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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:REPLACE “the patch comprises an adhesively bonded second fiber reinforced composite tape layer to” WITH -- the patch comprises a second fiber reinforced composite tape layer adhesively bonded to --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 9 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 limitation "surrounding structures" in last line. It is unclear whether surrounding structures are part of the claimed invention or not.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “high-strength/stiffness”. It is unclear if the “/” signifies “and” or “or” or both.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "surrounding structures" in last line. It is unclear whether surrounding structures are part of the claimed invention or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dan-Jumbo (US 9,492,975) in view of Alexander (US 3,886,647).
Re Claims 1, 3, Dan-Jumbo discloses a patched metal structure comprising:a metal structure 140 defining a crack 146 (Col. 10, lines 19-67); a patch bonded to the metal structure over the crack, wherein the patch comprises a second fiber reinforced composite tape layer adhesively bonded to a first fiber reinforced composite tape layer, wherein the two or more fiber reinforced composite tapes comprise generally continuous fibers embedded along the length of the tape, and wherein the second fiber reinforced composite tape layer is positioned at an angle relative to the first fiber reinforced composite tape layer (Fig. 5-6, 19, 26; Col. 10, lines 19-67; Col. 11, lines 1-22; Col. 6, lines 57-65; Col. 18, lines 57-65; Col. 6, lines 57-65 of Dan-Jumbo discloses orienting fibers without limitation, the angles of the reinforcing fibers in each region may be selected from one of 0.degrees, 30.degrees, 60.degrees, 90.degrees, 0.degrees, +45.degrees, -45.degrees, 90, and other suitable angles; this encompasses a second layer of tape being oriented at an angle relative to the at least one composite tape; Col. 8, lines 1-52; Col. 14, lines 20-35). Dan-Jumbo does not disclose the first fiber reinforced composite tape layer comprises two or more fiber reinforced composite tapes positioned adjacent to one another and that the fiber reinforced composite tape layers are fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layers, and the two or more fiber reinforced composite tapes comprise generally continuous fibers embedded in a metal matrix along the length of the tape wherein the metal matrix of the metal matrix composite tape is similar to the metal of the metal structure , wherein the patch increases fatigue life of the structure and results in failure mode that minimizes collateral damage to surrounding structures and a second patch comprising at least one fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape bonded across the crack on an opposing side of the metal structure from the patch. Note that Dan-Jumbo discloses that the patch can include metal and composite (col. 11, line 4-6). Further, Alexander teaches a first fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer comprises two or more fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tapes 6 positioned adjacent to one another, and multiple layers of fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape 6 which comprise generally continuous fibers embedded in a metal matrix along the length of the tape wherein the metal matrix of the metal matrix composite tape is similar to the metal of the metal structure (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60; col. 3, lines 1-20; col. 4, lines 4-8; where similarity can be as simple as both being metal since there is no specificity of the similarity) , wherein the patch increases fatigue life of the structure and results in failure mode that minimizes collateral damage to surrounding structures (inherent; Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60; col. 3, lines 1-20; col. 4, lines 4-8) and also teaches laying successive layers transverse to first layer and teaches laying additional adjacent tapes (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60). It would be obvious to utilize fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape and to have adjacent tapes, as taught by Alexander, since the advantageous properties of metal matrix composites are well known and recognized in the art and include high specific strength, high specific stiffness, maintenance of properties at extremes of high and low temperature and to cover all desired areas with the reinforcing tape in order to provide adequate protection and strength and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 and also since it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replicate the patch to cover and repair all damaged areas, especially if the crack were particularly large and would justify multiple patches and one could easily produce multiple patches and repair the structure effectively and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Re Claim 2, Dan-Jumbo discloses the patch covers at least 25% of the crack (Fig. 5-6, 19-20, 25-26; Col. 10, lines 19-67; Col. 17, lines 50-55).
Re Claims 4, 9, Dan-Jumbo discloses a patched metal structure comprising: a metal structure 140 defining a crack 146 (Col. 10, lines 19-67);a patch bonded to the metal structure over the crack, wherein the patch comprises:a first fiber reinforced composite tape layer comprise fibers oriented substantially parallel to the length of the metal matrix composite tape and are generally continuous along the length such that the fiber length matches the tape length; anda second fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer adhesively bonded to the first fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer, wherein the second fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer is positioned orthogonally relative to the first fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer (Fig. 5-6, 19, 26; Col. 10, lines 19-67; Col. 11, lines 1-22; Col. 6, lines 57-65; Col. 18, lines 57-65; Col. 6, lines 57-65 of Dan-Jumbo discloses orienting fibers without limitation, the angles of the reinforcing fibers in each region may be selected from one of 0.degrees, 30.degrees, 60.degrees, 90.degrees, 0.degrees, +45.degrees, -45.degrees, 90, and other suitable angles; this encompasses a second layer of tape being oriented at an angle relative to the at least one composite tape; Col. 8, lines 1-52; Col. 14, lines 20-35). Dan-Jumbo does not disclose the first fiber reinforced composite tape layer is a fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer comprising two or more fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tapes positioned adjacent to one another, the patch increases fatigue life of the structure and results in a failure mode that minimizes collateral damage to surrounding structures. Note that Dan-Jumbo discloses that the patch can include metal and composite (col. 11, line 4-6). Further, Alexander teaches a first fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer comprises two or more fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tapes 6 positioned adjacent to one another, and multiple layers of fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape 6 which comprise generally continuous fibers embedded in a metal matrix along the length of the tape, wherein the patch increases fatigue life of the structure and results in failure mode that minimizes collateral damage to surrounding structures (inherent; Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60; col. 3, lines 1-20; col. 4, lines 4-8) and also teaches laying successive layers transverse to first layer and teaches laying additional adjacent tapes (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60). It would be obvious to utilize fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape and to have adjacent tapes, as taught by Alexander, since the advantageous properties of metal matrix composites are well known and recognized in the art and include high specific strength, high specific stiffness, maintenance of properties at extremes of high and low temperature and to cover all desired areas with the reinforcing tape in order to provide adequate protection and strength and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 and also since it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replicate the patch to cover and repair all damaged areas, especially if the crack were particularly large and would justify multiple patches and one could easily produce multiple patches and repair the structure effectively and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Re Claim 6, Dan-Jumbo does not disclose the metal matrix composite tape has a width ranging from about 0.5 inches to 2 inches and a thickness ranging from about 0.010 inches to about 0.030 inches. Alexander teaches widths of 1/8 to 1 inch (col. 2, line 65) and thickness 8 to 10 mm (col. 3, line 1-3) and mentions varying these. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utliize tapes in these ranges, as taught by Alexander, for the purpose of utilizing an appropriately sized tape for the desired effect and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 7, Dan-Jumbo disclose at least one additional fiber reinforced composite tape layer adhesively bonded to the second fiber reinforced composite tape layer, wherein the at least one additional fiber reinforced composite tape layer is positioned at a predetermined angle relative to an adjacent layer but does not disclose at least one additional fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer adhesively bonded to the second fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer, wherein the at least one additional fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer is positioned at a predetermined angle relative to an adjacent layer. Alexander teaches at least one additional fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer adhesively bonded to the second fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer, wherein the at least one additional fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape layer is positioned at a predetermined angle relative to an adjacent layer (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60; col. 3, lines 1-20; col. 4, lines 4-8). It would be obvious to utilize additional fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape, as taught by Alexander, since the advantageous properties of metal matrix composites are well known and recognized in the art and include high specific strength, high specific stiffness, maintenance of properties at extremes of high and low temperature and to cover all desired areas with the reinforcing tape in order to provide adequate protection and strength and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 8, Dan-Jumbo does not disclose a second patch comprising at least one fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape bonded across the crack on an opposing side of the metal structure from the patch. Alexander teaches a second patch comprising at least one fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape bonded on an opposing side of the metal structure from the patch (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 45-60; col. 3, lines 1-20; col. 4, lines 4-8). It would be obvious to utilize additional fiber reinforced metal matrix composite tape, as taught by Alexander, since the advantageous properties of metal matrix composites are well known and recognized in the art and include high specific strength, high specific stiffness, maintenance of properties at extremes of high and low temperature and to cover all desired areas with the reinforcing tape in order to provide adequate protection and strength and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dan-Jumbo in view of Alexander, in further view of Gordon (PGPub 2006/0254744).
Re Claim 5, as best understood, Dan-Jumbo does not disclose the metal matrix composite tape comprises high-strength/stiffness aluminum oxide fibers in an aluminum matrix. However, Gordon teaches the metal matrix composite tape comprises high-strength/stiffness aluminum oxide fibers in an aluminum matrix (para. 8). It would be obvious to utilize metal matrix composite tape comprises high-strength/stiffness aluminum oxide fibers in an aluminum matrix, as taught by Gordon, in order to have high strength and durability and since the advantageous properties of metal matrix composites and fibers are well known and recognized in the art and include high specific strength, high specific stiffness, maintenance of properties at extremes of high and low temperature and to cover all desired areas with the reinforcing tape in order to provide adequate protection and strength and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799