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
1. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 lines 2-3 reads “includes second thermoplastic material and second fiber-reinforcement embedded within the second thermoplastic material”. This should read as “includes a second thermoplastic material and secondary fiber-reinforcement embedded within the second thermoplastic material” for better grammar and to clarify that the thermoplastic material and fiber-reinforcement of claim 4 is separate from the thermoplastic material and fiber-reinforcement of claim 3.
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.
2. Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, The term “common” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While examples thermoplastic materials are given in Applicant’s Specification in [0041], Applicant mentions in [0037]-[0038] that the thermoplastic structure can be a variety of different aircraft. With different aircraft, a certain thermoplastic material may be considered “common” in one type of aircraft, but also considered “uncommon” in different aircraft. Therefore, even if a material is specified, it is completely unclear if that material is “common” and therefore this term is indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution this limitation will be removed from claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2017/0313002; hereafter known as Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a repair method (Abstract) shown in Figure 7B that comprises arranging a thermoplastic structure (corrugated polymeric composite structure- 112; noted as thermoplastic in [0033]) on a support (inducer- 130), arranging a thermoplastic patch (patch- 122; noted as a thermoplastic in [0033]) on the thermoplastic structure, arranging a conductor (conductive sheet- 126b and heat-conductive rigid plate- 150) on the thermoplastic patch with the thermoplastic patch between the conductor and the thermoplastic structure, and heating the conductor using an induction coil (inducer- 130) to provide a heated conductor that bonds the thermoplastic patch to the thermoplastic structure ([0060]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches that the thermoplastic structure includes thermoplastic material and fiber-reinforcement embedded within the thermoplastic material ([0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches that the thermoplastic patch includes thermoplastic material and fiber-reinforcement embedded within the thermoplastic material ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, [0041] of Huang teaches that both the thermoplastic structure and thermoplastic patch are made of thermoplastic materials and embedded fiber-reinforcement. If the thermoplastic and embedded fiber-reinforcement of thermoplastic patch is considered a first thermoplastic material and first embedded fiber-reinforcement as done in claim 3, then the thermoplastic and embedded fiber-reinforcement of the thermoplastic structure can be considered a second thermoplastic material and second embedded fiber-reinforcement.
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches that the patch is disposed on the defect (defect- 110) of the thermoplastic structure ([0056]), or in other words is in contact with the thermoplastic structure.
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches that the conductor comprises a metal plate ([0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Huang further teaches of biasing (applying pressure) to the conductor towards the patch ([0061]), which by extension of the support being beneath both the patch and the thermoplastic structure, this biases the conductor towards the support and presses the thermoplastic patch and the thermoplastic structure together.
Regarding claim 12, Huang further teaches that the biasing is accomplished with a vacuum bag ([0061])
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches that the thermoplastic structure comprises a damaged area, the thermoplastic patch covers the damaged area, and the thermoplastic patch is bonded to the thermoplastic structure to provide a repaired thermoplastic structure ([0033]; “bond” being explicitly mentioned in [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, as shown in Figure 6, the peripheral geometry of the thermoplastic patch is rectangular, which is a polygonal shape.
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.
4. 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.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Rubin et al. (US 10,821,653; hereafter known as Rubin).
Regarding claim 5, Huang does not teach that the thermoplastic patch is a pre-consolidated thermoplastic patch. Rubin teaches that pre-consolidated thermoplastic composite laminates have an advantage of being pre-formed into a desired shape and having desirable properties (col. 1 lines 51-58) and are usable in an in-service aircraft (col. 8 lines 59-62). Pre-consolidated thermoplastic composite laminates can be a variety of parts (col. 3 lines 34-48), which would include a patch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use a pre-consolidated thermoplastic patch as suggested by Rubin for the advantage of having the patch pre-formed into a desired shape with desired properties.
6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches that the thermoplastic patch is bonded to the thermoplastic structure to provide a repaired thermoplastic structure ([0062]).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the metal conductor is removed after repairing the thermoplastic structure, however the method is to repair a thermoplastic structure and if the conductor is still pressed to the thermoplastic structure, it would not be usable, or in other words in a repaired state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure prior to ensure operability.
7. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lambourne et al. (US 11,279,100; hereafter known as Lambourne).
Regarding claim 9, Huang does not teach that the induction coil comprises a linear induction coil. Lambourne teaches a similar induction heating method (col. 3 lines 23-37), wherein it is established that properties of induction coil should be optimized from the size of the damaged or defective region (col. 7 lines 37-52), and more particularly the geometry and number of turns (col. 8 lines 25-31; steps shown in Figure 5). The advantage of so doing is achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating (col. 3 lines 47-49). In the case that the optimally calculated coil is a singular straight coil with no turns, this creates a linear induction coil similar to Applicant’s linear induction coil seen in Figure 5 of their Specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that a linear induction coil may be necessary for certain patches for the advantage of achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating as suggested by Lambourne in the method of Huang.
Regarding claim 10, Huang does not teach that the induction coil comprises a linear induction coil. Lambourne teaches a similar induction heating method (col. 3 lines 23-37), wherein it is established that properties of induction coil should be optimized from the size of the damaged or defective region (col. 7 lines 37-52), and more particularly the geometry and number of turns (col. 8 lines 25-31; steps shown in Figure 5). The advantage of so doing is achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating (col. 3 lines 47-49). In the case that the optimally calculated coil is a singular straight coil with multiple flat turns, this creates a planar induction coil similar to Applicant’s planar induction coil seen in Figure 6 of their Specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that a linear induction coil may be necessary for certain patches for the advantage of achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating as suggested by Lambourne in the method of Huang.
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bahramshahi et al. (US 2023/0211567; hereafter known as Bahramshahi).
Regarding claim 14, Huang does not teach removing a damaged area to form an aperture in the thermoplastic structure and associated limitations, but does teach that the patch covers the entirety of the defective area (see Figure 6). Bahramshahi teaches a preparation step of removing a damaged area from a damaged thermoplastic structure for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch ([0030]). In removing a damaged area from damaged thermoplastic structure, this creates a thermoplastic structure that includes an aperture as seen in Figure 5. In context of Huang, Huang’s patch would cover the entirety of the aperture as the aperture would be the defective area of Huang’s Figure 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove a damaged area of the thermoplastic structure as suggested by Bahramshahi for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch.
9. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Salah et al. (US 2020/0316870; hereafter known as Salah).
Regarding claim 16, Huang does not teach that at least a portion of a peripheral geometry of the thermoplastic patch is curved. Salah teaches that a thermoplastic patch should be tailored to the damage or defect ([0055]) and shows a circular patch in Figure 5A (component- 202; noted as a patch in [0055]). A circular patch has the entirety of the peripheral geometry curved. MPEP 2144.04.IV.B teaches that the changes in shape are obvious in the absence of persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Considering that Salah teaches that the patch is dependent on the specific damage and the Changes in Shape is a supporting rational in MPEP 2144; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use a circular patch as suggested by Huang when damage to the thermoplastic structure is in a circular fashion.
10. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding claim 17, Huang teaches a repair method (Abstract) shown in Figure 7B that comprises arranging a thermoplastic patch (patch- 122) on a thermoplastic structure (corrugated polymeric composite structure- 112), the thermoplastic structure comprising a damaged area (defect- 110), and the thermoplastic patch covering the damaged area ([0033]; both the patch and structure are noted as thermoplastic in this paragraph), arranging a metal conductor (conductive sheet- 126b and heat-conductive rigid plate- 150; noted as metal in [0057]) on the thermoplastic patch with the thermoplastic patch being between the metal conductor and the thermoplastic structure (see Figure 7B), and heating the metal conductor using a heating element (inducer- 130) to provide a heated conductor that bonds the thermoplastic patch to the thermoplastic structure to provide a repaired thermoplastic structure ([0060]-[0062]).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the metal conductor is removed after repairing the thermoplastic structure, however the method is to repair a thermoplastic structure and if the conductor is still pressed to the thermoplastic structure, it would not be usable, or in other words in a repaired state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure prior to ensure operability.
Regarding claim 18, as seen from the angled view of Figure 6, damaged area (defect- 110) is encapsulated by the thermoplastic patch (patch- 122) in the repaired thermoplastic structure.
Regarding claim 19, Huang further teaches of biasing (applying pressure) to the metal conductor towards the patch ([0061]).
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Bahramshahi.
Regarding claim 20, Huang teaches a repair method (Abstract) shown in Figure 7B that comprises arranging a thermoplastic patch (patch- 122; noted as thermoplastic in [0033]) on a thermoplastic structure (corrugated polymeric composite structure- 112; noted as thermoplastic in [0033]), arranging a metal conductor (conductive sheet- 126b and heat-conductive rigid plate- 150; noted as metal in [0057]) on the thermoplastic patch with the thermoplastic patch being between the metal conductor and the thermoplastic structure (see Figure 7B), and heating the metal conductor using a heating element (inducer- 130) to provide a heated conductor that bonds the thermoplastic patch to the thermoplastic structure ([0060]-[0062]).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the metal conductor is removed after repairing the thermoplastic structure, however the method is to repair a thermoplastic structure and if the conductor is still pressed to the thermoplastic structure, it would not be usable, or in other words in a repaired state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure prior to ensure operability.
Huang does not teach removing a damaged area to form an aperture in the thermoplastic structure and associated limitations, but does teach that the patch covers the entirety of the defective area (see Figure 6). Bahramshahi teaches a preparation step of removing a damaged area from a damaged thermoplastic structure for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch ([0030]). In removing a damaged area from damaged thermoplastic structure, this creates a thermoplastic structure that includes an aperture as seen in Figure 5. In context of Huang, Huang’s patch would cover the entirety of the aperture as the aperture would be the defective area of Huang’s Figure 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove a damaged area of the thermoplastic structure as suggested by Bahramshahi for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
12. Claims 1-11, and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/228,358 (hereafter ‘358). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 5 is rejected in further view of Rubin, claims 9 and 10 are rejected in further view of Lambourne, and claims 14 and 20 are rejected in further view of Bahramshahi.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘358 teaches a repair method (line 1) comprising arranging a thermoplastic patch on the thermoplastic structure (thermoplastic airplane component; line 2), arranging a conductor (metal plate) on the thermoplastic patch with the thermoplastic patch between the conductor and the thermoplastic structure (lines 5-6), and heating the conductor using an induction coil to bond the thermoplastic patch to the thermoplastic structure (lines 7-9). This heating step with the induction coil also heats the conductor and would of necessity provide a heated conductor. Explicit heated conductor is claimed in claim 3. Claim 5 teaches that a second metal plate being pressed on the thermoplastic structure, that is noted as occurring during consolidation in claim 6, which means the second metal plate can be interpreted as support and that claims 5-6 teach of arranging the thermoplastic structure on a support. Claim 13 explicitly teaches the use of a support, and while it is assumed to be in contact with the thermoplastic structure, this isn’t entirely clear but does give
Regarding claims 2-4, claim 1 of ‘358 teaches that both the thermoplastic structure and thermoplastic patch includes a thermoplastic material, and a fiber-reinforcement embedded within each thermoplastic material (lines 2-4). The thermoplastic materials and fibers aren’t specified, so they can be common.
Regarding claim 5, ‘358 does not teach that the thermoplastic patch is a pre-consolidated thermoplastic patch. Rubin teaches that pre-consolidated thermoplastic composite laminates have an advantage of being pre-formed into a desired shape and having desirable properties (col. 1 lines 51-58) and are usable in an in-service aircraft (col. 8 lines 59-62). Pre-consolidated thermoplastic composite laminates can be a variety of parts (col. 3 lines 34-48), which would include a patch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use a pre-consolidated thermoplastic patch as suggested by Rubin for the advantage of having the patch pre-formed into a desired shape with desired properties.
Regarding claim 6, claim 4 teaches that the thermoplastic patch contacts the conductor.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 teaches the conductor comprises a metal plate (line 5).
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 teaches that the thermoplastic patch is bonded to the thermoplastic structure (lines 10-14) as the final step of a repair method (line 1) and therefore such bonding provides a repaired thermoplastic structure.
‘358 does not teach the removal of the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure, however, claim 12 notes that the method is performed on an aircraft. Removal of the conductor would be necessary for the function of that aircraft, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure for the advantage of functionality of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 9, ‘358 does not teach that the induction coil comprises a linear induction coil. Lambourne teaches a similar induction heating method (col. 3 lines 23-37), wherein it is established that properties of induction coil should be optimized from the size of the damaged or defective region (col. 7 lines 37-52), and more particularly the geometry and number of turns (col. 8 lines 25-31; steps shown in Figure 5). The advantage of so doing is achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating (col. 3 lines 47-49). In the case that the optimally calculated coil is a singular straight coil with no turns, this creates a linear induction coil similar to Applicant’s linear induction coil seen in Figure 5 of their Specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that a linear induction coil may be necessary in certain patches for the advantage of achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating.
Regarding claim 10, ‘358 does not teach that the induction coil comprises a linear induction coil. Lambourne teaches a similar induction heating method (col. 3 lines 23-37), wherein it is established that properties of induction coil should be optimized from the size of the damaged or defective region (col. 7 lines 37-52), and more particularly the geometry and number of turns (col. 8 lines 25-31; steps shown in Figure 5). The advantage of so doing is achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating (col. 3 lines 47-49). In the case that the optimally calculated coil is a singular straight coil with multiple flat turns, this creates a planar induction coil similar to Applicant’s planar induction coil seen in Figure 6 of their Specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that a linear induction coil may be necessary in certain patches for the advantage of achieving a desired maximum temperature and penetration depth during heating.
Regarding claim 11, claim 6 teaches biasing (pressing) the conductor towards the support to press the thermoplastic patch between the conductor and the thermoplastic structure.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 teaches that the method is a repair method, which would imply that damage has occurred in the area treated, which is the thermoplastic structure. A patch covers a damaged area by definition, and therefore the bonding in claim 1 is to provide a repaired thermoplastic structure.
Regarding claim 14, patches are by definition a structure meant to fill an aperture, and therefore the thermoplastic structure includes an aperture for which to fill. ‘358 does not teach to remove a damaged area from a damaged thermoplastic structure to provide the thermoplastic structure. Bahramshahi teaches a preparation step of removing a damaged area from a damaged thermoplastic structure for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch ([0030]). In removing a damaged area from damaged thermoplastic structure, this creates a thermoplastic structure that includes an aperture as seen in Figure 5. The patch of ‘358 would cover the entirety of the aperture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove a damaged area of the thermoplastic structure as suggested by Bahramshahi for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, MPEP 2114.04.IV.B teaches that “changes in shape” is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore the specific shape of the thermoplastic patch would be obvious and not patentable.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 of ‘358 teaches a repair method (line 1) comprising arranging a thermoplastic patch on the thermoplastic structure (thermoplastic airplane component; lines 2-3), arranging a metal conductor (metal plate) on the thermoplastic patch with the thermoplastic patch between the conductor and the thermoplastic structure (lines 7-9), and heating the conductor using an induction coil to bond the thermoplastic patch to the thermoplastic structure (lines 10-14). This heating step with the induction coil also heats the conductor and would of necessity provide a heated conductor. Explicit heated conductor is claimed in claim 3. To reiterate, claim 1 teaches that the method is a repair method, which would imply that damage has occurred in the area treated, which is the thermoplastic structure. A patch covers a damaged area by definition, and therefore the bonding in claim 1 is to provide a repaired thermoplastic structure.
‘358 does not teach the removal of the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure, however, claim 12 notes that the method is performed on an aircraft. Removal of the conductor would be necessary for the function of that aircraft, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure for the advantage of functionality of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 18, claim 1 teaches that the patch and thermoplastic structure are consolidated, which implies a unitary structure. A unitary structure no longer has a damaged area, and therefore it can be interpreted that the damaged area is encapsulated by the thermoplastic patch.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 teaches that pressing can be accomplished using a vacuum bag, and therefore the pressing mentioned in claim 1 would be biasing the conductor towards the support using a vacuum bag.
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 of ‘358 teaches a repair method (line 1) comprising arranging a thermoplastic patch on the thermoplastic structure (thermoplastic airplane component; lines 2-3), arranging a conductor (metal plate) on the thermoplastic patch with the thermoplastic patch between the conductor and the thermoplastic structure (lines 7-9), and heating the conductor using an induction coil to bond the thermoplastic patch to the thermoplastic structure (lines 10-14). This heating step with the induction coil also heats the conductor and would of necessity provide a heated conductor. Explicit heated conductor is claimed in claim 3. To reiterate, claim 1 teaches that the method is a repair method, which would imply that damage has occurred in the area treated, which is the thermoplastic structure. A patch covers a damaged area by definition, and therefore the bonding in claim 1 is to provide a repaired thermoplastic structure.
‘358 does not teach the removal of the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure, however, claim 12 notes that the method is performed on an aircraft. Removal of the conductor would be necessary for the function of that aircraft, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove the conductor from the repaired thermoplastic structure for the advantage of functionality of the aircraft.
Patches are by definition a structure meant to fill an aperture, and therefore the thermoplastic structure includes an aperture for which to fill. ‘358 does not teach to remove a damaged area from a damaged thermoplastic structure to provide the thermoplastic structure. Bahramshahi teaches a preparation step of removing a damaged area from a damaged thermoplastic structure for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch ([0030]). In removing a damaged area from damaged thermoplastic structure, this creates a thermoplastic structure that includes an aperture as seen in Figure 5. The patch of ‘358 would cover the entirety of the aperture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to remove a damaged area of the thermoplastic structure as suggested by Bahramshahi for the advantage of better bonding of the thermoplastic patch.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745