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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 11) in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12 – 17 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 – 11 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.
With regard to claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the composition has enhanced toughness relative to an equivalent mass of tapes that are not stacked at offset angles.” The specification discusses increased 19 – 291% toughness, but does not define “enhanced toughness” and does not explain how toughness was measured. The specification appears to suggest tensile strength, strain-at-break, and toughness as separate and distinct measurements. Common tests known in the art for measuring “toughness” include impact testing, tensile testing, fracture toughness testing. However, Applicant’s specification does not indicate if any of these tests were relied upon for the measurement of “toughness.”
The term “toughness” is not understood in the art to mean a particular standard of measurement. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “toughness” to mean “a material’s ability to absorb energy and deform without breaking.” Absent a clear teaching in the specification of what Applicant intended as a “toughness” test, Applicant’s recitation of “enhanced toughness” is interpreted to mean the generally understood definition of “ability to absorb energy and deform without breaking.”
Clarification of the term “toughness” is requested.
Claims 2 – 11 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore also rejected.
With regard to claim 11, the claim recites “[t]he material composition of claim 1, further comprising a matrix selected from the group consisting of a polymeric matrix, a metallic matrix, or a ceramic matrix, wherein said material composition is incorporated into said matrix and the resulting composite has improved physical properties relative to the matrix alone in the absence of said material composition.”
It is unclear whether (a) the material composition of claim 1 comprises a matrix or (b) the material composition of claim 1 is an intermediate product added to a matrix to form a final product of a composite (i.e., the final composite comprising matrix is an intended use of the recited material composition). Applicant’s claim 11 is drawn a material composition, not a composite comprising the material composition of claim 1 plus a matrix. Therefore, clarification by amendment is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 6, & 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagelsmit et al. (US 2012/0321838 A1), in view of Woolhouse (US 2006/0125156 A1), Drevon et al. (US 2012/0228051 A1), and Andre et al. (US 2001/005937 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Nagelsmit et al. teach a composite material (i.e., “material composition”) comprising at least four stacked layer assemblies, wherein each layer assembly comprises a plurality of strips (i.e., “tapes”) (Fig. 4f). The number of layers depends on the desired thickness of the final composite material (paragraphs [0010] & [0040]). The number of sets of strips (m) further may differ between different layer assemblies within the same composite material (such that different layer assemblies have a different number of sets (layers) of strips) (paragraphs [0007] – [0011] & [0014] – [0018]). Adjacent layer assemblies are interwoven and the strips of adjacent sets are interwoven (i.e., “tapes from adjacent layers contact each other at junctions”) (paragraphs [0024] – [0025]). A group of four strips (i.e., “tape”) is deposited diagonally (i.e., “offset angles”) of 45° angle in parallel to form a layer assembly, such that at least four layers are formed (paragraphs [0014], [0037], [0039], & Fig. 4f). The choice of the angle may depend on the required characteristics of the final composite material (paragraph [0035]).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The spacing is substantially equal to an integer multiple of n of the strip width, step g comprises repeating the steps d until Fn -1 times. The value of n then determines the final composition of the composite material (disposition of and relation between strips (paragraph [0012]). In one embodiment, the strips of each group are deposited at a spacing substantially equal to the strip width (paragraph [0013]).
Nagelsmit et al. teach the pattern created with the strips (i.e., “stacked at offset angles”) is optimized for different loading situations and desired stacking sequences, providing a through-the-thickness reinforcement and contains the damage created during impact now allowing delaminations to grow to the size of the conventional layer assembly (i.e., “not stacked at offset layers”) would exhibit under the same impact level (i.e., “enhanced toughness”) (paragraph [0009]).
Furthermore, the strips have a longitudinal direction (i.e., “length of each of said tapes is its longest axis”) (paragraph [0008]) and a width (paragraphs [0012] – [0013]). The number layers composed of strips contributes to the thickness of the total composite (paragraphs [0005], [0009] – [0010], & [0040]). Therefore, the strips inherently have a thickness.
Nagelsmit et al. do not explicitly teach the ratios of the length, width, and thickness, or a value for the maximum thickness, of the strips (i.e., “tapes”) within a given layer.
Woolhouse teaches a laminate comprising a plurality of unidirectional fiber patches (i.e., layers), wherein the strength of the patches is derived from the long fiber length (i.e., tape length) (paragraph [0040]).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Drevon et al. teach an acoustic skin for an aircraft (paragraphs [0001] – [0007]) comprising a plurality of stacked layers, each comprising composite planar bands of pre-impregnated fibers (102) (paragraph [0014]) that are direction by direction-defining longitudinal axis thereof. The bands are positioned at an offset between two adjacent layers, rotated to the desired angle, for example 30°, 45°, 60° relative to the position of the adjacent layer (paragraphs [0063] – [0068]). The spacing between the bands corresponds to the width of the bands (paragraph [0086]), and thus the opening rate between 1% and 50%. More preferably, an opening rate between 8% and 20% makes it possible to have good acoustic absorption and good mechanical structural strength (paragraphs [0026], [0052], [0083], [0097] – [0098], & [0107]).
PNG
media_image3.png
348
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
348
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Andre et al. teach an acoustively resistive layer for an acoustic panel of an aircraft, wherein the resistive layer comprises a plurality of layers each of which are comprised of impregnated filaments (14-1 & 16-1 of Fig. 1C below) disposed in one or several layers and oriented in different directions from one layer to the other which given an embodiment of a thickness of 0.6 to 2 mm (paragraph [0047]). Filaments may be metallic, such as stainless steel, wherein the metallic fabric is on the order of 0.1 – 0.2 mm (paragraph [0045]). Reduced thickness limits excessive weight while maintaining desired mechanical resistance (paragraphs [0008] & [0011]).
PNG
media_image5.png
214
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Woolhouse, Drevon et al., & Andre et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the length, width, and thickness of the strips (i.e., “tapes”) of each layer taught by Nagelsmit et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a composite material of desired acoustic properties, mechanical strength and weight. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Nagelsemit et al. do not teach welding at the location where successive (adjacent) layers interlock (i.e., “at the junctions”) (paragraphs [0009] – [0010] & [0015]).
With regard to claims 4 – 5, as discussed above for claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the length, width, and thickness of the strips (i.e., “tapes”) of each layer taught by Nagelsmit et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve a composite material of desired acoustic properties, mechanical strength and weight.
With regard to claim 6, Nagelsmit et al. teach the strips (i.e., “tapes” comprise a resin (i.e., “polymer”) (paragraphs [0001] – [0002], [0007], & [0016]).
With regard to claim 9, Nagelsmit et al. teach an embodiment in which all of the offset angles are 45 degrees (paragraph [0039]). In other words, the embodiments taught by Nagelsmit et al. contains offset angles between tapes of adjacent layers that are constant throughout the composite.
With regard to claim 10, Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0031], states “the term ‘substantially isotropic’ means that the mechanical performance does not deviate more than ten percent as a function of the direction of applied load.”
Nagelsmit et al. teach the patterns created with the strips (extending in different directions) for manufacturing a layer assembly can be optimized for different loading situations (paragraphs [0009], [0035], & [0043]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Nagelsmit et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the pattern created with the strips (i.e., “tapes”) through routine experimentation in order to optimize the different loading situations (i.e., “mechanical performance as a function of the direction of applied load”). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 2 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagelsmit et al., Woolhouse, Drevon et al., & Andre et al., as applied to claims 1 & 5 above, and further in view of Day et al. (US 2010/0266833 A1).
With regard to claim 2, Nagelsmith et al. do not teach the strips (i.e., “tapes”) from adjacent layers are welded at junctions.
With regard to claim 7, as discussed above for claim 6, Nagelsmit et al. teach the strips (i.e., “tapes” comprise a resin (i.e., “polymer”) (paragraphs [0001] – [0002], [0007], & [0016]). However, Nagelsmit et al. do not teach the specific type of resin.
Day et al. teach fiber reinforced composite panel comprising overlapping layers 176 and 177 formed of tape-wound strips 178, such that the strips of layer 177 crosses and overlies the strips of layer 176. The strips are connected to each other by pressing the strips together after applying sufficient heat to the web portions of the strips to melt the thermoplastic matrix (i.e., cause fusion therebetween). Layers 176 and 177 may comprise hardened fiber reinforced thermoplastic tapes. Layers 176 and 176 are composed of Twintex® R PP glass rovings manufactured by Saint-Gobain Vetrotex, which comprises commingled E-glass and polypropylene filaments in a polypropylene matrix (paragraphs [0146] & [0181]). The panels comprising the strips have proven effective in retaining substantial structural integrity after high energy ballistic impact (paragraph [0161]).
PNG
media_image6.png
642
418
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Day et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use as polypropylene fibers and thermoplastic matrix material, such as polypropylene, to form the strips/tapes taught by Nagelsmit et al. in order to fuse the tapes of respective adjacent layers by melting said thermoplastic material, which provides a ballistic (i.e., “mechanical”) panel with structural integrity after high energy impact.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagelsmit et al., Woolhouse, Drevon et al., Andre et al. & Day et al., as applied to claims 2 & 7 above, and further in view of Pilpel (US 2010/0279060 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Day et al. teach the fiber reinforced material comprises a layer of conductive fibers in layers adjacent to layers 176 and 177 containing the strips/tapes for providing sufficient heat for connecting by melt fusion the thermoplastic matrix of layers 176 & 177. Day et al. do not teach the electrically conductive fibers are composed of metal.
Pilpel teach a ballistic panel formed of a plurality of stacked composite plies comprising longitudinally oriented fibers (paragraph [0040]). Various types of fibers may be used in a composite ply (paragraph [0032]). Other types of fibers that may be incorporated include metal fibers (paragraphs [0036] & [0038]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Day et al. & Pilpel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use conductive fibers in a ballistic panel known in the art of for heating and melting thermoplastic matrix of tapes for fusion of adjacent layers of polymer-based tapes taught by Nagelsmit et al., such as metal fibers.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagelsmit et al., Woolhouse, Drevon et al., & Andre et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mencattelli et al. (US 2021/0339499 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Nagelsmit et al. fail to teach the material composition of claim 1, further comprising a matrix selected from the group consisting of a polymeric matrix, a metallic matrix, or a ceramic matrix, wherein said material composition is incorporated into said matrix and the resulting composite has improved physical properties relative to the matrix alone in the absence of said material composition.
Mencattelli et al. teach composite materials comprising a plurality of plies cmnposed reinforcing fibers and a thermoplastic matrix resin between said plies, wherein the thermoplastic matrix resin is used to toughen the laminate and further arrest propagation of catastrophic fractures (paragraphs [0037] & [0165]). Fiber reinforcements improve mechanical properties and impact resistance over conventional composite laminates (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Mencattelli et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a thermoplastic matrix resin between the layers of tapes taught by Nagelsmit et al. in order to toughen the material and prevent catastrophic fractions. Based on the teachings of Mencattelli et al., the resulting composite has improved physical properties relative to the matrix alone in the absence of said material composition.
Claim(s) 1 & 3 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevon et al. (US 2012/0228051 A1), in view of Andre et al. (US 2001/005937 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Drevon et al. teach an acoustic skin for an aircraft (paragraphs [0001] – [0007]) comprising a plurality of stacked layers, each comprising composite planar bands of pre-impregnated fibers (102) (paragraph [0014]) that are direction by direction-defining longitudinal axis thereof. The bands are positioned at an offset between two adjacent layers, rotated to the desired angle, for example 30°, 45°, 60° relative to the position of the adjacent layer (paragraphs [0063] – [0068]).
PNG
media_image3.png
348
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
348
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The number of layers comprises between 3 and 20, depending on the required mechanical strength (paragraph [0060]).
The length of each of said bands (i.e., “tapes”) is longer than the width of the ribbon (i.e., “its longest axis”) (paragraphs [0015] & [0061]). The length of the longitudinal axis of a band is greater than 50 mm and the width long the axis transverse of a ribbon is between 1 mm and 2 mm, or even between 2 mm and 4 mm, wherein the ratio of the length to the width of the bands is 25 or more (i.e., “ratio of the length of a given tape to its width is at least two”) (paragraph [0062]). The spacing between the bands corresponds to the width of the bands (paragraph [0086]), and thus the opening rate between 1% and 50%. More preferably, an opening rate between 8% and 20% makes it possible to have good acoustic absorption and good mechanical structural strength (paragraphs [0026], [0052], [0083], [0097] – [0098], & [0107]).
Drevon et al. do not explicitly teach the thickness of each of said bands is its shortest axis; wherein the ratio of the width of a given tape to its thickness is at least 20; wherein the maximum thickness of each of said tapes within a given layer is 5 mm.
Andre et al. teach an acoustively resistive layer for an acoustic panel of an aircraft, wherein the resistive layer comprises a plurality of layers each of which are comprised of impregnated filaments (14-1 & 16-1 of Fig. 1C below) disposed in one or several layers and oriented in different directions from one layer to the other which given an embodiment of a thickness of 0.6 to 2 mm (paragraph [0047]). Filaments may be metallic, such as stainless steel, wherein the metallic fabric is on the order of 0.1 – 0.2 mm (paragraph [0045]). Reduced thickness limits excessive weight while maintaining desired mechanical resistance (paragraphs [0008] & [0011]).
PNG
media_image5.png
214
354
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Drevon et al. & Andre et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the width and thickness of the bands (i.e., “tapes”) of each layer taught by Drevon et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired opening ratio, mechanical strength, and total weight of the assembly (i.e., “composition”). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 3, Drevon et al. teach the acoustic panel is assembled by arranging the different skins and layers and then glued on a mold to the required shape. The assembly is baked in an oven so as to tighten the layers to polymerize (i.e., “cure”) the adhesives (i.e., “hot melt adhesive”) (paragraphs [0007]).
With regard of claim 4, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the width and thickness of the bands (i.e., “tapes”) of each layer taught by Drevon et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired opening ratio, mechanical strength, and total weight of the assembly (i.e., “composition”).
With regard to claim 5, as discussed above for claim 1, Drevon et al. teach the ratio of the length of a given tape to its width is at least ten.
With regard to claims 6 – 7, Drevon et al. teach each layer having resin pre-impregnated bands, in which the resin contained in the bands is polymerized so as to form the acoustic skin. The resin used to pre-impregnated the composite fibers is polymerizable at the temperature between 50 and 250°C. The resin may be selected from thermosetting resins such as epoxy or bismaleimide resins (i.e., “polyimide”) (paragraphs [0009] & [0059]).
With regard to claim 8, Drevon et al. teach the bands are formed of resin impregnated carbon fiber for mechanical strength (paragraphs [0009] – [0010] & [0056]).
Andre et al. teach the ribbons are formed of resin impregnated metallic fiber in the form of metallic fabric/cloth (paragraphs [0022] & [0030] – [0031]). Metallic fabric has the advantage of providing mechanical resistance (i.e., avoiding rupture of the filaments themselves) and conducting lightning (electricity) (paragraphs [0007] – [0010] & [0057]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Andre et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the carbon fibers taught by Drevon et al. with metallic filaments for the fibers of the impregnated ribbons for achieving desired acoustic and mechanical strength/resistance properties in an aircraft panel.
With regard to claim 9, Drevon et al. teach the widths and spacing of the offset angles between the tapes of adjacent layers are identical (i.e., “constant”) throughout the assembly (i.e., “composition”) (paragraphs [0022]).
With regard to claim 10, Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0031], states “the term ‘substantially isotropic’ means that the mechanical performance does not deviate more than ten percent as a function of the direction of applied load.”
Drevon et al. teach said bands may have a different direction which allows to adjust the opening density (i.e., “degree of openings”) and also the mechanical strength of the acoustic skin 22 thus obtained (paragraphs [0017] & [0063]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Drevon et al. et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the pattern created with the ribbons (i.e., “tapes”) through routine experimentation in order to optimize the mechanical strength (i.e., “mechanical performance as a function of the direction of applied load”). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevon et al., & Andre et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mencattelli et al. (US 2021/0339499 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Drevon et al. fail to teach the material composition of claim 1, further comprising a matrix selected from the group consisting of a polymeric matrix, a metallic matrix, or a ceramic matrix, wherein said material composition is incorporated into said matrix and the resulting composite has improved physical properties relative to the matrix alone in the absence of said material composition.
Mencattelli et al. teach composite materials comprising a plurality of plies cmnposed reinforcing fibers and a thermoplastic matrix resin between said plies, wherein the thermoplastic matrix resin is used to toughen the laminate and further arrest propagation of catastrophic fractures (paragraphs [0037] & [0165]). Fiber reinforcements improve mechanical properties and impact resistance over conventional composite laminates (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Mencattelli et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a thermoplastic matrix resin between the layers of tapes taught by Drevon et al. in order to toughen the material and prevent catastrophic fractions. Based on the teachings of Mencattelli et al., the resulting composite has improved physical properties relative to the matrix alone in the absence of said material composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights