DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 4/10/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 2/12/26.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 4/9/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that RIDGARD (US PGPub 2010/0139839) teaches applying the resin to a side touching the tool rather than a side opposite of the tool. However, this argument is not persuasive as the language of the claim doesn't match this description. The claim reads placing an air permeable resin barrier material over a surface of a prepreg that is not in contact with a forming tool, meaning that the surface of the prepreg does not contact that forming tool, which in RIDGARD it is not contacting the forming tool because the barrier material is between it and the tool.
If Applicant wants the claims to read exclusively as argued above (i.e. placing an air permeable resin barrier material over a surface of a prepreg that is OPPOSITE from the surface facing the forming tool), the claim will need to be amended to reflect that subject matter. As it stands now, it is a moot point and therefore cannot be considered persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nutt et al. WO 2018/129378 hereinafter NUTT in view of Ridgard et al. US PGPub 2010/0139839 hereinafter RIDGARD.
As for claim 7, NUTT teaches “Methods, apparatuses, and systems for making prepregs are disclosed. A method may include depositing a resin material onto a surface of a fiber bed and forming a number of discrete resin regions thereon. A distance between the resin regions may be measured to provide desired exposed portions of the surface to facilitate permeation of air through the exposed portions of the surface in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the fiber bed during a curing process of the prepreg” (abstract), and “through-thickness air channels allow for improved withdrawal of air or other gas during a curing process, which may include vacuum processes and a heating process” (paragraph 58, lines 7-10) i.e. A method for processing a prepreg used to form a composite structure… wherein the prepreg comprises a fiber bed having a plurality of discrete resin regions disposed on a surface of the fiber bed and having exposed regions of the fiber bed surface not covered by the discrete resin regions to facilitate through-thickness passage of air or gas from a bulk of the prepreg during a curing process.
NUTT is silent on comprising placing an air permeable resin barrier material over a surface of a prepreg that is not in contact with a forming tool… and wherein the air permeable resin barrier material is permeable to air or gas passing from the bulk of the prepreg and is not permeable to resin passing from the prepreg during the curing process.
However, NUTT does teach “The methods herein may include placing the prepreg or layers of prepreg in a vacuum bag for a curing process, which may including vacuuming air from the prepreg(s) and heating, among other processes” (paragraph 60, lines 32-34).
RIDGARD teaches “A too l on which material (M) can be moulded to form a moulded article, the tool comprising a surface, which may be provided o n a surface layer, defining one or more pathways for the removal of gaseous material from beneath the material (M) being moulded on the tool” (abstract) and “These layers often comprise pre-determined combinations of reinforcing fibre and matrix resin in the form of sheets, tapes and the like, often termed prepregs. The many varieties and constructions of prepregs are well known to those skilled in the art” (paragraph 5, lines 5-9).
RIDGARD teaches “The resin may impregnate the fibrous layer generally from one side thereof, which may facilitate bonding or integrity of the layer and the tool, yet leaving a relatively dry fibrous outer tool surface… The tool may comprise a tool body which bears the surface. The tool body may bear the surface layer, when provided. The surface layer may be removably located on or in the tool body” (paragraph 14, line 5 - paragraph 15, line 4), “Once the material Mis cured, it can be released from the tool 10 and the membrane 16” (paragraph 49) “In the particular embodiment illustrated in these figures, the layer 12 comprises a degree of resin impregnation. The resin is generally provided to bond the layer 12 to the tool body 14, which is itself comprised of a resinous material as will be described. It is important that the degree of resin impregnation is controlled enabling the control of the degree of porosity or breathability of the surface 12 provided by the pathways” (paragraph 40, lines 1-8) and “In this particular embodiment, a layer or film 16 of gas permeable/resin impermeable material is located over the surface 12, to prevent resinous material from the material M impregnating the surface 12 during the cure cycle” (paragraph 45, lines 1-4), see figure 7, wherein comprising placing an air permeable resin barrier material over a surface of a prepreg that is not in contact with a forming tool… and wherein the air permeable resin barrier material is permeable to air or gas passing from the bulk of the prepreg and is not permeable to resin passing from the prepreg during the curing process.
Examiner notes that in figure 7, it shows that layers 16 and 12 exist between the composite material surface and the tool surface (14) such that the composite material surface is not in contact with the forming tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include comprising placing an air permeable resin barrier material over a surface of a prepreg that is not in contact with a forming tool… and wherein the air permeable resin barrier material is permeable to air or gas passing from the bulk of the prepreg and is not permeable to resin passing from the prepreg during the curing process in the process of NUTT because RIDGARD teaches that “It has been found that providing the tool with the breathable surface in this way provides improved surface characteristics of articles moulded thereof, including reduced surface porosity” (paragraph 50).
As for claim 8, NUTT teaches “a method for making a prepreg may include depositing a resin material onto a surface of a fiber bed and forming a number of discrete resin regions thereon and portions of the surface between the discrete resin regions without relying on a surface topography or architecture of the fiber bed to form the number of discrete resin regions thereon and the portions of the surface between the discrete resin regions” (paragraph 12, lines 22-26), i.e. wherein before the step of placing, making the prepreg by depositing the discrete resin regions onto the surface of the fiber bed.
As for claim 9, NUTT shows in Fig. 5 and describes “FIG. 5 illustrates such 10 a method. FIG. 5 illustrates a process 500 in which a fiber bed 502 has a surface 503 upon which a printing surface 505 is applied. The printing surface 505 includes a number of recesses 508 that are configured to correspond to the configuration of the discrete resin regions 510 on the surface 503 of the fiber bed 502. The shape and position of the recesses 508 on the printing surface 505 defines the shape and position of the discrete resin regions 510 on the surface 503 of the fiber bed 502. For example, a desired depth of the recess in the printing surface 505 may dispense a desired thickness of resin material onto the fiber bed 502” (paragraph 32, lines 9-16), i.e. wherein the discrete resin regions are formed by depositing a resin film onto a surface of a carrier that is separate from the fiber bed and treating the resin film to cause the resin film to disperse into the discrete resin regions.
As for claim 10, NUTT shows in Fig. 5 and describes “FIG. 5 illustrates such 10 a method. FIG. 5 illustrates a process 500 in which a fiber bed 502 has a surface 503 upon which a printing surface 505 is applied. The printing surface 505 includes a number of recesses 508 that are configured to correspond to the configuration of the discrete resin regions 510 on the surface 503 of the fiber bed 502. The shape and position of the recesses 508 on the printing surface 505 defines the shape and position of the discrete resin regions 510 on the surface 503 of the fiber bed 502. For example, a desired depth of the recess in the printing surface 505 may dispense a desired thickness of resin material onto the fiber bed 502” (paragraph 32, lines 9-16), i.e. wherein the discrete resin regions on the surface of the carrier are deposited onto the surface of the fiber bed by pressing the surface of the carrier comprising the discrete resin regions into contact with surface of the fiber bed surface so that the discrete resin regions adhere to surface of the fiber bed and are transferred from the surface of the carrier.
As for claim 11, NUTT teaches “The curing processes may include a vacuum 30 process, or a heating process, or other curing process, and combinations thereof. The curing processes preferably occurs OoA, and preferably in a vacuum bag only (VBO) implementation” (paragraph 60, lines 29-32), and when combined with RIDGARD (as argued in the rejection claim 7) which shows a bag in Fig. 7, i.e. further comprising placing a bag over the prepreg and the air permeable resin barrier material for subjecting the prepreg to a vacuum condition during the curing process.
As for claim 12, NUTT teaches “The methods herein may include placing the prepreg or layers of prepreg in a vacuum bag for a curing process, which may including vacuuming air from the prepreg(s) and heating, among other processes” (paragraph 60, lines 32-34), and when combined with RIDGARD (as argued in the rejection claim 7) which shows a bag in Fig. 7, i.e. further comprising curing the prepreg by subjecting the prepreg and the air permeable resin barrier material to a vacuum condition and an elevated temperature for a period of time to remove air or gas from the bulk of the prepreg and cause the resin to cure to form the composite structure.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nutt et al. WO 2018/129378 hereinafter NUTT in view of Ridgard et al. US PGPub 2010/0139839 hereinafter RIDGARD as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Butler US PGPub 20160267102 hereinafter BUTLER.
As for claim 13, NUTT and RIDGARD are silent on wherein during the step of curing the prepreg the discrete regions of resin flow and saturate the fiber bed, and wherein the resin maintains at least about 50 percent of its pressure through the step of curing.
BUTLER teaches “A method of manufacturing a composite laminate may include laying up bands of composite material in layers to form a composite layup” (abstract, lines 1-3).
BUTLER further teaches “The vacuum bag 202 may be implemented for performing Step 404 of the method 400 (FIG. 1) which may include applying compaction pressure 214 to a composite layup 100 having gaps 160 between the bands 126 of composite material for venting gasses ( e.g., volatiles, entrapped air, and/or moisture) from the composite layup 100 during consolidation and/or curing. The vacuum bag 202 may include a bagging film 204 which may be sealed to the layup tool 200 along the perimeter edges of the bagging film 204 such as by using an edge sealant 208. The vacuum bag 202 may include one or more layers such as a breather layer 206 to maintain a flow gap between the composite layup 100 and the bagging film 204 to allow the vented gases to flow toward the vacuum port for removal from the vacuum bag interior. In addition, the breather layer 206 may allow for substantially uniform application of vacuum pressure 210 to consolidate the composite laminate layup 100 against the tooling surface” (paragraph 42) and “In this regard, compaction pressure 214 may be monitored to avoid exceeding a pressure threshold that may otherwise cause resin 108 (FIG. 2) to flow into one or more portions of a gap 160 which may have the effect of preventing the evacuation of gases from the interior of the composite layup 100 to the exterior of the composite layup 100” (paragraph 46, lines 6-12), i.e. wherein the pressure applied in a vacuum bag system is designed to be enough to get compaction but not so much it interferes with the removal of gasses in to ensure voids are avoided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the pressure of the vacuum bag process such that the desired reduction in voids is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 14, NUTT and RIDGARD are silent on wherein the resin maintained from between 60 to 100 percent of its pressure through the step of curing.
BUTLER teaches “A method of manufacturing a composite laminate may include laying up bands of composite material in layers to form a composite layup” (abstract, lines 1-3).
BUTLER further teaches “The vacuum bag 202 may be implemented for performing Step 404 of the method 400 (FIG. 1) which may include applying compaction pressure 214 to a composite layup 100 having gaps 160 between the bands 126 of composite material for venting gasses ( e.g., volatiles, entrapped air, and/or moisture) from the composite layup 100 during consolidation and/or curing. The vacuum bag 202 may include a bagging film 204 which may be sealed to the layup tool 200 along the perimeter edges of the bagging film 204 such as by using an edge sealant 208. The vacuum bag 202 may include one or more layers such as a breather layer 206 to maintain a flow gap between the composite layup 100 and the bagging film 204 to allow the vented gases to flow toward the vacuum port for removal from the vacuum bag interior. In addition, the breather layer 206 may allow for substantially uniform application of vacuum pressure 210 to consolidate the composite laminate layup 100 against the tooling surface” (paragraph 42) and “In this regard, compaction pressure 214 may be monitored to avoid exceeding a pressure threshold that may otherwise cause resin 108 (FIG. 2) to flow into one or more portions of a gap 160 which may have the effect of preventing the evacuation of gases from the interior of the composite layup 100 to the exterior of the composite layup 100” (paragraph 46, lines 6-12), i.e. wherein the pressure applied in a vacuum bag system is designed to be enough to get compaction but not so much it interferes with the removal of gasses in to ensure voids are avoided.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the pressure of the vacuum bag process such that the desired reduction in voids is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 15, NUTT and RIDGARD are silent on wherein the composite structure comprises less than about two percent by volume internal porosity.
BUTLER teaches “A method of manufacturing a composite laminate may include laying up bands of composite material in layers to form a composite layup” (abstract, lines 1-3).
BUTLER further teaches “The vacuum bag 202 may be implemented for performing Step 404 of the method 400 (FIG. 1) which may include applying compaction pressure 214 to a composite layup 100 having gaps 160 between the bands 126 of composite material for venting gasses ( e.g., volatiles, entrapped air, and/or moisture) from the composite layup 100 during consolidation and/or curing. The vacuum bag 202 may include a bagging film 204 which may be sealed to the layup tool 200 along the perimeter edges of the bagging film 204 such as by using an edge sealant 208. The vacuum bag 202 may include one or more layers such as a breather layer 206 to maintain a flow gap between the composite layup 100 and the bagging film 204 to allow the vented gases to flow toward the vacuum port for removal from the vacuum bag interior. In addition, the breather layer 206 may allow for substantially uniform application of vacuum pressure 210 to consolidate the composite laminate layup 100 against the tooling surface” (paragraph 42).
BUTLER further teaches “In this regard, compaction pressure 214 may be monitored to avoid exceeding a pressure threshold that may otherwise cause resin 108 (FIG. 2) to flow into one or more portions of a gap 160 which may have the effect of preventing the evacuation of gases from the interior of the composite layup 100 to the exterior of the composite layup 100” (paragraph 46, lines 6-12), i.e. wherein the pressure applied in a vacuum bag system is designed to be enough to get compaction but not so much it interferes with the removal of gasses in to ensure voids are avoided.
BUTLER finally teaches “curing of the composite layup 100, and may achieve laminate quality ( e.g., less than 2 percent porosity by volume) that is comparable or at least equivalent to the quality of laminates cured in an autoclave at pressures greater than 1 atmosphere” (paragraph 24, lines 6-9), i.e. wherein the composite structure comprises less than about two percent by volume internal porosity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the composite structure comprises less than about two percent by volume internal porosity in the process of NUTT and RIDGARD because BUTLER teaches the means to achieve such a value and that such a value is comparable to other processes in producing strong composites.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights