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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species A in the reply filed on 9/25/25 is acknowledged. The applicant has cancelled the non-elected claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following: “and wherein and at least composite layer” should be changed to “and wherein one composite layer” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26, 27, 30, 32-35, 39-41, 43, 44 and 46-51, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kismarton (US 2007/0080481).
As to claim 26, Kismarton discloses a method comprising: enclosing a portion of a composite structure (uncured composite material, para 23) in a constraining container (container shown in fig 3); holding a cover 202 of the constraining container against the composite structure (fig 2-3); expanding an expandable medium 205/217 disposed within an interior volume (“internal volume” para 21/ fig 3) formed by the cover and the composite structure (fig 3); and curing the composite structure (figs 2-5, para 21-31).
As to claim 50, Kismarton discloses a method comprising: enclosing a portion of a composite structure (uncured composite material, para 23) in a constraining container (fig 3), wherein the composite structure comprises a plurality of composite layers, and wherein at least composite layer of the plurality of composite layers (para 21, “layers”) is uncured or partially cured (see above); holding a cover of the constraining container against the composite structure (see claim 26 discussion above); expanding an expandable medium disposed within an interior volume formed by the cover and the composite structure (see claim 26 discussion above); selectively varying the interior volume formed by the cover and the composite structure (steps 408/412); and curing the composite structure (figs 2-5, para 21-31).
As to claim 27, Kismarton discloses the method further comprising moving the cover relative to the composite structure (fig 4, 404, 416).
As to claim 30, Kismarton discloses the method changing an attribute of the expandable medium to expand the expandable medium to a predetermine volume (fig 3-5, 408, para 23-28); and applying positive pressure 412 to the composite structure and the cover (para 23-28).
As to claim 32, Kismarton discloses the method wherein: the composite structure comprises a plurality of composite layers; and at least a portion of the plurality of composite layers is uncured or partially cured (see claim 50 discussion above).
As to claim 33, Kismarton discloses the method wherein at least one of the plurality of composite layers is a composite patch configured to repair a portion of a composite surface of the composite structure (para 21).
As to claim 34, Kismarton discloses the method further comprising selectively varying the interior volume formed by the cover and the composite structure (see claim 50 discussion above).
As to claim 35, Kismarton disclose the method further comprising: applying a casting (para 21) between the expandable medium and a composite surface of the composite structure; and hardening the casting (para 28, fig 2-5).
As to claim 39-40, Kismarton discloses supporting at least the portion of the composite structure on a base 208, wherein the cover is coupled to the base (fig 3).
As to claim 41 Kismarton disclose increasing a temperature of the expandable medium to at least an activation temperature (para 24).
As to claims 43-44, Kismarton disclose the method wherein the cover comprises a plurality of walls (fig 3) and moving at least one wall of the plurality of walls to modify the interior volume of the cover (fig 4, 404/416 para 20-23,).
As to claims 46-47, Kismarton disclose the method wherein the cover of the constraining container is held against the composite structure by a retainer clamp 214 (para 23, fig 3)
As to claim 48, Kismarton discloses the composite structure comprises polymer materials and fiber reinforcement materials (para 21).
As to claims 49 and 51, Kismarton discloses the method wherein the curing the composite structure comprises heating the composite structure (para 28-29, fig 4).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kismarton, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 2012/0084999).
Kismarton does not disclose the cover is thermally reflective. Para 64 of Davis discloses a thermally reflective cover to provide the cover with insulating properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kismarton such that the cover is thermally reflective as taught by Davis above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kismarton, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Rachal et al. (US 4915896).
Kismarton does not disclose the cover comprises an overlay that flexible and non-expandable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kismarton such that the cover comprises an overlay that flexible and non-expandable as taught by Rachal (C8, L67 – C9, L9) as such has a reasonable expectation of success and reduces warping.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746