DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hethcock (US 20110277937).
As to claim 1, Hethcock teaches a method for manufacturing a composite part including positioning a base plate (Fig. 4A) comprising a first plurality of perforations (item 89) and positioning a first plurality of layers of a fibrous preform over the base plate (Fig. 1, items 13, 15, and 17). Hethcock teaches positioning a stripper plate (Fig. 3, item 77) comprising a second plurality of perforations (Fig. 3, item 91) over the first plurality of layers (Fig. 3, item 11). Hethcock compresses ([0051]) the first plurality of layers between the base plate and the stripper plate (as shown in Fig. 3) and providing through-thickness reinforcement in the fibrous preform by disposing a textile needle (Fig. 1, item 27) through at least one perforation of at least one of the first plurality of perforations or the second plurality of perforations ([0050]) and at least partially into the fibrous preform (Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hethcock (US 20110277937) in view of Thibaud (US 20200061868).
As to claim 5, Hethcock teaches a method for manufacturing a composite part including positioning a fibrous preform (Fig. 1, items 13, 15, and 17) with a preform tooling arrangement comprising a base plate (Fig. 4A) and a stripper plate (Fig. 3, item 77), wherein the base plate and stripper plate comprises a plurality of perforations (Fig. 3, item 91, Fig. 4A, item 89). Hethcock compresses ([0051]) the fibrous preform between the base plate and the stripper plate (as shown in Fig. 3). Hethcock moves a textile needle (Fig. 1, item 27) through the perforations into the fibrous preform ([0050]).
Hethcock is silent to moving the fibrous preform into a furnace while the fibrous preform remains in the preform tooling arrangement, heating the fibrous preform to a densification temperature while the fibrous preform remains in the preform tooling arrangement, and flowing gases through the plurality of perforations and into the fibrous preform to densify the fibrous preform via chemical vapor infiltration.
Thibaud teaches a preform tool similar in configuration to that of Hethcock. Thibaud places a fibrous preform into a the preform tooling arrangement (Fig. 3), moves the fibrous preform and tooling into an oven/furnace ([0047]), heats the fibrous preform to a densification temperature in the tooling arrangement ([0048]), and flows gases through the plurality of perforations and into the fibrous preform to densify the fibrous preform via chemical vapor infiltration (Fig. 3 and [0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Thibaud steps into Hethcock because:
(i) Hethcock teaches/suggests using the device for joining and bonding parts together, and Thibaud teaches a process for joining/bonding layers together by chemical vapor infiltration, with a reasonable expectation of success being evident from the similarity in the apparatuses and parts, or
(ii) Thibaud teaches an obvious interchangeable substitute process for bonding parts together. Hethcock provides a process which differs from the claimed process because it uses resin instead of chemical vapor infiltration, however, Thibaud provides similar fiber materials and apparatus, and a bonding process achieved by chemical vapor infiltration. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted CVI for resin transfer molding to provide the predictable result that the article would be bonded by vapor instead of resin.
As to claims 6 and 7, Hethcock teaches a needle (Fig. 1, item 27) which is configured in the claimed manner and is interpreted as a tufting needle with barbs that push layers already disposed in the prefrom through the thickness of the preform. As to claim 10, Thibaud teaches a clamping device that comprises a first clamp half (bolt head 101) and a second clamp half (nut 102) wherein the nut is configured to move toward the head of the bolt to bias the parts together.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hethcock (US 20110277937) in view of Thibaud (US 20200061868), and further in view of Subramanian (US 7,754,126). Hethcock and Thibaud teach the subject matter of claim 5 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Hethcock teaches a fibrous filament for through-thickness reinforcement (see rejection of claim 5 above), but is silent to a fugitive fiber burnt away to create channels which are densified by CVI in the channels created by burning away of fugitive fibers.
Subramanian teaches forming an article which contains fugitive fibers (Fig. 5, item 63) which are subsequently burned (5:18-20) and subsequently densifying or rigidizing the article by chemical vapor infiltration (5:38-45).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to use the Subramanian fugitive fibers in the modified Hethcock process because the use of the fugitive fibers would form matrix rich regions that lead to improved mechanical properties and enhanced fracture toughness (3:5-8). Hethcock and Thibaud teach a base process upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement, however, Subramanian teaches a process improved in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this same improvement to the modified Hethcock process in order to provide matrix rich regions that improve mechanical properties of the resulting article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the best available prior art does not teach or suggest a stripper plate with an expanding joint, moving an expanding joint to a contracted position and moving the expanding position to conform to a second plurality of layers positioned over a first plurality of layers. Claims 3 and 4 are indicated allowable by dependence.
Regarding claim 9, in combination with the (extensive list of) limitations already present in claim 5, the best available prior art does not further teach the foam layer and burning it away during heat treatment or CVI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights