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 § 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 1-7 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.
Regarding claims 1-7, claim 1 recites a second layer of magnetic field intensifier material, the second layer comprising electrically conductive fiber, “preferably of carbon”. It is unclear if the electrically conductive fiber of the second layer is the magnetic field intensifier material, or if the magnetic field intensifier material is separate from the electrically conductive fiber.
Additionally, it is unclear if the recitation of “preferably of carbon” is merely a recitation of a preferred embodiment and not required by the claim, or if the recitation of “preferably of carbon” is necessarily required by the claim.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the first and second layer joined together defining a lamina of very easily heated composite material. It is unclear exactly what material is required, as “very easily heated” is subjective and qualitative.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the second layer having a thickness in relation to the first layer, so as to make the lamina suitable for being consolidated and in-situ bonded to another lamina “of the same type” by electromagnetic induction. It is unclear what the scope of “the same type” necessarily entails, as the “type” may refer to same structure, composition, use, or some other relationship “type.”
Additionally, claim 1 recites that the first and second layer are joined to form one said lamina of “super-weldable composite material” by hot compression moulding, “preferably by compression moulding”. It is unclear exactly what material is required, as “super-weldable” is subjective and qualitative.
Additionally, it is unclear if the recitation of “preferably by compression moulding” is merely a recitation of a preferred embodiment and not required by the claim, or if the recitation of “preferably by compression moulding” is necessarily required by the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the “method according to claim 1” comprising the operation of bonding as claimed. Claim 1 is a product claim directed to a composite material, which does not require an operation of bonding. Therefore, the recitation of “the method of claim 1” lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear exactly how the limitations of claim 2 are directed to the product of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a product by process limitation and not as a method claim.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the electrically conductive fibers of the second layer form a fabric or a non-woven fabric. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to differentiate a fabric and a non-woven fabric, as they are both fabrics.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2006/0035548 to Goto.
Regarding claims 1-7, Goto teaches a prepreg comprising reinforcing fiber, a sheet-like reinforcing fiber substrate containing a reinforcing fiber, and a matrix resin, wherein the matrix resin is impregnated into the sheet-like reinforcing fiber substrate (Goto, Abstract). Goto teaches that the fiber used in the sheet-like reinforcing fiber substrate is preferably carbon fiber (Id., paragraphs 0022, 0099), or alternatively graphite fiber (Id., paragraph 0045). Note that graphite comprises carbon and is inherently electrically conductive. Goto teaches that suitable examples of the sheet-like reinforcing fiber substrate used in the prepreg includes plain weave fabrics and non-woven fabrics, wherein woven fabrics which offer superior levels of handling are preferred (Id., paragraphs 0023, 0102). Goto teaches examples of matrix resins including thermoplastic resins (Id., paragraphs 0024, 0098, 0105). Goto teaches that the substrate bonded to the prepreg comprises unidirectional carbon fibers (Id., Examples 25 and 30), wherein the substrate is also impregnated with the matrix resin that is impregnated within the reinforcing fibers (Id., paragraph 0103). Goto teaches the prepregs or molding intermediates may be laminated and arranged (Id., paragraphs 0055, 0118). Goto teaches heating the prepreg and intermediate material (Id., paragraph 0110). Goto teaches that the ratio between the thickness of the prepreg and the thickness of the substrate is within a range of 0.1 to 2.5 (Id., paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate of Goto, comprising a nonwoven or woven prepreg laminated to a unidirectional carbon fiber fabric impregnated with a thermoplastic resin, and having a thickness ratio, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate based on the totality of the teachings of Goto.
Regarding the laminate being used for aeronautical applications, Goto teaches that fiber-reinforced composites were known in the art as being suitable for industrial applications such as aircraft (Goto, paragraphs 0002-0003). Additionally, the limitation is interpreted as being directed to the intended use of the laminate. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since Goto teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, the invention of Goto appears capable of the claimed use.
Regarding the lamina being suitable for being consolidated by electromagnetic induction, Goto teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Therefore, the invention of Goto appears capable of being consolidated as claimed.
Regarding the first and second layer joined to form a lamina of super-weldable composite material, and the limitations of claim 2, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, Goto teaches forming the prepreg by heating and compressing (Goto, paragraph 0042). Additionally, Goto teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Therefore, the invention of Goto appears to be formed as claimed.
Alternatively, absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Goto teaches that the fibers may be carbon fibers, such as woven or nonwoven fabrics. Note that woven fabrics would be parallel to a face. Additionally, although Goto does not appear to teach the claimed equivalent electrical resistivity, Goto teaches carbon fibers, which are electrically conductive fibers, arranged as claimed. Therefore, the claimed electrical resistivity would appear to be inherent to or naturally flow from the teachings of Goto. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Goto teaches that the prepreg may comprise a nonwoven fabric. A nonwoven fabric would appear to inherently comprise fibers in at least three directions, and in a direction transversal to the face, as a nonwoven fabric is a three-dimensional fabric.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Goto teaches that the prepreg may comprise a nonwoven fabric and a matrix resin, wherein the substrate is also impregnated with the matrix resin that is impregnated within the reinforcing fibers (Goto, paragraph 0103).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2006/0035548 to Goto in view of USPN 8,962,130 to Kruckenberg.
Regarding claims 1-7, the teachings of Goto set forth above are incorporated herein. Goto teaches that the fiber used in the sheet-like reinforcing fiber substrate is preferably carbon fiber, or alternatively graphite fiber, and suggests use in industrial applications such as aircraft. Additionally, Kruckenberg teaches low density lightning strike protection for use in airplanes, including a surface film comprising a thermoplastic polymer and low-density electrically conductive materials such as carbon nanofiber and carbon nanotubes (Kruckenberg, Abstract). Kruckenberg teaches that from an economic perspective, the use of carbon nanofibers is preferred over carbon nanotubes, but their conductivity is significantly less (Id., column 10 line 59 to column 11 line 11). However, Kruckenberg teaches that a relatively large amount of relatively low-cost nanofibers is used, providing one amount of conductivity, or a relatively small amount of relatively highly-conductive carbon nanotubes is used to provide a relatively equivalent amount of conductivity relative to when higher amounts of less highly-conductive carbon nanofibers are used (Id.). Kruckenberg teaches that carbon nanofibers can be aligned within a film (Id., column 11 lines 17-22). Kruckenberg teaches that nanotubes aide in meeting gap requirements, and assist in minimizing microcracking by reducing the matrix coefficient of thermal expansion (Id., column 5 lines 16-28, column 11 lines 23-28). Kruckenberg teaches that the carbon nanotubes lower the surface resistivity to dissipate the energy from a strike without damage to the plies beneath (Id., column 11 lines 29-38). Kruckenberg teaches that the carbon nanotubes can be spun into yarns or ropes and woven into fabrics (Id., column 11 lines 57-59). Kruckenberg teaches that the lower resistance of nanotubes is preferred over nanofibers (Id., column 13 line 64 to column 14 line 5, Tables 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate of Goto, wherein the carbon fibers are electrically conductive carbon nanofibers or carbon nanotubes having an electrical resistivity, such as within the claimed range, for use in aircraft applications, as taught by Kruckenberg, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate for use in aircraft comprising carbon fibers or nanotubes known in the art as predictably providing benefits including low-density lightning strike protection and lower surface resistivity suitable for the intended application.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2006/0035548 to Goto in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0206469 to Van Wijngaarden.
Regarding claims 1-7, the teachings of Goto set forth above are incorporated herein. Goto teaches that the fiber used in the sheet-like reinforcing fiber substrate is preferably carbon fiber, or alternatively graphite fiber, and suggests use in industrial applications such as aircraft. Additionally, Goto teaches heating the prepreg and intermediate material.
Van Wijngaarden teaches electromagnetic welding of moulded parts wherein a mould and at least two moulded parts for coupling are placed in the mould, wherein at least a contact surface between the moulded parts comprises a thermally activated coupling means and an induction-sensitive component (Van Wijngaarden, Abstract). Van Wijngaarden teaches that the inductor comprises an electrical inductor as an electrically conductive component, such as carbon fibre (Id., Abstract, paragraph 0013). Van Wijngaarden teaches that owing to the Joule effect, the Foucault currents generate the heat required to melt the thermoplastic material and/or activate the coupling means (Id., paragraph 0014). Van Wijngaarden teaches that it is advantageous of the thermally activated coupling means comprises a thermoplastic plastic (Id., paragraph 0019). Van Wijngaarden teaches that carbon fibres incorporated in a thermoplastic plastic are recommended because the carbon fibres also improve the material strength (Id., paragraph 0020). Van Wijngaarden teaches a first and a second moulded part brought into contact in a magnetic field, wherein heat develops locally in the carbon fibres under the influence of an electromagnetic field, whereby the thermoplastic plastic is heated to above the melting point (Id., paragraphs 0042, 0046). Van Wijngaarden teaches that use of an electromagnetic field in the welding enables very controlled, uniform and target heating, so that overheating resulting in degradation of material is prevented (Id., paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the laminate of Goto, wherein the carbon fibers are electrically conductive to allow for electromagnetic welding, as taught by Van Wijngaarden, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate comprising carbon fibers in the art as predictably providing benefits including controlled, uniform and target heating, so that overheating resulting in degradation of material is prevented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights