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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on September 30, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-7 are cancelled; claims 8-20 are withdrawn; claim 21 is amended; resulting in claims 21-25 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 21, the limitation in line 8 reciting “the first half body” appears to contain a typographical error that is intended to recite --the first body half-- in order to refer back to the first body half set forth in line 2 of the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation in line 8 reciting “the longitudinal axis” should be amended to recite --the first longitudinal axis-- in order to use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation in line 9 reciting “into the interior surface of the first skin” should be amended to recite --into the first interior surface of the first skin-- in order to use consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation in line 10 reciting “the first interior surface of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material” should be amended to recite --the first interior surface of the first skin--, as the claimed “first interior surface” is understood to refer to an interior surface of the first skin, rather than to a surface of the composite material.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation reciting “a second body half composed as the first body half with a second skin defining second interior and exterior surfaces and a second longitudinal axis” does not comply with the written description requirement.
As explained in MPEP 2163.05(I)(A), omission of a limitation can raise an issue regarding whether the inventor has possession of a broader, more generic invention. In the instant case, there is no disclosure in the instant specification of an underwater structure formed by joining a first body half with pre-formed ribs attached thereto with a second body half that does not have ribs attached thereto. In all of the embodiments according to the present invention of an underwater structure comprising two half cylinders joined to form a unitary structure, each of the first and second cylinders are stiffened half cylinders having pre-formed ribs attached to the respective first and second skins. See, e.g., paragraphs [0023], [0027], [0028] and Fig. 2, which illustrates an underwater capsule (200) formed by joining two stiffened half cylinders (100).
Although the claim requires that the second body half is “composed as” the first body half with a second skin, the pre-formed ribs recited in lines 7-12 are not a component of the claimed first body half but rather are attached thereto. The claim is therefore broader than the instant disclosure in that it does not require the presence of pre-formed ribs attached to the second body half.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation reciting “the faying surfaces of the ribs when fused into the interior surface of the first skin become in contact with the one or more continuous fibers of the first interior surface” does not comply with the written description requirement.
As explained in MPEP 2163.05(I)(A), a claim that omits an element which applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed does not comply with the written description requirement. In the instant case, there is no disclosure in the instant specification of an embodiment in which the pre-formed ribs are made of any material other than fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material. The use of fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material as the material of both the skin and the pre-formed ribs of the first and second body halves is an essential feature of the invention, given that the in-situ consolidation process is said to take advantage of the ability of the thermoplastic resin to melt, stick to itself (or fuse) and cool back to a solid structure ([0025]-[0026]).
Although the claim requires that the first skin of the first body half includes a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material, the claim does not require that the pre-formed ribs fused into the interior surface of the first skin are also made of fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material. The claim is therefore broader than the instant disclosure and omits an element that is identified as an essential or critical feature of the invention.
Regarding claims 22-25, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation reciting “a first body half composed of a first skin defined by one or more continuous fibers within a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the first skin being “defined by” continuous fibers within a fiber reinforced composite material.
In looking to paragraph [0026] of the as-filed specification, the fiber reinforced thermoplastic material is said to be applied to the mold, which contains the ribs/stiffeners, to form the skin. As the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material forming the skin passes over the faying surfaces of the ribs/stiffeners, the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material fuses to the ribs/stiffener [0026]. Paragraphs [0022]-[0023] further disclose that the half cylinders, including the reinforcing ribs/stiffeners, are formed from a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material, where the thermoplastic of the composite is PEEK, LMPAEK, PPS, PEI, or a combination thereof, while the fibers of the thermoplastic composite include long-continuous fibers (e.g., graphite fibers), fiberglass fibers, KEVLAR fibers, or a combination thereof.
Based on the above disclosure, the aforementioned limitation appears to intend to require that the first body half is composed of a first skin which is formed from a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material comprising a thermoplastic and continuous fibers within the thermoplastic. As noted in the written description rejections above, the instant specification indicates that the use of the fiber reinforced composite material as the material of the pre-formed ribs is essential to the instant invention. Based on the disclosure in paragraphs [0019] and [0021], each of the first and second body halves are understood to be composed of: (1) a skin and (2) one or more ribs attached to the skin.
For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation directed to the first body half being composed of a first skin “defined by” one or more continuous fibers within a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material is interpreted to mean that the first body half is composed of a first skin, wherein the first skin is formed of a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material comprising a thermoplastic and one or more continuous fibers. It is further suggested to amend claim 21 to indicate that the pre-formed ribs are a component of the first body half (e.g., that the first body half is composed of a first skin and one or more first pre-formed ribs), consistent with the disclosure in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation reciting “a second body half composed as the first body half with a second skin defining second interior and second exterior surfaces and a second longitudinal axis” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the limitation requiring that the second body half is “composed as” the first body half.
In particular, it is not clear whether the phrase “composed as” is intended to require that the second body half has an identical structure to that of the claimed first body half, if the second body half is composed of the same materials as the claimed first body half, etc. Based on the issues presented above with respect to claim 21, the claimed second body half being “composed as” the first body half is interpreted as not requiring that the second body half comprises pre-formed ribs. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 25, in the limitation reciting “wherein the thermoplastic composite material is comprised of at least one selected from the group of: polyetheretherketone (PEEK), low melting polyaryletherketone (LMPAEK), polyphenylenesulfide (PPS), polyetherimide (PEI), and combinations thereof”, the phrase “the thermoplastic composite material” lacks proper antecedent basis.
As explained above, claim 21 sets forth a “fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material” which is understood to include a thermoplastic and one or more continuous fibers, such that the materials listed in claim 25 appear to intend to further limit the thermoplastic of the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material.
Regarding claims 22-24, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 21.
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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekido et al. (EP 1134069, newly cited).
Regarding claim 21, Sekido et al. teaches a hollow fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) structure (underwater structure) which can be used in a variety of applications such as modes of transport (e.g., aircraft, automobiles, ships, boats, or vessels), fluid transportation means, and the like ([0001], [0044]). Sekido et al. teaches that the hollow FRP structure may be substantially integrally molded without having joined regions, or may be composed of a plurality of molded elements (first and second body halves) which are coupled (joined) by adhesion or by local vacuum molding ([0045], [0048]), thus forming a unitary structure in which the fibers of the first and second molded elements remain independent of one another. Sekido et al. teaches that the molding and subsequent coupling of individual elements enables the FRP structure to be produced cheaply [0048].
Sekido et al. teaches that the reinforcing fiber can have a continuous form which continues along the entire lengthwise direction of the structure ([0064]), such that the fibers are continuous for the length of each of the first and second body halves. Sekido et al. further teaches that there may be ribs or other such projections disposed on the inner face of the hollow structure in order to secure higher strength and rigidity ([0051], [0054]).
With respect to the limitation requiring that the one or more ribs are “pre-formed”, it is noted that the requirement that the ribs are pre-formed is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. In the instant case, Sekido et al. teaches that the ribs may be formed by injecting resin into a mold having grooves, where the resin fills the grooves while simultaneously impregnating the reinforcing fiber substrate ([0133]), thus resulting in a structure in which the faying surfaces of the ribs are fused into the interior surface of the FRP skin, forming a semi-monocoque structure, and are in contact with one or more continuous fibers of the FRP skin. The structure taught by Sekido et al. in which the ribs are formed integrally with the FRP skin is identical to the structure resulting from the claimed method in which the ribs are preformed and then fused into the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material of the skin. The product-by-process limitation requiring that the one or more ribs are “pre-formed” therefore does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 22, Sekido et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above, including that the reinforcing fiber can have a continuous form which continues along the entire lengthwise direction of the structure [0064]. Sekido et al. further teaches that the FRP structure may have a length of at least 2 m, wherein examples include 6.5 m and 4.5 m ([0127], [0155], [0161]), such that the continuous fibers have a length of at least about 6.5 ft, such as about 14.7 ft or about 21.3 ft, which fall within the claimed range of 4 to 30 ft.
Regarding claim 23, Sekido et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the volume content of the reinforcing fiber is preferably in the range of 35-70%, where the strength of the structure may be lowered below this range, while difficulties with resin impregnation and problems such as increased cost may occur if the content is too high [0066]. Sekido et al. therefore teaches a volume content of the continuous fibers which anticipates the broadly claimed range of “about 40% to about 60%”.
Regarding claim 24, Sekido et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the reinforcing fiber can be a known reinforcing fiber such as carbon fiber, glass fiber, aramid fiber, or the like [0057].
Regarding claim 25, Sekido et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the matrix resin from which the FRP is composed may be a polyphenylene sulfide resin [0067].
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claim 21 in the response filed September 30, 2025.
However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks filed September 30, 2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections based on Ivarsson are withdrawn, and new rejections based on Sekido et al. are presented in the office action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Canas Rios et al. (US 2020/0384699) teaches a method to integrate a first part and a second part comprising composite material, for example for integrating parts of an aircraft (e.g., ribs) with skins or shells or other parts of an aircraft [0002]. Canas Rios et al. teaches an in-situ consolidation (ISC) process for integration of first and second parts which each comprise thermoplastic [0032].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785