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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4 and 9-10 are amended. Claims 8 and 12-15 are canceled.
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,002,103 to Wheeler in view of US 3,771,820 to Hoss, Sr. et al.
Regarding claim 1, Wheeler '103 discloses an arrangement for supportingly accommodating a
functional module 10, comprising: a modular support structure 17 which is formed with carrier elements which are provided with a hollow cross-section and profile elements 11/12 lying opposite one another (figs 1 and 2 - see below annotation), wherein the profile elements 11/12 each have a middle half-tube
portion 13/14 and partial wing portions integrally formed thereon on both sides with profile element
openings (fig. 1 - flat portions with bolt openings - fig. 2), and the partial wing portions of the profile
elements 11/12 are arranged flat on top of one another in such a way that the profile element openings
are assigned to one another in pairs, the half-tube portions 13/14 of each of the carrier elements form a
tube portion (fig. 1 - 13/14 together), and the partial wing portions of each of the carrier elements each
form a wing portion, and a functional module 10 which is mounted on the modular support structure 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wheeler '103 is silent as to wherein the partial wing portions (as annotated; fig. 1 - flat portions with bolt openings - fig. 2) are glued to one another.
However, Hoss ‘820 teaches partial wing portions 16/18 (col. 4, lines 4-21) are glued to one another (via adhesive 15; Fig. 2; col. 4, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhesively bond the opposing wing portions of Wheeler ‘103 as taught by Hoss ‘820 in order to provide a permanent structural connection while reducing the number of fastening components.
Regarding claim 2, Wheeler '103 discloses, wherein the wing portions each extend in the longitudinal direction of the tube portion and are substantially planar (figs 1 and 2 - annotated above).
Regarding claim 3, Wheeler '103, as modified, discloses, wherein the tube portion has a substantially round or oval cross-section, and the wing portions extend radially from the tube portion (figs 1 and 2 - annotated above).
Regarding claim 4, Wheeler '103, as modified, discloses, wherein the partial wing portions are each arranged in alignment with one another (as annotated above).
Regarding claim 5, Wheeler '103, as modified, discloses, wherein the half-tube portions 13/14 of each of the profile elements 11/12 are each arranged in a common plane.
Regarding claim 6, Wheeler '103, as modified, discloses, wherein the tube portion (fig. 1 - 13/14 together) has a constant tube portion thickness, and the wing portions each have a constant wing portion thickness (figs 1-2 - annotated above).
Regarding claim 7, Wheeler '103, as modified, discloses, wherein the wing portions each have a wing portion width of between 25% and 100% of a tube portion width (fig 2 - annotated above).
Regarding claim 9, Wheeler '103, as modified, discloses, a modular support structure 17 which is formed with carrier elements, but is silent as to the carrier elements comprising carbon fibers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to use carbon fibers in a certain component, as needed and selected, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “having two metal parts being connected via bolts would lead the skilled person
away from using glue as claimed” and that “Wheeler also provides no suggestions on applying glue between any of the disclosed elements.”
The examiner disagrees. The current rejection relies on the combined teachings of Wheeler ‘103 in view of Hoss ‘820, not Wheeler ‘103 alone. Further, Hoss ‘820 expressly teaches wherein the partial wing portions are glued to one another. In addition, applicant’s own specification recognizes that wing portions may be joined by rivets or adhesive. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights