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 .
Claim Interpretation
For Claim 21, per MPEP 2113, this claim is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim wherein if the final product is known then the process by which it is form is not patently novel in an product claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-222 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorn (US PgPub #2017/0355151) in view of Kismarton (US PgPub #2012/0223187), Kismarton (US PgPub #2013/0330503), and McWithey (US Patent #4411380).
For Claim 1, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose a joint for skin structure, comprising: a first end portion (101); a second end portion (102), wherein the first and second end portions are positioned in an overlying relationship with each other, wherein: a first plurality of bores (103) is positioned in a first row within the first end portion, such that adjacent bores within the first plurality of bores are spaced apart from one another; a second plurality of bores (103) is positioned in a second row within the second end portion, such that adjacent bores within the second plurality of bores are spaced apart from one another; and a first bore of the first plurality of bores and a first bore of the second plurality of bores have a first common central axis and a second bore of the first plurality of bores, positioned adjacent and spaced apart from the first bore of the first plurality of bores, and a second bore of the second plurality of bores, positioned adjacent to and spaced apart from the first bore of the second plurality of bores, have a second common central axis, such that a line of securement extends traverse between the first common axis and the second common central axis, wherein the first row and the second row are disposed axially relative to the line of securement.
While Jorn ‘151 discloses that the skin structures are composite and teaches a line of securement between the through-holes (103) it is silent about them being metallic skins with reinforcing fibers. However, figure 4 and 12 and paragraph [0046] of Kismarton ‘187 teach a metallic skin structure having reinforcing fibers (44) embedded within along the entire circumferential axis (14) so that they are orthogonal to the connection of the sections of skin and would extend through a line of securement. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jorn ‘151 with the specific metallic skin with fiber reinforcement as taught by Kismarton ‘187. The motivation to do so would be to provide added strength in the hoop direction.
While Jorn ‘151 discloses that it is known to use composite materials for the skin on an aircraft where holes are created for joining the skin and Kismarton ‘187 teaches that it is known to have fibers of the composite going around the diameter of the fuselage so as to provide hoop stress strength as well as having fibers aligned in other directions, they are not specific about the fibers being ceramic or extend into and through the bore holes. However, figure 3 and paragraphs [0030 and 0037] of Kismarton ‘503 clearly teach that there are ceramic fibers (66) in various directions that extend along the length of the skin and holes (70) are drilled into the skin, thereby creating bore holes in which fibers extend into and through the more hole (70). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jorn ‘151 and Kismarton ‘187 with the fibers extending into and through bore holes as taught by Kismarton ‘503. The motivation to do so would be provide the extra strength with the fibers as well as suppressing or delating ply splitting and crack propagation.
While Jorn ‘151 in view of Kismarton ‘187 teach a fiber reinforcing skin it is silent about it being between fifty and sixty ten thousands of an inch. However, figures 4-5 and column 3, lines 9-10 of McWithey ‘380 teaches silicon carbide fibers being 0.0057 inches in diameter and the fibers being embedded at a depth of at least one thousandth of an inch as the top layer (25) is 0.002 inches thick. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Jorn ‘151 with the fiber thickness and placement as taught in McWithey ‘380 in order to provide a desired reinforcement strength.
For Claim 3, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose that first fastener (104) through the first bore of the first plurality of bores and through the first bore of the second plurality of bores.
For Claim 4, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose that the first fastener comprises a rivet.
For Claim 5, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose a second fastener (104) extends through the second bore of the first plurality of bores and through the second bore of the second plurality of bores.
For Claim 6, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose that the second fastener is a rivet.
For Claim 7-10, while Jorn ‘151 in view of Kismarton ‘187 discloses a plurality of adjacent reinforcing fibers spaced apart from one another, it is silent about them being in specific locations closer to a first or second surface. However, figures 3 and 5 of Kismarton ‘503 teach a fiber reinforcing skin that has reinforcing fibers in layers so that there are a plurality of reinforcing fibers closer each of the first and second surfaces of the skin. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jorn ‘151 with the plurality of layers located at different distances throughout the skin as taught by Kismarton ‘503. The motivation to do so would be to provide reinforcing strength at different locations of the skin.
For Claim 11, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose positioning a first end portion (101) in overlapping relationship to a second end portion (102), wherein: a first plurality of bores (103) is positioned in a first row within the first end portion, such that adjacent bores within the first plurality of bores are spaced apart from one another; a second plurality of bores positioned in a second row within the second end portion, such that adjacent bores within the second plurality of bores are spaced apart from one another; and a first bore of the first plurality of bores and a first bore of the second plurality of bores have a first common central axis and a second bore of the first plurality of bores, positioned adjacent and spaced apart from the first bore of the first plurality of bores, and a second bore of the second plurality of bores, positioned adjacent to and spaced apart from the first bore of the second plurality of bores, have a second common central axis, such that a line of securement extends traverse between the first common central axis and the second common central axis, wherein the first row and the second row are disposed axially relative to the line of securement.
While Jorn ‘151 discloses that the skin structures are composite and teaches a line of securement between the through-holes (103), it is silent about them being metallic skins with reinforcing fibers. However, figure 4 and 12 and paragraph [0046] of Kismarton ‘187 teach a metallic skin structure having reinforcing fibers (44) embedded within along the entire circumferential axis (14) so that they are orthogonal to the connection of the sections of skin and would extend through a line of securement. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jorn ‘151 with the specific metallic skin with fiber reinforcement as taught by Kismarton ‘187. The motivation to do so would be to provide added strength in the hoop direction.
While Jorn ‘151 discloses that it is known to use composite materials for the skin on an aircraft where holes are created for joining the skin and Kismarton ‘187 teaches that it is known to have fibers of the composite going around the diameter of the fuselage so as to provide hoop stress strength as well as having fibers aligned in other directions, they are not specific about the fibers extend into and through the more holes. However, figure 3 and paragraph [0037] of Kismarton ‘503 clearly teach that there are fibers (66) in various directions that extend along the length of the skin and holes (70) are drilled into the skin, thereby creating bore holes in which fibers extend into and through the more hole (70). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jorn ‘151 and Kismarton ‘187 with the fibers extending into and through bore holes as taught by Kismarton ‘503. The motivation to do so would be provide the extra strength with the fibers as well as suppressing or delating ply splitting and crack propagation.
While Jorn ‘151 in view of Kismarton ‘187 teach a fiber reinforcing skin it is silent about it being between fifty and sixty ten thousands of an inch. However, figures 4-5 and column 3, lines 8-10 of McWithey ‘380 teaches silicon carbide fibers being 0.0057 inches in diameter and the fibers being embedded at a depth of at least one thousandth of an inch as the top layer (25) is 0.002 inches thick. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Jorn ‘151 with the fiber thickness and placement as taught in McWithey ‘380 in order to provide a desired reinforcement strength.
For Claim 13, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose that first fastener (104) through the first bore of the first plurality of bores and through the first bore of the second plurality of bores.
For Claim 14, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose that the first fastener comprises a rivet (104), wherein positioning the first fastener through the first bore includes positioning the rivet through the first bore hole..
For Claim 15, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose a second fastener (104) through the second bore of the first plurality of bores and through the second bore of the second plurality of bores.
For Claim 16, the figures of Jorn ‘151 disclose that the second fastener is a rivet (104), wherein positioning the second fastener through the second bore includes positioning the rivet through the second bore.
For Claim 17-20, while Jorn ‘151 in view of Kismarton ‘187 discloses a plurality of adjacent reinforcing fibers spaced apart from one another, it is silent about them being in specific locations closer to a first or second surface. However, figures 3 and 5 of Kismarton ‘503 teach a fiber reinforcing skin that has reinforcing fibers in layers so that there are a plurality of reinforcing fibers closer each of the first and second surfaces of the skin. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jorn ‘151 with the plurality of layers located at different distances throughout the skin as taught by Kismarton ‘503. The motivation to do so would be to provide reinforcing strength at different locations of the skin.
For Claims 21-22, while Jorn ‘151 is silent about using an ultrasonic horn to embed the fibers into the skin, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use ultrasonic horns to embed fibers in the skin of material at specific locations with the temperature being dependent on the type of fiber and matrix being used. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use ultrasonic horns as is well known in the art. The motivation to do so would be to be able to place fibers in specific locations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the first argument that McWithey ‘380 does not teach using aramid or ceramic fibers. However, paragraph [0030] of Kismarton ‘503 which is already relied on teaches that the fibers can be a variety of materials including ceramic fibers.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 11/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of McWithey ‘380.
The newly amended language incorporates claims 2 and 12 into Claims 1 and 11 respectively. The Examiner holds that McWithey ‘380 teaches the claimed fiber dimensions as well as the depth of the fibers as the top portion of the laminate is 0.002 inches thick (column 3, lines 8-10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 12/27/2025
Prosecution Insights