DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Figure 6a, claims 1-7, 10, 11 and 14, in the reply filed on March 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 9, 12, 13 and 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 15, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 (line 4 and line 6) “multi-material join” should recite –multi-material joint--.
In claim 1 (line 10) “material join” should recite –material joint--.
In claim 3 (line 2) “multi-material join” should recite –multi-material joint--.
In claim 10 (line 2 and line 3) “multi-material join” should recite –multi-material joint--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aircelle (CA 2 665 425).
As to claim 1, Aircelle discloses a multi material component comprising:
a first member 105 formed of a first material and a second member (not shown; attached to wing 13) formed of a second material, the first and second members each comprising complementary protrusions (protrusions A on first member 105, and protrusions on the second member received in slots B; Figure 14 reprinted below with annotations below) that form a multi-material joint and define an interface between the first and second members such that a substantial proportion of any tension between the first and second members across the multi-material joint is experienced as a shear force at the interface;
a third member 125; and
a lattice member 127,129 situated and joined between the first member and the third member, the lattice being capable of elastic deformation so as to substantially isolate the multi- material joint from any deformation of the third member (Figures 8-15).
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
282
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Aircelle discloses a multi-material component wherein the third member 125 and lattice member 127,129 are formed of the first material (Figures 8-15).
As to claim 3, Aircelle discloses a multi-material component wherein the lattice 127,129 has an elastic limit below the breaking stress of the multi-material joint A,B so as to allow non-destructive inspection of the component by inspecting the lattice for plastic deformation (Figures 8-15).
As to claim 6, Aircelle discloses a multi-material component wherein at least one of the first member 105 and second member are capable of being formed by additive manufacturing upon the other member such that the interface between the complementary protrusions A,B is formed by additive manufacturing (Figures 8-15).
Applicant is reminded that process limitations are given little patentable weight in product claims since the patentability determination of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself, even though such claims are limited and defined by the process. See MPEP § 2113. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. “ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,USPQ 964,966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Accordingly, the process limitations of the first member or second member being formed by additive manufacturing in claim 6 is given little patentable weight; all that is required of such claim is that the first member or second member is capable of being formed by additive manufacturing.
As to claim 7, Aircelle discloses a multi-material component wherein the first member 105 comprises holes B for receiving the protrusions of the second member (Figures 8-15).
As to claim 10, Aircelle discloses a multi-material component wherein the complementary protrusions A,B are spaced across the multi-material joint such that no significant part of the interface is parallel to the plane of the multi-material joint (Figures 8-15).
As to claim 14, Aircelle discloses a pylon for connecting a heat source to an aircraft structure, the pylon comprising the multi-material component wherein:
the third member 125 is coupled to the heat source; and
the second member is coupled to the aircraft structure (Figures 8-15).
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 4, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aircelle.
As to claims 4 and 5, Aircelle fails to explicitly disclose a multi-material component wherein the first material and second material have substantially different coefficients of thermal expansion; and wherein the first material and second materials are metals that form brittle inter-metallic compounds when welded together. Aircelle does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the first and second members.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component disclosed by Aircelle wherein the first material and second material have substantially different coefficients of thermal expansion; and wherein the first material and second materials are metals that form brittle inter-metallic compounds when welded together, as Aircelle does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the first and second members, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
As to claim 11, Aircelle fails to disclose a multi-material component wherein the first material is Inconel and the second material is Aluminium. Aircelle does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the first and second members.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component disclosed by Aircelle wherein the first material is Inconel and the second material is Aluminium, as Aircelle does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the first and second members, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
04/10/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights