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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 5/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “nacell” appears to be a typo of “nacelle” (line 3) and “nacella” appears to be a typo of “nacelle” (line 12). 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.
Claims 11, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottero et al (US 2016/0257032 A1) in view of Maheshwari et al (US 2012/0305172 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, Bottero teaches hollow reinforcement structures that are used for panels for nacelles which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention an aircraft door, configured to be moved from a closed position of an outer shell of a nacelle to an open position to allow inspection of an internal compartment of the nacelle and having an outer or outside profile having an aerodynamic profile (e.g., curved profile) (abstract, para 11, 30, 35, 76; figs 1a, 1b).
Bottero further teaches the panels are made of laminates of composite material with hollow structures facing inward used for reinforcement or stiffening (para 4, 7, 9, 12, 30, 35; figs 1a, 1b) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a first multilayer portion, said first portion shaped in such a way as to present at least one substantially oblong stiffening protuberance; a second layered portion having an aerodynamic profile and shaped to be coupled to said first multilayer portion, the overall configuration of the door being such that, in an assembled configuration, and in a coupling between said first portion and said second portion, said at least one substantially oblong stiffening protuberance is facing the internal compartment of the nacella.
Bottero fails to suggest the first multilayer portion comprising an inner layer, an outer layer and an intermediate layer, wherein said intermediate layer is made of composite material having an inorganic-based matrix and a carbon-based filler; wherein said carbon-based filler of said intermediate layer is a carbon fiber fabric; herein said second portion is made of composite material having a thermoplastic or thermosetting polymer matrix and a carbon-based filler; wherein said inner layer and said outer layer are made of composite material comprising a carbon fiber filler and a thermosetting polymer matrix.
Maheshwari teaches polymer composite materials used for aircraft engine nacelles wherein the composite materials comprises carbon-reinforced fibers and fabrics (i.e., carbon-based filler), thermoset and thermoplastic resins (i.e., matrix), boron nitride or alumina (i.e., inorganic-based matrix) (abstract, para 3-4, 7, 19-20, 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the composite material of Maheshwari for the composite material (and individual layers of composite material) of Bottero; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP $ 2144.07).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to duplicate and arrange the composite layers of Bottero as modified by Maheshwari per the claimed configuration (e.g., a first multilayer portion, comprising an inner layer, an outer layer and an intermediate layer and a second layered portion) since, since duplication of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B), and rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 16, It is noted that a change in aesthetic design or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to shape the panels of Bottero as modified by Maheshwari accordingly based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 18, Bottero teaches an embodiment comprising two transverse stiffening protuberances and three longitudinal stiffening protuberances (para 32, 35, 37, fig 1b).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottero and Maheshwari as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stephan et al (US 5,817,409 A).
Bottero as modified by Maheshwari teaches the aircraft door of claim 11.
Bottero as modified by Maheshwari fails to suggest wherein said carbon-based filler of said intermediate layer is a non-woven fabric, optionally of recycled carbon; and a layer of adhesive film material positioned between said first multilayer portion and said second portion.
Stephan teaches non-woven carbon fabrics for the manufacture of prepregs for use in aircraft components; wherein adhesives are used to bond the prepregs or layers together (abstract; col 1, lines 10-21; col 2, lines 35-51; col 3, line 48 – col 4, lines 11; col 4, line 62 – col 5, line 8).
Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the non-woven carbon fabrics of Stephan for the carbon fibers or fabrics of Bottero as modified by Maheshwari; since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP $ 2144.07).
Furthermore, per Stephan, it would have been obvious to use adhesives to bond the layers or laminates (i.e., the first and second portion) comprising the aircraft door of Bottero as modified by Maheshwari, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP $ 2144.07); and it was a known design choice at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Scanlon (US 5,558,932 A) teaches integrated structural composite panels and ceramic flame barriers comprising carbon fabric in a ceramic (i.e., inorganic) matrix (abstract, col 1, line 62 – col 2, line 4; col 2, line 50 – col 3 ,line 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights