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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al. (US 2013/0050685 A1), hereinafter Hunt, in view of Stoneback et al. (US 2013/0016019 A1), hereinafter Stoneback.
Regarding claim 1, Hunt discloses a composite material apparatus (composite structure 10) comprising: resin (resin 14) having a shape based on a surface of a lay-up system (from paragraph 0020: “[T]he composite material is laid up or formed so as to have a desired shape, such as by laying the composite plies or composite tows or other elements upon a mandrel or tool having the desired shape.”); fibers (structural elements 12) contained within the resin (from paragraph 0019: “[T]he composite structure 10 includes a composite material having a plurality of structural elements 12 embedded within a matrix of resin 14. The composite material may include a number of different types of structural elements 12 including structural fibers such as glass fibers, carbon fibers or the like and other elements such as graphene sheets, a carbon veil, a woven prepreg, a solid sheet and a metal or polymer mesh.”); and an optical component (optical fiber 16) disposed in the resin prior to the resin curing (from paragraph 0021: “Once the optical fiber 16 has been disposed within the composite material, the composite material may be cured or otherwise processed to solidify the resin 14 such that the composite material retains the shape in which the composite plies or composite tows were laid up.”).
Hunt does not disclose that the composite material apparatus contains an electronic component. Instead, the composite structure of Hunt contains an optical component. The optical component is disposed in the resin prior to the resin curing, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the final position of the optical component would be influenced by the flow of resin around the optical component and through the fiber matrix as the resin cures.
Stoneback discloses a composite material apparatus (composite structure 106) comprising an electronic component (conductive elements 116) positioned in a fiber reinforced resin (see paragraphs 0047 and 0052).
Hunt and Stoneback are considered to be analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the apparatus disclosed by Hunt by disposing an electronic component, rather than an optical component, in the resin. Doing so would allow the apparatus to transmit electrical signals and/or power.
Regarding claim 2, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Stoneback further teaches forming the electronic component by depositing electrically conductive ink directly onto a surface of a substrate (see paragraph 0082). As stated above, Hunt teaches positioning components on a lay-up surface during the formation of a composite material apparatus (see paragraphs 0020-0021).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lay-up surface is merely a substrate used to support composite material prior to curing. Therefore, given the combined teachings of Hunt and Stoneback, it would have been obvious to implement the electronic component as a conductive ink pattern deposited directly on the lay-up surface in order to provide a conformal, integrated electronic structure and reduce the need for discrete components and wiring.
Regarding claim 5, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches that a top surface of its composite material comprises a surface of the electronic component and wherein a measure of flatness of the top surface is within a predefined flatness tolerance (Stoneback: see paragraph 0094 stating that laminate 500 is substantially planar; see Fig. 5 showing the top surface of laminate 500 as flat with the top surface of conductive elements 302 exposed).
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure a top surface of the composite material to comprise a surface of the electronic component and the top surface to have a measure of flatness within a predefined flatness tolerance. Exposing the electronic component from the top surface of the composite material would allow it to connect to another component disposed on the top surface of the composite material. Configuring the top surface’s flatness to be within a predefined flatness tolerance would be an obvious modification since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (e.g. flatness), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electronic component is a set of wires (Stoneback: conductive elements 116 and 302), wherein the wires are mechanically supported by a resin of the composite material (Stoneback: see paragraphs 0052 and 0091; Hunt: while not electrical, optical fibers 16 are mechanically supported by matrix of resin 14).
Regarding claim 7, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the set of wires is formed within an exterior surface of the composite material such that a surface of the set of wires is exposed and a remainder of the set of wires is integrated within the resin (Hunt: see Fig. 3 showing a middle portion of optical fibers 16 formed and integrated within the resin of composite structure 10, at each end of composite structure 10 the entire surfaces of optical fibers 16 are exposed; Stoneback: see Fig. 5 showing conductive elements 302 formed within an exterior surface of laminate 500 such that the top surfaces of conductive elements 302 are exposed with their remaining surfaces being integrated with the resin).
Regarding claim 10, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electronic component is formed within an exterior surface of the composite material (Stoneback: see Fig. 5 showing conductive elements 302 formed within an exterior surface of laminate 500).
Regarding claim 11, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Stoneback appears to teach that the electronic component (302) is flush with a surface of the composite material (see Fig. 5), however this is not explicitly stated. Nonetheless, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the electronic component flush with a surface of the composite material, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (either the electronic component or the composite material). 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). One would be motivated to make this modification to protect the side surfaces of the electronic component and so that the apparatus has smooth, uniform shape that would make it easy to integrate with other devices.
Regarding claim 12, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the composite material comprises a pre-impregnated composite of the fibers in a weave with the resin present in a partially cured state bonding the fibers together (Hunt: see paragraph 0019 stating that the composite material may include a woven prepreg).
Regarding claim 13, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the composite material comprises the resin including a polymer matrix surrounding the fibers (Hunt: see paragraph 0019 stating that the composite material may include a polymer mesh).
Regarding claim 16, Hunt discloses an aircraft (see paragraph 0019 stating that composite structure 10 may be utilized in an aircraft), comprising: a composite material apparatus (10) comprising: resin (14) having a shape based on a surface of a lay-up system (see paragraph 0020); fibers (12) contained within the resin (see paragraph 0019); and an optical component (16) disposed in the resin prior to the resin curing (see paragraph 0021).
Hunt does not disclose that the composite material apparatus contains an electronic component. Instead, the composite structure of Hunt contains an optical component. The optical component is disposed in the resin prior to the resin curing, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the final position of the optical component would be influenced by the flow of resin around the optical component and through the fiber matrix as the resin cures.
Stoneback discloses a composite material apparatus (106) comprising an electronic component (116) positioned in a fiber reinforced resin (see paragraphs 0047 and 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the apparatus disclosed by Hunt by disposing an electronic component, rather than an optical component, in the resin. Doing so would allow the apparatus to transmit electrical signals and/or power.
Regarding claim 19, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback further teaches the aircraft of claim 16, wherein the electronic component is formed within an exterior surface of the composite material apparatus (Stoneback: see Fig. 5 showing conductive elements 302 formed within an exterior surface of laminate 500).
Regarding claim 20, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Stoneback appears to teach that the electronic component (302) is flush with a surface of the composite material (see Fig. 5), however this is not explicitly stated. Nonetheless, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the electronic component flush with a surface of the composite material, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component (either the electronic component or the composite material). 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). One would be motivated to make this modification to protect the side surfaces of the electronic component and so that the apparatus has smooth, uniform shape that would make it easy to integrate with other devices.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Stoneback as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morshed (US 2017/0135215 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback lacks a specific teaching of a non-conductive layer on top of at least a portion of the electronically conductive ink.
Morshed discloses an electronic component (first conductive layer 200) comprising electrically conductive ink deposited on a surface of a substrate (substrate 100; see paragraph 0048) and a non-conductive layer (insulation layers 300a and 300b) disposed on top of the electrically conductive ink (see paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1A).
Morshed is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of fabricating electrical conductors. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to dispose a non-conductive layer on top of at least a portion of the electronically conductive ink in order to electrically insulate the conductive ink.
Regarding claim 4, Hunt and Stoneback in view of Morshed teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Hunt and Stoneback in view of Morshed further teaches the apparatus of claim 3, further comprising a second layer of conductive ink (Morshed: second conductive layer 400) on top of the non-conductive layer (Morshed: see paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Stoneback as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haase et al. (DE 10-2004-008432 B4), hereinafter Haase.
Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt discloses a strain sensor (16) located in a resin (14) of the composite material (10) capable of measuring a flex of the composite material (see paragraph 0035 describing how optical fibers 16 can be used to detect strain in the composite material). The strain sensor (16) is, however, an optical component.
Haase discloses an electronic strain sensor (strain gauge 1; see Abstract) integrated directly into a fiber composite material (see the last paragraph on pg. 5 and the first two paragraphs on pg. 6; see also Fig. 2).
Hunt in view of Stoneback discloses the claimed invention except that the strain sensor is an optical component instead of an electronic component. Haase shows that electronic strain sensors are equivalent structures known in the art, capable of being utilized within composite materials. Therefore, because these two strain sensors were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an electronic strain sensor for an optical strain sensor.
Claims 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Stoneback as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2009/0076184 A1), hereinafter Thompson.
Regarding claim 9, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback discloses that wires are located the composite material’s resin (Stoneback: 116 and 302), but does not disclose that a light emitting diode is located in the resin and connected to the wires.
Thompson discloses a light emitting diode (LED dies 110) and a wire (wire bond 130) disposed in a resin (see Abstract).
Thompson is considered to be analogous art because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of encapsulating a light emitting diode in resin. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a light emitting diode in the resin and connect it to the wires for the provision of power. Doing so would provide the apparatus with a means to produce light. Integrating the diode within the resin would serve to bond the diode to the apparatus without the need of additional adhesives or fasteners, and would help to protect the diode from damage.
Regarding claim 14, Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Stoneback discloses wires formed by depositing electrically conductive ink onto a surface of a substrate (see paragraph 0082). Hunt teaches positioning components on a lay-up surface during the formation of a composite material apparatus (see paragraphs 0020-0021). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lay-up surface is merely a substrate used to support composite material prior to curing. Therefore it would have been obvious to form a wiring harness by depositing a first layer of electrically conductive in directly onto a lay-up surface.
Thompson discloses an electronic component (110) and a wire (130) disposed in resin (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to electrically couple an electronic component, like the LED taught by Thompson, to the wiring harness in order to provide power or transmit signals to the electronic component.
Regarding claim 15, Hunt and Stoneback in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Hunt and Stoneback in view of Thompson further teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first wiring harness is integrated into the composite material apparatus (Stoneback: see Fig. 5 showing conductive elements 302 integrated into laminate 500).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Stoneback as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tajiri et al. (US 2019/0276161 A1), hereinafter Tajiri.
Hunt in view of Stoneback discloses all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback discloses a plurality of composite material pieces, wherein the composite material apparatus is one of the plurality of composite material pieces (Stoneback: see paragraph 0075 stating that multiple antenna systems 212 may be utilized on an aircraft), but lacks a specific teaching that the plurality of composite material pieces are electronically coupled together.
Tajiri discloses an aircraft (1A) comprising a plurality of composite material pieces electrically coupled together (see paragraph 0072).
Tajiri is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to electrically couple the plurality of composite material pieces. Doing so would allow the composite material pieces transmit signals and/or power to each other, or as a means to safely guide current from a lightning strike.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Stoneback as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Thompson.
Hunt in view of Stoneback teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 as stated above. Hunt in view of Stoneback discloses that wires are located the composite material’s resin (Stoneback: 116 and 302), but does not disclose that a light emitting diode is located in the resin and connected to the wires.
Thompson discloses a light emitting diode (110) and a wire (130) disposed in a resin (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to include a light emitting diode in the resin and connect it to the wires for the provision of power. Doing so would provide the apparatus with a means to produce light. Integrating the diode within the resin would serve to bond the diode to the apparatus without the need of additional adhesives or fasteners, and would help to protect the diode from damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights