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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-14 and 28-34 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. New dependent claims 28-34 are added.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed 11/5/2025.
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed with respect to the rejection of present claims 1, 5 and 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherwood (US 2006/0267233) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly found prior art reference Stanton (US 2020/0256312), as discussed in details below.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 31. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 28 is rejected 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the expanding polymer or foam via one or more retainers" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that applicant may have intended to refer to the core material (of claim 1) as being the expanding polymer or foam. For the purpose of expedited examination, and such interpretation is applied by the examiner
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9-14 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanton (US 2020/0256312).
Regarding claim 1, Stanton teaches a method of manufacturing (para [0001] [0007]-[0009]) comprising assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly (see Fig. 1, para [0007] [0012]- [0016], assembling the plurality structure components into an assembly), wherein the two or more parts or extrusions comprise at least one of a spar or a stringer (see Fig. 1; spar 2, para [0007]).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stanton teaches placing the assembly into a mold (para [0020]-[0022], Fig. 6, placing the assembly into a mold 36/40).
PNG
media_image2.png
352
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stanton teaches injecting a core material into an interior or cavity of the assembly while the assembly is retained in the mold (para [0023], injecting a foam core material 8 into an interior or cavity of the assembly).
Stanton teaches removing a resulting structure from the mold, wherein the resulting structure when removed from the mold includes the assembly of the two or more parts or extrusions retained by a cured or hardened core formed by the core material (para [0024], [0030], upon the foam curing, the completely assembled internal components which are now one bonded unit are remove from the mold), meeting the instantly claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Stanton teaches assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly comprises assembling two or more extrusions into the assembly (para [0014]-[0018], assembling several structure components, struts and ribs components into assembly), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Stanton teaches adding one or more additional components or structures to the assembly before placing the assembly into the mold (para [0014]-[0018], assembling additional structure components, struts and ribs components into assembly), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Stanton teaches adding one or more additional components or structures to the assembly after placing the assembly into the mold (para [0020], adding one or more additional components 37, 38 to the assembly after placing the assembly into the mold), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Stanton teaches curing or hardening the core material into the cured or hardened core (para [0024], curing the foam core material into a cured core), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Stanton teaches curing or hardening the core material into the cured or hardened core before removing the resulting structure from the mold (para [0024], curing the core material into a cured core before removing the final article from the mold), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Stanton teaches wherein assembling two or more parts or extrusions into the assembly comprises physically coupling adjacent ones of the two or more parts to one another via one or more joint portions or features which are integral to the respective part or extrusion (para [0014]-[0019], physically coupling/snapping the adjacent parts, i.e., struts and/or ribs, to one another via the joint locks portions, see Fig. 2), meeting the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image3.png
604
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Stanton teaches injecting a core material into an interior or cavity of the assembly while the assembly is retained in the mold comprises injecting an expandable foam into the interior or cavity of the assembly while the assembly is retained in the mold ([0030] [0023], injecting an expandable foam core material resin into the mold cavity while the assembly is retained in the mold), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 28, Stanton teaches entrapping the expanding polymer or foam via one or more retainers (par a[0030] [0023] [0024], placing an expandable foam core material resin into the mold cavity while the assembly is retained in the mold, such mold is considered being a retainer entrapping the expanding foam core, meeting the claimed limitations) such that the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly and the cured or hardened core formed by the core material form a unitary or monolithic structure that cannot be separated without destruction of a least a portion of that structure (para [0024], [0030], upon the foam curing, the completely assembled internal components and the foam forming a unitary or monolithic structure), meeting the claimed limitations. See 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 28 made of record in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 29, Stanton teaches assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly comprises assembling a leading edge extrusion and a lower leading edge skin extrusion into the assembly (para [0007] [0012]- [0016], see Fig. 1, shows a leading edge proximate element 10 and a lower leading edge defined by the forward edge of the lower panel section beneath the upper leading edge), meeting the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Stanton teaches assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly comprises assembling a leading edge extrusion and a lower leading edge skin extrusion into the assembly (para [0007] [0012]- [0013], see Fig. 1, shows a leading edge proximate element 10 and a lower leading edge defined by the forward edge of the lower panel section beneath the upper leading edge), the lower leading edge skin extrusion including a ski (skins 9, para [0050]) and a number of stringers (Fig. 1, para [0015] [0016], stringer elements 2, 3), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 31-32, Stanton teaches assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly comprises physically coupling a leading edge extrusion and a lower leading edge skin extrusion together at a number of joints via a set of complementary joint portions or features (para [0007], [0016]-[0019], physically coupling via snap locking at a number of joints/snap interlock joint), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 33, Stanton teaches expanding the core material to apply a radially outward force the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly while the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly are physically constrained in place by at least one of: an inner surface of the mold or by one or more joints ([0030] [0023] [0024], placing the expandable foam core material resin in a mold, in this regard, when the expandable foam core expanding, the force of expansion would apply a radially outward force the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly, while the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly are physically constrained by inner surface of the mold), meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 34, Stanton teaches comprising expanding the core material to apply a radially outward force the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly to cause an outer surface of the assembled structure to conform to an inner surface of a cavity of the mold ([0030] [0023] [0024], placing the expandable foam core material resin in a mold, in this regard, when the expandable foam core expanding, the force of expansion would apply a radially outward force the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly, while the two or more parts or extrusions of the assembly are physically constrained by inner surface of the mold), meeting the claimed limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanton as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hooper (WO2019/055363).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Stanton as discussed above.
Regarding claims 2-4, Stanton teaches a method of manufacturing (para [0001] [0007]-[0009]) comprising assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly (see Fig. 1, para [0007] [0012]- [0016], assembling structure components into an assembly). Stanton does not specially teach extruding the two or more parts in the manner as instantly claimed.
Hooper teaches a method of assembling parts forming composite structure with foam core (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23). Hooper teaches extruding parts of various shape/configurations before assembling the parts (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23). Hooper teaches extruding parts as metal extrusions is known in the art (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23), and Hooper also teaches extruding parts as plastic extrusions is known in the art (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanton in view the teachings of Hooper, to incorporate extrusions as taught by Hooper, such as metal extrusions and/or plastic extrusions, to provide the two or more parts as metal extrusions and/or plastic extrusions before assembling the two or more parts into the assembly as taught by Hooper, because Hooper teaches extrusion is known in the art of as suitable method for making/extruding parts of various shape/configurations as metal extrusions and/or as plastic extrusions to provide parts of desired shape/configurations (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory method of manufacturing that is the same as instantly claimed, in claims 2-4.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanton as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hooper (WO 2019/055363) and Mendiboure et al. (US 8,530,015; “Mendiboure”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Stanton as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6, Stanton teaches a method of manufacturing (para [0001] [0007]-[0009]) comprising assembling two or more parts or extrusions into an assembly (see Fig. 1, para [0007] [0012]- [0016], assembling structure components into an assembly). Stanton does not specially teach assembling at least one stamped part and at least one other part or extrusion into the assembly.
Hooper teaches a method of assembling parts forming composite structure with foam core (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23). Hooper teaches extruding parts of various shape/configurations before assembling the parts (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23). Hooper teaches extruding parts as metal extrusions is known in the art (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23).
Mendiboure is cited for its teaching that metal extrusions and stamping are known as among the suitable known methods for making metal parts/profile (col. 5, lines 25-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanton in view the teachings of Hooper, to incorporate extrusions as taught by Hooper, such as metal extrusions to provide one of the two parts as metal extrusions as taught by Hooper, because Hooper teaches extrusion is known in the art of as suitable method for making/extruding parts of various shape/configurations as metal extrusions to provide parts of desired shape/configurations (page 1, lines 10-14, page 9, lines 14-23 of Hooper), and to further modify Stanton in view the teachings of Mendiboure, to incorporate stamping as taught by Mendiboure to provide the other one of the two parts as a stamped part, and assemble the two parts into assembly, because Mendiboure teaches metal extrusions and stamping are known as among the suitable known methods for making metal parts/profile (col. 5, lines 25-31 of Mendiboure), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory method of manufacturing that is the same as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanton as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kallesoe et al. (US 2012/0093657; “Kallesoe”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Stanton as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, Sherwood does not specifically teach treating at least one of the two or more parts or extrusions before assembling two or more parts or extrusions into the assembly via at least one of anodizing, painting, or powder coating the at least one of the two or more parts or extrusions.
In the same field of wind turbine system, Kallesoe teaches providing protective coating composition for wind turbine (para [0013]). Kallesoe teaches that powder coating is a known method in the art to provide protective coating to wind turbine components (para [0006]). Kallesoe further teaches painting (via brushing) the external surface of the wind turbine components with a polyurethan-based coating to provide protection against erosion (para [0014]-[0016], such coating of Kallesoe comprises suitable binder, para [0022], and applied by brush, para [0079], and cured, para [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanton in view the teachings of Kallesoe, to treat the surface of the two or more parts via painting the external surface of the two or more parts before assembling the two or more parts into the assembly as taught by Kallesoe, to provide each part with improved protection against erosion (para [0014]-[0016]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory method of manufacturing that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Sherwood does not specifically teach treating at least one of the two or more parts or extrusions after assembling two or more parts or extrusions into the assembly via at least one of anodizing, painting, or powder coating the at least one of the two or more parts or extrusions.
In the same field of wind turbine system, Kallesoe teaches providing protective coating composition for wind turbine (para [0013]). Kallesoe teaches that powder coating is a known method in the art to provide protective coating to wind turbine components (para [0006]). Kallesoe further teaches painting (via brushing) the external surface of the wind turbine components with a polyurethan-based coating to provide protection against erosion (para [0014]-[0016], such coating of Kallesoe comprises suitable binder, para [0022], and applied by brush para [0079], and cured, para [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Stanton in view the teachings of Kallesoe, to treat the surface of the two or more parts via painting the external surface of the two or more parts after assembling the two or more parts into the assembly as taught by Kallesoe (para [0014]-[0016]), to provide the assembly with improved protection against erosion, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory method of manufacturing that is the same as instantly claimed.
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 YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782