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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1-9, 14-17 and added new claims 20 and 21 on 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the multiaxial fibrous sheet required in claim 1. Arguments were fully considered and found persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsotsis (PG-PUB 2015/0283788) in view of Bolsee (US 10,272,637) and Aitharaju (PG-PUB 2019/0390379).
Regarding claim 1 and 20, Tsotsis teaches a preform capable for use in manufacturing an annular casing of composite material for a turbine engine, the preform comprising:
at least one layer of a fibrous texture having a three-dimensional weaving or multilayer (Figure 3A, 6A-6B, 7, item 302a and [0034]);
a polymer-nanoparticle-enhanced interlayer (i.e., mat) comprising a thermoplastic material filled with carbon nanotubes (Figure 6A-6B and 7, [0035], [0038]-[0046]);
a bond layer between the fibrous texture (Figure 6A-6B and 7 and [0057]-[0058]); and
a fiber layer (Figure 3A, 6A-6B, 7, item 302b; [0034]);
wherein the at least one mat is interposed between the fiber layer and said at least one layer of fibrous texture (Figures 6A-6B and [0061]).
Tsotsis teaches the fiber layer may be unidirectional, woven, nonwoven, braided, and/or warp-knit fibers in multiple orientations [0035]. Tsotsis teaches the fiber layer can include multiple layers in various orientations [0057] and [0062].
Tsotsis teaches interlayers are provided in alteration with the fiber layers (Figures 6A-6B and [0061]). Tsotsis teaches the enhanced interlayer provides increased stiffness and improved composite material property retention, especially compression and shear strengths at elevated temperatures, for composites toughened with polymer-based
nonwoven fabrics, wherein this improvement allows for improved toughness while minimizing the reduction in other properties that occurs using conventional toughening methods [0028], [0029].
Tsotsis teaches the composite is suitable for use in aircraft manufacturing [0030], such as a fuselage [0073].
Tsotsis does not teach:
(1) at least one multiaxial fibrous sheet, wherein the at least one mat is interposed between the stack of fibrous layers and said at least one layer of fibrous texture,
wherein the at least one multiaxial fibrous sheet is a textile fabric having several layers of unidirectional non-woven fibers oriented in different directions bonded by a knitting yarn; and
(2) manufacturing an annular casing of composite material for a turbine engine, wherein the at least one layer of a fibrous texture is extended around a longitudinal axis, wherein the at least one mat is extended around the axis, and the at least one multiaxial fibrous sheet extends around the axis.
As to (1), Aitharaju teaches fiber reinforced polymer composite articles are commonly manufactured with woven or nonwoven fibers, such as in NCFs [0016]. Aitharaju teaches NCFs are commonly used to form composite articles by draping the NCF over a contoured article to establish a desired end geometry of the composite article and subsequently applying a polymer matrix material [0018], [0032]. Aitharaju teaches forming composite articles with NCFs provide improve drapability during formation and consequently reduce undesired wrinkles and defects in the compsite article [0018]. Aitharaju teaches NCFs is a textile fabric having several layers of unidirectional non-woven fibers oriented in different directions bonded by a knitting yarn (Figure 1A and 1B and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the preform of Tsotsis, in particularly the fiber layer, with a NCF as taught by Aitharaju, a known suitable nonwoven fiber layer for composites as taught by Aitharaju and as desired by Tsotsis.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the preform of Tsotsis by modifying the fiber layer of Tsotsis with the at least one multiaxial fibrous sheet in the form of NCF for the benefit of improve drapability for shaping into a contour and reduced wrinkles and defects as taught by Aitharaju.
As to (2), Bolsee teaches a fibrous preform for manufacturing an annular casing of composite material for a turbine engine (Col 7, ln 26-66), the preform comprising:
at least one layer of a fibrous texture having a three-dimensional weaving or multilayer, and extending along a longitudinal axis (Figures 6-10 and Col 11, ln 15-65);
at least one multiaxial fibrous sheet extending around the axis (Figures 8-10 and Col 10, ln 43-60 ),
wherein the preform is in the form of half-casing (Col 11, ln 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the preform of Tsotsis with curved configuration as taught by Bolsee, a known suitable aircraft composite shape, to yield the predictable result of preparing an aircraft composite as taught by Tsotsis and desired by Bolsee.
Regarding claim 2, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 1, wherein the at least one layer of a fibrous texture includes first and second layers of fibrous texture between which are disposed the at least one mat and the fibrous sheet (Tsotsis, Figures 6A-6B, [0034], [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 2, wherein the at least one mat includes first and second mats, the first mat being interposed between the fibrous sheet and the first layer of the fibrous texture, the second mat being interposed between said fibrous sheet and the second layer of the fibrous texture (Tsotsis, Figures 6A-6B and 7, [0034], [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic material comprises a polymer or homopolymer, such as polyacrylic acid (Tsotsis, [0042]), which has a melting point of about 95°C, or polylactic acid (Tsotsis, [0042]), which has a melting point of about 150°C-160°C.
Regarding claim 5, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Tsotsis, [0046]-[0047] and claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes (Tsotsis, [0046]-[0047] and claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic material of the at least one mat comprises non-woven thermoplastic fibers (Tsotsis, Figure 7 and [0041]-[0044]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsotsis (PG-PUB 2015/0283788) in view of Aitharaju (PG-PUB 2019/0390379) and Bolsee (US 10,272,637), as applied to claim 7, in further view of Tsotsis ‘882 (US 8,246,882).
Regarding claim 8, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 7.
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee does not teach the non-woven thermoplastic fiber mat has a weight per unit area of between 15 g/m2 and 100 g/m2.
Tsotsis ‘882 teaches a preform for impact-resistant composite materials comprising interlayers formed of non-woven, continuous fibers (Col 3, ln 2-37 and Col 6, ln 27-54). Tsotsis ‘882 teaches the interlayers are made from various thermoplastic material and fibers (Col 6, ln 1-65). Tsotsis ‘882 teaches the areal density may be chosen according to the amount required to impart the desired impact resistance (Col 6, ln 12-27). Tsotsis ‘882 teaches the interlayer can have a wide range of areal densities, including 1-50 gsm (Col 6, ln 12-27).
Tsotsis is silent to the density of the thermoplastic fiber mat, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the preform of Tsotsis with a density between 1-50 gsm, a known suitable areal density for interlayers in aircraft composites as taught by Tsotsis ‘882.
Claim 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsotsis (PG-PUB 2015/0283788) in view of Aitharaju (PG-PUB 2019/0390379) and Bolsee (US 10,272,637), as applied to claim 5 and 6, in further view of Gaillard (PG-PUB 2012/0077398).
Regarding claim 16, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 5.
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee does not teach the carbon nanotubes have a diameter of 10 nm and a length of 2 microns.
Gaillard teaches manufacturing a fibrous substrate such as woven fabrics, felts, nonwoven fabrics comprising a blend of organic polymer containing carbon nanotubes [0019], [0033]. Gaillard teaches carbon nanotubes usually have a mean diameter ranging from 0.1 to 200 nm, preferably from 0.1 to 100 nm, more preferentially from 0.4 to 50 nm and better still from 1 to 30 nm, and advantageously a length of 0.1 to 10 micron [0069]-[0072].
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee does not teach the particular diameter and length of the carbon nanotubes used, prompting one to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the preform of Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee with the carbon nanotube dimensions taught by Gaillard, a known suitable carbon nanotube diameter and length for carbon nanotubes in composite fibrous substrates.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Given that the claimed range overlaps with the prior art diameter ranges from 0.1 to 200 nm and length ranges from 0.1 to 10 microns, the claim ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 6.
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee does not teach the carbon nanotubes have a diameter of 2 nm and a length of 5 microns.
Gaillard teaches manufacturing a fibrous substrate such as woven fabrics, felts, nonwoven fabrics comprising a blend of organic polymer containing carbon nanotubes [0019], [0033]. Gaillard teaches carbon nanotubes usually have a mean diameter ranging from 0.1 to 200 nm, preferably from 0.1 to 100 nm, more preferentially from 0.4 to 50 nm and better still from 1 to 30 nm, and advantageously a length of 0.1 to 10 micron [0069]-[0072].
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee does not teach the particular diameter and length of the carbon nanotubes used, prompting one to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the preform of Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee with the carbon nanotube dimensions taught by Gaillard, a known suitable carbon nanotube diameter and length for carbon nanotubes in composite fibrous substrates.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Given that the claimed range overlaps with the prior art diameter ranges from 0.1 to 200 nm and length ranges from 0.1 to 10 microns, the claim ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsotsis (PG-PUB 2015/0283788) in view of Aitharaju (PG-PUB 2019/0390379) and Bolsee (US 10,272,637), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Le Hong (PG-PUB 2019/0160765).
Regarding claim 21, Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 1, wherein the preform is in the form of a half-shell (Bolsee, Figure 6-7 and Col 9, ln 60-Col 10, ln 3). Bolsee teaches the composite casing can form a circle by using two annular half-casings (Col 10, ln 66- Col 11, ln 6).
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee does not teach the fibrous preform has a complete profile of the annular casing forming a single piece with reinforcing portions corresponding to external flanges of the annular casing.
Le Hong teaches a fiber preform is made by winding onto a mandrel a fibrous texture (Figure 3-5 and [0060], [0061], [0063]). Le Hong teaches the fiber preform constitutes a complete tubular fiber reinforcing for the casing forming a single part [0062].
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to fan casings of a turbine engine as Bolsee, Le Hong teaches a complete tubular preform is suitable for manufacturing an annular casing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the half-shell shape of the preform of Tsotsis in view of Bolsee with an annular shape, a suitable preform shape for a turbine engine as taught by Le Hong, by winding the preform over a tubular mandrel, to yield the predictable result of manufacturing a composite casing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Tsotsis in view of Aitharaju and Bolsee teaches the preform as applied to claim 4.
Tsotsis, Aitharaju, and Bolsee, individually or in combination, do not teach the combination of limitations of claim 15, including the thermoplastic material of the at least one mat has a melting temperature of between 100 and 110 degrees Celsius.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights