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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 and 04/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heath et al. (US 20200122361 A1) [ID dated: 04/22/2024], herein Heath.
In regards to claims 1-2 and 4, Heath teaches a mandrel for processing a part which includes a solid mandrel body of an elastomeric material, and hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body in a uniform distribution [Abstract, 0063, claim 1]. The uniform distribution of the hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body results in the distribution of voids being about 10% to about 30% void area in the solid mandrel body following creation of the micro-voids [0040, claim 7, Fig. 2, 0066]. The hollow particles comprise a trapped gas.
In regards to claim 3, As Heath teaches, the hollow micro-particles are embedded within the mandrel body in the uniform distribution axially and along a length of the mandrel body, the mandrel is expected to have an isotropic compressive stiffness [0040, 0066].
In regards to claim 6, Heath does not expressly teach a bulk modulus of the elastomer component is less than a bulk modulus of the elastomer material without the AVF. However, the mandrel of Heath is expected to meet the limitation as the voids created by the hollow micro-particles are expected to decrease the modulus of the material. Additionally, as the structure of the mandrel is similar to that of the claimed elastomer it is expected that the physical properties would be similar, see In re Best.
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
In regards to claim 7, Heath does not expressly teach wherein increasing the AVF of the elastomer component decreases a bulk modulus of the elastomer component. However, the mandrel of Heath is expected to meet the limitation as the voids created by the hollow micro-particles are expected to decrease the modulus of the material at increasing content of the hollow micro-particles. Additionally, as the structure of the mandrel is similar to that of the claimed elastomer it is expected that the physical properties would be similar, see In re Best.
In regards to claim 8, Heath teaches an assembly comprising an outer barrier, a curable material (124, 126) and a mandrel (104) for processing a part which includes a solid mandrel body with an elastomeric material, and hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body in a uniform distribution [Abstract, claim 1, Fig, 10, 0053-0057]. The uniform distribution of the hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body results in the distribution of voids being about 10% to about 30% void area in the solid mandrel body following creation of the micro-voids [0040, claim 7, Fig. 2].
In regards to claim 10, Heath further teaches the mandrel is removed from the cavity via deformation thus the internal cavity is open to an exterior of the curable material on one end for removal purposes [Figs. 10-11, 13, 0033, 0059, 0068].
In regards to claim 11, Heath further teaches the outer barrier completely surrounds the mandrel and curable material [Fig. 10, 0055].
In regards to claim 12, Heath further teaches the hollow micro-particles are polymer microspheres [0038].
In regards to claim 14, Heath teaches a method comprising: placing a base composite layer into a cavity of a tooling surface; inserting a mandrel into the cavity of the tooling surface such that the base composite layer is between the mandrel and the tooling surface, wherein the mandrel comprises a solid mandrel body having an elastomeric material and hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body in a uniform distribution, wherein the hollow micro-particles deform in response to a change in a processing environment resulting in a distribution of voids in the solid mandrel body; applying a skin to the mandrel and the base composite layer forming a package; enclosing the package in a vacuum bag and curing the base composite layer and the skin, wherein during curing the hollow micro-particles deform resulting in the distribution of voids in the solid mandrel body; and removing the mandrel from the cavity of the tooling surface following the curing [Claim 19, 0036, 0053, 0054, 0055]. Heath further teaches a mandrel for processing a part which includes a solid mandrel body with an elastomeric material, and hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body in a uniform distribution [Abstract, 0063, claim 1]. The uniform distribution of the hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body results in the distribution of voids being about 10% to about 30% void area in the solid mandrel body following creation of the micro-voids [0040, claim 7, Fig. 2, 0066]. The curing of the involves a heating step [0036].
In regards to claim 16, Heath teaches the method further includes, in addition to heating the package, the pressure is adjusted which involves removing gas in an autoclave [0008, 0033, 0036, 0055, Fig. 10, claims 10, 19].
In regards to claim 17, Heath teaches the method further he outer barrier comprises a first component (118) and a second component (130), and wherein the elastomer component and the curable material are arranged between the first component and the second component, and wherein the forming the assembly comprises fastening the first component and the second component together prior to the heating the assembly [Fig. 10, 0008, 0053, 0055].
In regards to claim 18, Heath further teaches the hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body release trapped air into the pores during heating [0037-0038].
In regards to claim 19, Heath further teaches wherein a compaction pressure is generated within the outer barrier during the heating the assembly via the micro-particles during heating [0029, 0033, 0050-0052].
In regards to claim 20, Heath further teaches increasing the amount of hollow micro-particles of the elastomer component reduces the compaction pressure as the amount of micro-particles effects the bulk modulus of the component and thus the compaction pressure [0029, 0033, 0050-0052].
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 5, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heath et al. (US 20200122361 A1), herein Heath, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above.
In regards to claim 5, Heath further teaches the uniform distribution of the hollow micro-particles embedded within the solid mandrel body results in the distribution of voids being about 10% to about 30% void area in the solid mandrel body following creation of the micro-voids [0040, claim 7, Fig. 2]. This overlaps the claimed range.
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 13, Heath further teaches the elastomer is a silicone by example [0032].
Heath differs from claim 13 by teaching silicone in a list of possible elastomeric materials, such that it cannot be said that the silicone species is anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the protective layers taught by Heath, including silicone. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 15, Heath further teaches the mandrel is removed and reused for future processing [0038]. As such, it would have been obvious that the future processing would include inserting the elastomer mandrel and a second curable material into the outer barrier or a second outer barrier to form a second assembly; and heating the second assembly. One would have been motivated to do so as Heath teaches the mandrel is reusable and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heath et al. (US 20200122361 A1), herein Heath, as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Clark (US 20210253220 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Heath does not expressly teach wherein the at least one elastomer/mandrel component comprises two elastomer/mandrel components, and wherein at least one portion of the curable material is arranged between the two elastomer components/mandrels.
Clark teaches an assembly comprising two mandrel/support tools/ (530) components wherein at least one portion of the curable material is arranged between the two elastomer components/mandrel [Abstract, Figs. 5A, 7, 0019, 0042, 0069-0074].
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 mandrels of Heath to create an assembly comprising two mandrels with at least one portion of the curable material is arranged between the two elastomer components/mandrels as taught by Clark. One would have been motivated to do so as Clark teaches such a configuration is conventionally known to utilize at least two mandrels to create a stringer stiffened panel and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
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