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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025 and 08/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 20220017698 A1) [IDS dated:], herein Horikawa.
In regards to claim 1, Horikawa teaches a honeycomb sandwich panel comprising a honeycomb core sandwiched directly between prepreg sheets comprising carbon fiber, poly acrylonitrile (PAN) -based carbon fibers, and a resin comprising a thermosetting resin and a thermoplastic resin [Abstract, 0001, 0008, 0012, 0092, 0099, 0102, 0115, 0143, 0154-0156, claims 1-3, 13-15]. The resin directly bonds the prepreg sheets to the honeycomb core [0115-0116]. The thickness of the carbon fiber ply is 0.02 to 0.15 mm [0078, 0085]. This overlaps the claimed range for the ply.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 2, Horikawa further teaches the sandwich panel are for aircraft structural members [0002].
In regards to claim 3, Horikawa teaches a method of making honeycomb sandwich panel [0154]. The method comprising using uncured prepreg sheets comprising carbon fiber plies and thermosetting resin which further comprises a thermoplastic resin to sandwich a honeycomb core [0154]. The sandwich is then heated and cured, directly bonding the first and second prepreg sheets to each side of the core [0154, 0143]. The thickness of the carbon fiber ply is 0.02 to 0.15 mm [0078, 0085]. This overlaps the claimed range for the ply.
In regards to claim 5, Horikawa further teaches a third and fourth prepreg sheet are disposed adjacent to the first sheets that directly bond to the core and form a surface of the panel [0154, 0143]. Horikawa teaches the prepreg sheet is semi-cured under pressure some tackiness remains for bonding [0103-0104]. The sandwich is then heated and cured, directly bonding the first and second and third and fourth prepreg sheets to each side of the core [0154, 0143].
Claims 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 20220017698 A1) [IDS dated: 01/27/2025], herein Horikawa, as applied to claims 1-3, and 5 above, and further in view of Hauping et al. (CN 111497357 A), herein Hauping and Hoshina (US 20200384724 A1) [IDS dated: 01/27/2025], herein Hoshina.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 11497357 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 4, 11, Horikawa does not teach the fiber vol. percent of the first ply sheet and second or the third and fourth prepreg sheets.
Hauping teaches a honeycomb sandwich composite board [ lines 86-98]. Hauping teaches the upper and lower sandwich panels [lines 95-98]. The panels comprise three layers of fiber reinforced thermoplastic material including an interface and main [lines 100-103, claims 1, 9]. The interface layer of the panel, which is immediately bonded to the core, has a fiber content of 20-40 wt% [lines 679-683]. This overlaps the claimed range. The main layer has a fiber content of 30-80 wt% [lines 679-683]. The fiber content varies over the plies as low:high:low from the interface to the surface layers [lines 684-689].
Similarly, Hoshina teaches a carbon fiber reinforced plastic plate comprising three layers of carbon fiber reinforced plastic [Abstract]. The outer layers or interface layers have a fiber content of 20 to 40 vol% [0013]. The main layer has a fiber content of 50 to 60 vol% [0014]. The content in the main layer is such that the mechanical properties and physical properties are excellent [0031]. The content in the interface layer is such that there is some mechanical properties and physical properties but also the interface has enough of the resin/base material to form smooth interface and have good processability as well as a good adhesive bond to the core [0040]. The ranges of fiber volume are within or overlap the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the fiber volumes for the multilayer panels of Hoshina as the those of Horikawa. One would have been motivated to do so as Hoshina and Hauping all teach that the fiber volume varies from the immediate bonding ply to the structural plies and the surface ply. Hoshina teaches the ranges offer various processability and physical properties for each layer and thus would improve the skins of Horikawa in a similar manner. Additionally, as Hoshina teaches these are conventionally known ranges one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the fiber vol in the first and second prepreg sheets is 20-40 vol% in modified Horikawa.
In regards to claims 6, 8-10 and 12-13, Horikawa does not teach the fiber vol. percent of the first ply sheet and second or the third and fourth prepreg sheets.
Hauping teaches a honeycomb sandwich composite board [ lines 86-98]. Hauping teaches the upper and lower sandwich panels [lines 95-98]. The panels comprise three layers of fiber reinforced thermoplastic material including an interface and main [lines 100-103, claims 1, 9]. The interface layer of the panel, which is immediately bonded to the core, has a fiber content of 20-40 wt% [lines 679-683]. This overlaps the claimed range. The main layer has a fiber content of 30-80 wt% [lines 679-683]. The fiber content varies over the plies as low:high:low from the interface to the surface layers [lines 684-689].
Similarly, Hoshina teaches a carbon fiber reinforced plastic plate comprising three layers of carbon fiber reinforced plastic [Abstract]. The outer layers or interface layers have a fiber content of 20 to 40 vol% [0013]. The main layer has a fiber content of 50 to 60 vol% [0014]. The content in the main layer is such that the mechanical properties and physical properties are excellent [0031]. The content in the interface layer is such that there is some mechanical properties and physical properties but also the interface has enough of the resin/base material to form smooth interface and have good processability as well as a good adhesive bond to the core [0040]. The ranges of fiber volume are within or overlap the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the fiber volumes for the multilayer panels of Hoshina as the those of Horikawa. One would have been motivated to do so as Hoshina and Hauping all teach that the fiber volume varies from the immediate bonding ply to the structural plies and the surface ply. Hoshina teaches the ranges offer various processability and physical properties for each layer and thus would improve the skins of Horikawa in a similar manner. Additionally, as Hoshina teaches these are conventionally known ranges one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the fiber vol in the third and fourth prepreg sheets is 40-60 vol% in modified Horikawa.
In regards to claim 7, Horikawa further teaches a third and fourth prepreg sheet are disposed adjacent to the first and second sheets that directly bond to the core and form a surface of the panel [0154, 0143]. Horikawa teaches the prepreg sheet is semi-cured under pressure with some tackiness remaining for bonding [0103-0104]. The sandwich is then heated and cured, directly bonding the first and second and third and fourth prepreg sheets to each side of the core [0154, 0143].
In regards to claims 14-16, Horikawa further teaches the sandwich panel are for aircraft structural members [0002].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights