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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on August 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the PTAB decision which was based on the final Office Action dated March 27, 2025 was submitted with the request for continued examination on August 26, 2026. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 18 was canceled. Claims 11 and 17 were previously canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) of claims 1-10 and 12-16 (¶¶ 5-6 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “comprise” should be changed to “comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0370612 A1, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Jaeschke et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0132354 A1, cited in previous Office Action), either of Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0194071 A1, cited in previous Office Action) or Ludin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0291679 A1, cited in previous Office Action) and Huang et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 114013069 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Wadsworth discloses a method (Abstract of Wadsworth, method of manufacturing a composite part) comprising: placing an outer surface of a panel on a mold (Abstract of Wadsworth, composite material transferred to curved tooling surface; [0028] of Wadsworth, tooling surface forms outer surface of composite material skin), the panel including a carbon fiber ([0024] of Wadsworth, composite skin can be formed of carbon fiber), wherein the mold comprises an outermost limit (OML) tool configured to conform a shape of the outer surface and support an outermost limit of the outer surface of the panel ([0028] of Wadsworth, tooling surface can be an OML tool; FIG. 6 of Wadsworth, OML tooling surface #24 conforms shape and supports an outermost limit of composite skin #34), and the outer surface comprises a laminated layer ([0024] of Wadsworth, composite skin formed using a plurality of layers); consolidating the panel to the mold with the laminated layer by applying pressure ([0041] of Wadsworth, composite skin/facesheet pressed against tooling surface).
Wadsworth does not specifically disclose: placing a channel on an inner surface of the panel consolidated to the mold, the channel including a resin, the inner surface opposing the outer surface; welding the channel onto the panel consolidated to the mold by heating the carbon fiber of the panel; placing a rib in the channel, the rib including a carbon fiber; and welding the rib onto the channel by heating the carbon fiber of the rib, wherein the channel comprises wall portions and a bottom portion disposed between the wall portions, a top surface of the bottom portion operably receives the rib, and a bottom surface of the bottom portion operably contacts with the inner surface of the panel. Wadsworth, however, discloses placing at least one substructure i.e., a frame or stringer) onto the skin and fusing the substructure thereto ([0044] of Wadsworth). Jaeschke discloses a method comprising: placing an outer surface of a panel on a mold (FIG. 1, [0050] of Jaeschke, holder #16 which includes upper and lower plates clamping components being joined; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components include a panel 4’), the panel including a carbon fiber ([0066] of Jaeschke, two carbon fiber reinforced components can be welded together by means of a glass fiber reinforced component; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 4, 4’ welded together by means of components 6, 6’; component 4’ therefore includes carbon fiber); placing a channel on an inner surface of the panel, the channel including a resin (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ on inner surface of panel 4’ forming channel therebetween; [0051], [0061] of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ are glass fiber reinforced plastic), the inner surface opposing the outer surface (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, inner surface of panel 4’ opposes outer surface); welding the channel onto the panel by heating the carbon fiber of the panel ([0013] of Jaeschke, heat generated in carbon fiber containing component during welding; [0066] of Jaeschke, two carbon fiber reinforced components can be welded together by means of a glass fiber reinforced component; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 4, 4’ welded together by means of components 6, 6’; component 4’ therefore includes carbon fiber); placing a rib in the channel, the rib including a carbon fiber (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, component #4); and welding the rib onto the channel by heating the carbon fiber of the rib ([0066] of Jaeschke, two carbon fiber reinforced components can be welded together by means of a glass fiber reinforced component; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 4, 4’ welded together by means of components 6, 6’; component 4 therefore includes carbon fiber). According to Jaeschke, the method allows the load-bearing capacity of the joining zone to be adapted to the requirements demanded in each case ([0020] of Jaeschke). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Jaeschke to fuse the substructure to the skin in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the load-bearing capacity of the joining zone to be adapted to the requirements demanded in each case as taught by Jaeschke ([0020] of Jaeschke).
Jaeschke does not specifically disclose that the channel comprises wall portions and a bottom portion disposed between the wall portions, a top surface of the bottom portion operably receives the rib, and a bottom surface of the bottom portion operably contacts with the inner surface of the panel. Jaeschke, however, discloses forming a T-joint between components #4 and #4’ using components #6, #6’ (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke). Abe discloses a T-joint for joining a plate member to a preform (Abstract of Abe). The joint has a bottom portion in contact with the preform and upper walls forming a groove or channel for insertion of the plate member wherein the bottom portion is disposed between the walls (FIG. 3 of Abe). Ludin similarly discloses a T-joint which joins a structure to a composite skin (FIG. 8 of Ludin). The joint comprises wall portions and a bottom portion disposed between the wall portions and the T-shaped structure fits into the opening or channel formed by the wall portions (FIG. 8 of Ludin). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the T-joint of Abe or Ludin in place of the components #6, #6’ since Abe and Ludin each establish that such structures were known to form T-joints for composite materials. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I B). As evidenced by Jaeschke, the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. In addition, as evidenced by Abe and Ludin, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could also have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Jaeschke also does not specifically disclose that: the rib comprises a laminated carbon fiber tape layer consolidated by applying heat and pressure; the carbon fiber is in the laminated carbon fiber tape layer; and the carbon fiber of the carbon fiber tape layer is heated by laser irradiation. Huang, however, discloses a method of making composite materials such as ribs (Abstract, [0007] of Huang) wherein a carbon fiber prepreg tape is consolidated with a pressure roller through laser assisted heating ([0011], [0021] of Huang). According to Huang, the process allows composite materials with high strength and complex shape to be formed ([0009] of Huang). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rib comprising a laminated carbon fiber tape consolidated by applying heat and pressure using laser irradiation. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow composite materials with high strength and complex shape to be formed as taught by Huang ([0009] of Huang).
Regarding claim 2, Jaeschke discloses that the carbon fiber of the panel is heated by laser irradiation ([0066] of Jaeschke, two carbon fiber reinforced components can be welded together by means of a glass fiber reinforced component; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 4, 4’ welded together by means of components 6, 6’; component 4’ therefore includes carbon fiber).
Regarding claim 3, Jaeschke discloses that the carbon fiber of the rib is heated by laser irradiation ([0066] of Jaeschke, two carbon fiber reinforced components can be welded together by means of a glass fiber reinforced component; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 4, 4’ welded together by means of components 6, 6’; component 4 therefore includes carbon fiber).
Regarding claim 4, Jaeschke discloses that the channel further includes a glass fiber ([0066] of Jaeschke, two carbon fiber reinforced components can be welded together by means of a glass fiber reinforced component; FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 4, 4’ welded together by means of components 6, 6’; components 6, 6’ therefore include glass fiber).
Regarding claim 5, Jaeschke discloses that welding the channel onto the panel further includes melting the resin of the channel by heating the panel to a melting temperature of the resin (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, welding zones 8’, 8’’’ between components 4’ and 6 and 4’ and 6’ include regions on the components 6, 6’; Abstract of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ made of thermoplastic which would necessarily melt during welding operation).
Regarding claim 6, Jaeschke discloses that welding the rib onto the channel further includes melting the resin of the channel by heating the rib to a melting temperature of the resin (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, welding zones 8, 8’’ between components 4 and 6 and 4 and 6’ include regions on the components 6, 6’; Abstract of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ made of thermoplastic which would necessarily melt during welding operation).
Regarding claim 7, Abe and Ludin each disclose that the wall portions extend from the bottom portion (FIG. 3 of Abe; FIG. 8 of Ludin).
Regarding claim 8, Jaeschke discloses that welding the channel onto the panel includes melting the bottom portion of the channel (FIG. 10 of Jaeschke, welding zones 8’, 8’’’ extend into bottom portion of components 6,6’; Abstract of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ made of thermoplastic which would necessarily melt during welding operation).
Regarding claim 9, Jaeschke discloses that welding the rib onto the channel includes melting the wall portions of the channel (FIG. 10 of Jaeschke, welding zones 8, 8’’ extend into wall portion of components 6,6’; Abstract of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ made of thermoplastic which would necessarily melt during welding operation).
Regarding claim 12, Jaeschke discloses that the channel includes glass fiber reinforced plastic material (FIGS. 9-11 of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ on inner surface of panel 4’; [0051], [0061] of Jaeschke, components 6, 6’ are glass fiber reinforced plastic).
Regarding claim 13, Abe and Ludin each disclose that placing the rib in the channel comprises inserting the rib into a groove portion formed by the wall portions and the bottom portion (FIG. 3 of Abe; FIG. 8 of Ludin).
Regarding claim 14, Abe and Ludin each disclose that a groove portion is disposed between the wall portions; and the wall portions extend away from the bottom portion of the channel (FIG. 3 of Abe; FIG. 8 of Ludin).
Regarding claim 15, Lyons discloses that the mold further comprise a stiff member configured to provide stiffness to react pressure applied to the panel (FIG. 1, [0024] of Lyons, OML tool #152 includes external ribs or other stiffening members).
Regarding claim 16, Wadsworth discloses that the laminated layer is a carbon fiber tape layer ([0024] of Wadsworth, composite skin can be formed of composite tape made of carbon fiber reinforced composite).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth in view of Jaeschke, either of Abe or Ludin and Huang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Composites World (Fabrication Methods, https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/fabrication-methods-2015, January 9, 2015, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Jaeschke does not specifically disclose injection molding the channel (i.e., components 6, 6’). Composites World, however, discloses that injection molding is a fast, high-volume, low-pressure, closed process using most commonly filled thermoplastics including thermoplastics filled with glass fiber (pg. 7 of Composites World). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the components 6, 6’ in the method of Jaeschke using an injection molding process. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to produce the components rapidly and at high-volumes as taught by Composites World (pg. 7 of Composites World).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights