Ex Parte Hanks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 2016

13761785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 131761,785 02/07/2013 63759 7590 06/17/2016 DUKEW, YEE YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dennis James Hanks UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12-1028-US-NP 1029 EXAMINER LEE,JAEYUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DENNIS JAMES HANKS and JACK A. WOODS Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-23 and 26 of Application 13/761,785 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (April 11, 2014). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The Boeing Co. is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 BACKGROUND The '785 Application describes processes and apparatus for reworking and/or reinforcing structures, especially composite materials. Spec. i-f 1. In particular, the Specification discusses methods and apparatus for reworking structures from one side thereof. Id. Claim 1 is representative of the '785 Application's claims and is reproduced below: 1. A method of reworking an area of a structure, compnsmg: placing a patch on the structure, including placing an inner side of the patch against the structure; inserting a vacuum source into the patch from an outer side of the patch, the vacuum source comprising an open tip of a hollow needle; flowing resin onto the outer side of the patch; and, using the vacuum source to force resin through the patch to an inner side of the patch. Br. 18 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1-7, 11-15, 18-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination ofStenbaek, 2 Hansen, 3 and Coltrin. 4 Final Act. 3. 2 US 2011/0036482 Al, published February 17, 2011. 3 US 7,803,302 B2, issued September 28, 2010. 4 US 6,385,836 Bl, issued May 14, 2002. 2 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 2. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, Coltrin, and McClure. 5 Final Act. 21. 3. Claims 9, 10, 16, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, Coltrin, and Hanks. 6 Final Act. 22. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 11-15, 18-22, and 26 as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin. Final Act. 3. Appellants present separate arguments with respect to three of the claims subject to this ground of rejection: claims 1, 2, and 6. See Br. 10-14. Accordingly, we divide the claims subject to this ground of rejection into three groups: (A) claims 1, 3-5, 11-15, 18-22, and 26; (B) claim 2; and (C) claims 6 and 7. \Ve address each group of claims below. Group A. We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). The remaining claims in this group will stand or fall with claim 1. 7 5 US 6,555,045 B2, issued April 29, 2003. 6 US 2012/0305169 Al, published December 6, 2012. 7 We recognize that this group of claims includes independent claims 11 and 20. Appellants do not present arguments for reversal of the rejection of these claims and the claims dependent therefrom. See Br. 14. We, therefore, group all three of the '785 Application's independent claims together. 3 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 Appellants argue that "the combined art [Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin] does not disclose 'inserting a vacuum source into the patch from an outer side of the patch, the vacuum source comprising an open tip of a hollow needle."' Br. 11 (quoting claim 1 ). In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Stenbaek describes a method for reworking an area of the structure that includes the steps of inserting a vacuum source from an outer side of the patch, flowing resin onto the outer side of the patch and using the vacuum source to force resin through the patch to an inner side of the patch. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Stenbaek i-fi-127, 53). The Examiner further found that Stenbaek is silent as to the method for inserting the vacuum source into the patch. Id. at 4. In particular, Stenbaek does not describe the vacuum source as comprising the open tip of a hollow needle. Id. The Examiner also found that Hansen describes the use of a syringe to remove air from the dry spots in a resin- infused patch so that the resin fills the dry spots. Id. at 4--5 (citing Hansen 1 ... 11 I"\,... ff\\._ COL 1, 11. Lj--OU J. Based upon these findings, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the method taught by Hansen-removing air by using the open tip of a hollow needle as a vacuum source-to perform Stenbaek's step of infusing resin into a patch through a vacuum-assisted resin infusion process. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that [T]he combination of Stenbaek and Hansen does not support the interpretation put forth by the Examiner. Hansen discloses its vacuum channels (analogous to Stenbaek's vacuum port) and its syringe needle as distinct features used during different steps of its process. . . . In combination, Stenbaek' s vacuum 4 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 port that is unrelated to a syringe needle and Hansen's syringe needle that is unrelated to a vacuum port does not disclose a vacuum port comprising a syringe needle. Thus, the combined art does not disclose "inserting a vacuum source into the patch from an outer side of the patch, the vacuum source comprising an open tip of a hollow needle," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 11-12. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner, see Answer 25, that Hansen describes or suggests using a hollow needle to create a vacuum port by inserting the needle through the vacuum bag. Hansen further describes the use of the syringe as a vacuum source that withdraws a small amount of air from the vacuum bag via the hollow needle vacuum port. Hansen, therefore, describes or suggests that a syringe and hollow needle can be used as a vacuum source and vacuum port. Based upon these findings of fact, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a hollow needle as a vacuum port in the process described or suggested by the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin. We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11-15, 18-22, and 26. Group B. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 2 should be reversed because the combined prior art "does not disclose 'placing a bond enhancing layer between the dry fiber patch and the structure,' as set forth in claim 2." Br. 12. The Examiner found that Stenbaek describes the use of one or more additional layers of reinforcing fiber that are placed between the repair patch and the structure. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Stenbaek Fig. 4; i-f 53). Although not expressly stated in the Final Action, the Examiner apparently found that 5 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 Stenbaek' s reinforcing fibers correspond to the claimed bond enhancing layer. See also Advisory Act. 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding that Stenbaek' s reinforcing fibers correspond to the claimed bond enhancing layer is erroneous. Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellants argue that Stenbaek does not disclose that the layers of reinforcing fiber enhanced the bond between the repair patch and the underlying structure. Id. We agree with Appellants. Stenbaek is silent regarding the effect, if any, of the reinforcing fiber upon the bond between the repair patch and the underlying structure. Although the Examiner asserts that Stenbaek "disclose[s] the additional layer 7a (reinforcing layer) which is in between the patch and the part being repaired which will increase the bond strength in the finished patched assembly," the Examiner does not identify the location of this alleged disclosure in Stenbaek. Nor are we able to locate the disclosure ourselves. Ans. 26. We reverse the rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin because the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Group C. We select claim 6 as representative of this group of claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 6 reads: 6. The method of claim 5, wherein inserting the vacuum source further includes inserting the hollow needle through the vacuum bag, and forming a substantially vacuum tight seal between the hollow needle and the vacuum bag. Br. 19 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 6 should be reversed because "the combined art [Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin] does not disclose 'wherein inserting the vacuum source further includes inserting the hollow 6 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 needle through the vacuum bag."' Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner found that the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin discloses a method wherein the step of inserting the vacuum source includes inserting a hollow needle through the vacuum bag. Final Act. 11- 12. The Examiner further found that Coltrin describes placing a small amount of resin on top of the vacuum bag at the point where the needle is to be inserted through the vacuum bag. Id. at 12 (citing Coltrin col. 4, 11. 10- 22; Fig. 1 ). As Coltrin explains, the small amount of resin on the vacuum bag's surface forms a small bead that provides a seal to prevent air leakage around the needle when it is inserted through the vacuum bag. Coltrin col. 4, 11. 17-20. Thus, Coltrin describes or suggests each limitation recited in claim 6. and 7. For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 6 -...... â€¢ .. â€¢ ..... l"'i1 â€¢ {") 1 KeJecnon ~. t.Aaim cs reaas: 8. The method of claim 1, wherein inserting the vacuum source into the patch includes: inserting a plurality of hollow needles through the patch at spaced apart locations over an area of the patch. Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejected claim 8 as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, Coltrin, and McClure. Final Act. 21. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 8 should be reversed because the combined prior art does not disclose the claim limitation recited in claim 8. Br. 14--15. 7 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 The Examiner found that the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin does not describe or suggest a method wherein inserting vacuum source into the patch includes inserting a plurality of hollow needles through the patch. Final Act. 21. The Examiner further found that McClure describes a method for producing fiber reinforced composite structures. In McClure's method a flexible, including permeable bag or covering, is positioned on top of the topmost fiber reinforced layer so that the edges of the covering are sealed against the mold surface to form a chamber. Id. at 22 (citing McClure col. 4, 11. 30-46; Fig. 7). A vacuum is then drawn within the chamber by connecting a plurality of vacuum ports distributed across the cover to a vacuum source. Id. Based upon these findings, the Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a plurality of vacuum ports-in this case, a plurality of vacuum needles-as described by McClure to draw vacuum in the method described or suggested by the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, and Coltrin. Id. We do not discern reversible error in these findings of fact or in the conclusion of obviousness. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 8 as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, Coltrin, and McClure. Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 16, 17, and 23 as unpatentable over the combination of Stenbaek, Hansen, Coltrin, and Hanks. Final Act. 22. 8 Appeal2015-002145 Application 13/761,785 Appellants argue for reversal of the rejection of these claims as a group. See Br. 15-16. In particular, Appellants argue that Hanks is not relied upon to disclose the features discussed above in Sections B and C. Claims 9-10, 16-17, and 23 each include features analogous to one or more of the features discussed above [in] Sections B and C, which the cited art does not disclose. Thus, the combined art does not disclose all of the features as set forth in claims 9-10, 16-17, and 23 and the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejections are improper. Id. at 15-16. Because Appellants' arguments regarding this rejection appear inÂ§ C, we assume that Appellants' reference toÂ§Â§ Band C is an inadvertent error and that Appellants intended to refer to Â§ Â§ A and B, which contain Appellants' arguments regarding Rejections 1 and 2. For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 11- 15, 18-22, and 26. Because none of claims 9, 10, 16, 17, and 23 contain limitations analogous to those recited in claim 2, we affirm Rejection 3 with respect to each of the rejected claims. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claim 2 and affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-23, and 26. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9