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 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 4, “the second layer has a thickness of less than 100 pm, or a thickness of less than 70 pm, or a thickness of between 30 pm and 80 pm” should read --the second layer has a thickness of less than 100 µm, or a thickness of less than 70 µm, or a thickness of between 30 µm and 80 µm--; and
in claim 5, “the second layer is positioned in the tape structure facing during placement of the composite structure to be manufactured” should read -- the second layer is positioned in the tape structure facing away during placement of the composite structure to be manufactured--.
In regards to said claim 4 limitation, based on the specification and the original claims, it appears the units of the second layer thickness is in micrometers, not picometers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ellis (PG-PUB 2015/0129128).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis teaches a tape structure suitable for use in an automated fiber placement method to manufacture a composite structure [0064], the tape structure comprising:
a first layer configured as a support layer (Figure 2 and 3 and [0029], [0046]-[0047], [0061]) and
a second layer connected to the first layer and configured as a pre-impregnated layer (Figure 2 and 3 and [0074]),
wherein the first layer is removable from the second layer during or after placement of the second layer on the composite structure to be manufactured [0046]-[0047].
Regarding claim 3, Ellis teaches the tape structure as applied to claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises unidirectional fibers [0057], [0062], [0074].
Regarding claim 4, Ellis teaches the tape structure as applied to claim 1, wherein the second layer has a thickness of less than 100 µm (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ellis teaches the tape structure as applied to claim 1.
Ellis does not teach the second layer is positioned in the tape structure facing during placement of the composite structure to be manufactured.
The claimed invention is drawn to the tape structure, not the composite structure to be manufactured. Given that the tape structure of Ellis is identical to the claimed tape structure, the tape structure of Ellis would be capable of use such that the second layer is positioned in the tape would face away during placement of the composite structure to be manufactured.
Regarding claim 6, Ellis teaches the tape structure as applied to claim 1, wherein the tape structure is provided on a spool [0039], [0041], [0059].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreman (PG-PUB 2021/0139657).
Regarding claim 15, Foreman teaches a composite structure, such as fuel tank, part of a fuel tank or fuel tank access cover, a nacelle, or part of an aircraft [0029], made from a tape structure,
the composite structure capable of being manufactured using an automated fiber placement method,
the method comprising:
feeding the tape structure to an automated fiber placement device,
placing the tape structure on a composite structure or a previous laminated layer formed on the composite structure by moving a laying head over the composite structure or the previous laminated layer,
compacting the tape structure to establish a permanent connection between the second layer and the composite structure or a previous laminated layer, peeling the first layer off the second layer on or after placement and removing the first layer [0096]-[0097],
wherein the tape structure comprises:
a first layer and a second layer connected to the first layer with the first layer
being configured as a support layer and the second layer being configured as a pre-impregnated layer [0087]-[0089],
wherein the first layer is capable of being removed from the second layer during or after placement of the second layer on the composite structure to be manufactured [0021], [0087]-[0088].
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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 (see MPEP § 2113).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (PG-PUB 2015/0129128), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Foreman (PG-PUB 2021/0139657).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis teaches the tape structure as applied to claim 1, wherein the first layer is formed by a support liner comprising a polymer and the second layer comprises a thermosetting matrix consisting of an uncured thermosetting polymer comprising a mixture of resins and a plurality of fibers embedded therein [0030]-[0038], [0062]. Ellis teaches a mixture of resins, such as epoxy resins [0032]-[0038].
Ellis does not teach the thermosetting polymer comprising a mixture of resins and curing agents.
Foreman teaches a tape comprising a prepreg material [0020] including a thermosetting resin [0073], such as a mixture including epoxy [0074] and a curing agent to assist with for curing [0028], [0076].
Both Ellis and Foreman are drawn to the same endeavor pertaining to tapes comprising a thermosetting matrix. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the matrix composition of Ellis with curing agents for the benefit of assisting with curing the mixture of thermosetting resin, as taught by Foreman.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights