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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 12) in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) are 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEXCEL COMPOSITES LTD (GB 2 545 326 A; herein after “HEXCEL”) in view of either one of Joshua (US 2008/277057 A1) or PPG Industries Ohio Inc (WO 2020/167642 A1).
Regarding claim 1 – 3 and 12, HEXCEL teaches a multilayer structure, comprising: an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer layer (A) (see pages 10 lines 25-30, page 12, lines 1-35); and a carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic layer (B) (page 21 line 12 and onward).
However, HEXCEL fail to teach wherein the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 0 to 60 oC; glass transition temperature (Tg) of 0 to 45 oC; glass transition temperature (Tg) of 0 to 30 oC.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to composites, Joshua teaches composite material is typically cured at relatively high temperatures and pressures, in contrast to the operating conditions of the aircraft in which the fuselage skin typically encounters temperatures approaching -60°F. or lower at typical flight altitudes. Thus, engineering a damping material system that performs well at cold temperatures (normally requiring a very soft material) but can survive the heat and pressure when co-cured with the base material, may be particularly difficult. The ideal material that performs well at Such cold operating temperatures has a very low glass transition temperature (Tg). Such that it is in a soft transition phase at operating temperatures. Further, in order to use thin films of the damping material at these cold temperatures for low-weight applications, the modulus of elasticity of the material will typically be very low compared to the car bon/epoxy composite. Thus, the use of relatively soft mate rials to provide inherent damping within composite material structures may make it less stiff since the relatively soft damping material is Substantially less stiff than the typical plies of carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP), sometimes also referred to as organic composite materials (see [0004]).
Additionally, PPG Industries Ohio Inc teaches damping properties for aircraft and spacecraft, and using prepolymer with a glass transition temperature for example less than -20 oC and having ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer as sound damping properties (see[0056], [0065]).
Based on the suggestion provided by secondary references, both Joshua and/or PPG Industries Ohio Inc, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to have modified HEXCEL with selecting/optimizing ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer with low glass transition temperature, as taught by Joshua and/or PPG Industries Ohio Inc, for the benefit of providing good damping properties as needed in the composite structure produced, with other functional properties (see [0004] of Joshua or [0056] of PPG Industries Ohio Inc).
As for claim 4 – 6, HEXCEL further teaches a second layer of EVOH copolymer (page 12 lines 15-20), which would inherently include same organic chain or formula as claimed, including both oxygen, nitrogen, or sulfur atom, and n representing as claimed 1 to 20 atoms.
As for claims 7 – 8, HEXCEL further teaches wherein the ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer layer (A) is laminated onto at least one surface of the carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic layer (B) (see pages 10, lines 1 to page 21 lines 20); and PPG Industries Ohio Inc discloses wherein the multilayer structure is for an automobile part or an aircraft part ([339] and throughout).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0199779 A1 – pertains to ethylene-vinyl alcohol polymer and an additional layer ([0074] discloses glass transition temperature).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights