DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 15, 19, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toi (US 6,702,911) in view of Kitazawa (US 20230294371).
As to claim 15, Toi teaches (Fig. 8) a method of manufacturing a stiffened composite skin comprising laying up a dry preform assembly comprising a second dry skin-preform (2), a dry hat-shaped preform with flanges in contact with the second dry skin-preform (3), and a first dry skin-preform (4) positioned over and in contact with the dry hat-shaped preform (3) and the second dry skin-preform (2), wherein laying up the dry preform assembly comprises applying the dry hat-shaped preform (3) in contact with the second dry skin-preform to form a (lap) joint without extending into a recess (no recess in Fig. 8; see also 3:58-62). Toi teaches infusing resin into the dry preform assembly (4:16-22).
Toi is silent to the second “set of …layers” and first “set of …layers”.
Kitazawa teaches that various layers may be formed from multiple layers ([0029]) that meet the claimed “set of…layers”. In the combination of Kitazawa and Toi, one would have found it obvious that all of the Toi preforms could be provided as a set of layers. Additionally, this is an obvious duplication of parts (layers) already provided by Kitazawa.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Kitazawa set or plurality of layers into Toi because this is the use of a known technique (application of a plurality or multiple layers) to improve a similar article or process in the same way. Toi provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by its use of a plurality or multiple layers. The prior art of Kitazawa contained a comparable device improved in the same way using multiple layers. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known improvement to Toi in the same way to provide a predictable increase in strength and thickness.
As to claim 19, although Toi does not appear to specifically teach applying a reusable tool “inside” the hat-shaped preform, Kitazawa teaches applying a reusable tool having a geometry of an inside of the dry, hat-shaped preform (Fig. 6, item CP). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this reusable tool in the Toi process because Toi already teaches/suggests a tool for maintaining the preform shape (Fig. 6, item 7) and Kitazawa already provides a tool of a similar configuration to the Toi part. As to claim 20, Toi teaches stitching together the three layers (4:42-48). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate an additional layer (as taught by Toi) and the stitching of the layers together into Kitazawa motivated by fixing the position of the hat-shaped preform relative to the skin-preform layer. As to claim 22, although Toi does not specifically teach the relative thickness of the layers, only three possible arrangements are possible (second skin-preform layers have (i) greater, (ii) lesser, and (iii) equal thickness). One would have found it prima facie obvious to select any of these thickness arrangements from among this finite list of options in order to maximize stiffness of the article.
Claims 18, 27, 28, 31, 32, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toi (US 6,702,911) in view of Kitazawa (US 20230294371), and further in view of Tsotsis (US 20050257887). Toi and Kitazawa teach the subject matter of claim 1 above.
As to claims 18, 31, and 32, Toi provides a near-net shape dry hat-shaped stiffener preform and resin transfer molding (4:16-22). Toi also teaches or suggests curing (4:19-22). Kitazawa also teaches infusing resin into the dry preform assembly to form a resin-infused preform ([0028], RTM) and curing in situ in the mold to form a stiffened composite skin ([0047]).
Toi and Kitazawa are silent to a warp-knit thermoplastic veil with a warp-knit fabric and preforming using heat and pressure to tack together to form a semi-rigid preform.
Tsotsis teaches tacking together (claim 1) layers of a dry fiber preform from woven (meets warp-knit) fiber layers and thermoplastic veils. The Tsotsis tacking uses heat (claim 1) and a heated roller ([0014]) that would apply pressure and result in a preform with layers securely maintained ([0014], last sentence) that meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of a semi-rigid preform.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from the Tsotsis process into the modified Toi process because (a) Tsotsis specifically teaches/suggests these steps for fabricating a resin transfer molding preform ([0004] and claim 2) and Toi provides a resin transfer molding process within the scope of the Tsotsis teaching/suggestion, or alternatively, (b) the Tsotsis process is the use of a known/comparable process improved in the same way as the claimed invention and provides a preform that can be handled while maintaining the layers in a secured/tacked configuration. In either case, there is a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that Toi is directed to a resin transfer molding process (see rejection of claim 1) and Tsotsis is specifically intended for resin transfer molding (page 2, claim 2).
As to claims 27 and 28, Toi and Kitazawa each teach a dry, hat-shaped preform, infusing resin into the dry preform assembly to form a resin-infused preform and curing in situ in the mold to form a stiffened composite skin (Toi, 416-22, for example). Toi and Kitazawa appear to be silent to the other claimed features. However, Tsotsis teaches a dry fiber preform from woven (meets warp-knit) fiber layers and thermoplastic veils (meets thermally activated binder).
As to claims 33 and 34, Toi appears to be silent to the claimed mold tools. Kitazawa teaches an upper mold tool (10) which is inherently lowered over the dry preform assembly (as shown in Fig. 12). The Kitazawa upper mold tool (10) and lower mold tool (13) together form a tool and Kitazawa teaches resin infusing ([0028], RTM). Closing the upper mold tool and resin-infusion to form net part dimensions followed by opening and removal of the stiffened composite skin are inherent. While this embodiment of Kitazawa does not specifically teach the vacuum sealed perimeter, another embodiment in Fig. 9 shows a sealant tape which would provide a vacuum sealed perimeter. It would have been prima facie obvious to also incorporate this vacuum seal into the embodiment of Fig. 12 in order to prevent air ingress into the preform and prevent resin egress from the molded part.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 30 are allowed. The configuration now recited in relation to the recess is not taught by or obvious over the prior art.
Claims 16, 17, and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art simply does not teach the scarf joints (claim 16), butt joints (claim 17), or interleaved joints (claim 24) between the claimed parts recited by the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2025 have been fully considered. While the arguments point to an agreement on claim 1, it is noted that claim 15 does not include a tool or mold with a recess, and therefore the limitation that the joint does not extend into the recess seems inapplicable. Claims 16, 17, and 24 remain indicated allowable and should be considered instead.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights