[0032] and then remove it to fully cure it since Bertrand discloses it is known to partially cure an adhesive on the repair surface implying it is not fully cured on the repair surface and to remove it before fully curing it since this would avoid comprising the base structure as taught by Garhart.[0003] While the reference does not teach the curing temperature of the repair material relative to the curing temperature of the adhesive of the tool, one in the art would appreciate that the curing temperature of the adhesive of the tool would be less than that of the repair part since the repair tool would not need to be as structurally sound and thus could use materials that cure at a lower temperature.
Regarding claim 6 and 15, one in the art would appreciate that the full curing temperature was above the partial curing temperature.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Register et al.
Register et al. discloses applying a first stick resistant sheet to the contoured surface before applying the cured sheets.([0035]-[0036]) The reference does not disclose using a second stick resistant film before applying the repair tool to the contoured surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to apply a stick resistant film to the surface before applying the repair tool since this would prevent the repair tool from being bonded to the surface during curing of the repair structure, i.e. the same reason it was used originally(0035] and that either the same or a new stick resistant film could be used since this is a simple duplication of parts which has no patentable significance.(MPEP 2144.04 VI B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Register det al. does not teach a different structural class for the core material, the repair tool has multiple layers of adhesive and composite, and one of the adhesive layers can be considered the “core”. It is lightweight and of a different structural class from the composite sheets since it does not contain fibers and has a different function that the composite layers.
It is noted that the core being a different structural class includes the core being made of cardboard, fabric, paper, concrete, etc., which are all a different structural class from a composite layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the core being honeycomb or foam.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746