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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 Aug 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 recites “The aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more structurally-integrated rechargeable power sources replaces a core element of the composite wing, and wherein the core element is removed from the composite wing.” This fails to further patentably limit the claim because the recited method of producing the aerospace structure does not distinguish the structure of the claimed aerospace structure from a prior art structure produced in a different manner (see MPEP § 2113).
Similarly, claim 25 recites “The aerospace structure of claim 24, wherein the one or more structurally-integrated rechargeable power sources is disposed within a void formed by removal of the core element.” This fails to further patentably limit the claim because the recited method of producing the aerospace structure does not distinguish the structure of the claimed aerospace structure from a prior art structure produced in a different manner.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements (see MPEP § 2113).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 21-32, 34, and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linde (DE 102021100713, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Linde discloses an aerospace structure, comprising an airplane comprising a composite wing (structural component 1, which may be a wing as per Linde [0041] and Fig. 3. Structural component 1 may be a composite material as per [0045]) having an upper composite wing section and a lower composite wing section (Linde: Fig. 3 and see Illustration 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
337
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustration 1: reproduction with modification of Fig. 3 of Linde.
and one or more structurally-integrated rechargeable power sources (second energy storage device 4, which can store and retrieve energy, and is therefore a rechargeable power source, Linde [0052] and Figs. 3-4) structurally-integrated inside one or both of the upper composite wing section or the lower composite wing section of the composite (second energy storage device 4 is integrated into the upper composite wing section, Linde: [0052], Figs. 3-4, and Illustration 1).
As to claim 21, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the upper composite wing section (upper portion of structural component 1, see Illustration 1) comprises an upper composite structural skin (electrode 7, which may comprise carbon fibers in a resin, and thereby reads on a composite material, Linde: [0056] and Fig. 4) attached to a lower internal composite structural laminate layer skin (reinforcement layer 11, which may comprise glass fibers in an insulating matrix, and thereby reads on a composite material, Linde: [0056] and Fig. 4).
As to claim 22, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 21, wherein the one or more structurally-integrated rechargeable power sources (second energy storage device 4, Linde: Fig. 4) is sandwiched in-between the upper composite structural skin and the internal composite structural laminate layer (i.e., second energy storage device 4, is sandwiched between electrode 7 and reinforcement layer 11, which read on the upper composite structural skin and the internal composite structural laminate layer, respectively).
As to claim 23, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more structurally- integrated rechargeable power sources (second energy storage device 4, Linde: Fig. 4) includes multiple layers that contribute to an overall structural strength of the composite wing (second energy storage device 4, comprises electrode layers, 13, and 15 and electrolyte layer 14, Linde: Fig. 4. These layers are an integrated part of structural component 1, which reads on the composite wing, and as such can reasonably be said to contribute to the overall strength of the composite wing).
As to claim 24, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1. The instant claim recites the manner of producing the claimed aerospace structure, and as such does not patentably distinguish the structure of the claimed invention from that of Linde’s aerospace structure (see MPEP § 2113).
As to claim 25, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 24. The instant claim recites the manner of producing the claimed aerospace structure, and as such does not patentably distinguish the structure of the claimed invention from that of Linde’s aerospace structure (see MPEP § 2113).
As to claim 26, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more structurally- integrated rechargeable power sources includes a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (see Linde: [0051] and [0054], the second energy storage device 4, may be a battery having lithium ions embedded in the electrodes, and thereby reads on a lithium-ion battery. Second energy storage device 4, can store and retrieve energy, and is therefore a rechargeable power source, Linde [0052]).
As to claim 27, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more structurally-integrated rechargeable power sources includes multiple stacked layers (second energy storage device 4, comprises electrode layers, 13, and 15, electrolyte layer 14, and current-carrying layer 16, which read on multiple stacked layers, Linde: [0055] and Fig. 4).
As to claim 28, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the multiple stacked layers (electrode layers, 13, and 15, electrolyte layer 14, and current-carrying layer 16, Linde: [0055], Fig. 4, and see Illustration 2 below) comprise a first layer including a first conductor (current-carrying layer 16, Linde: Fig. 4) disposed on and over a lower composite laminate (fiber reinforcement layer 11, Line: Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
288
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Illustration 2: reproduction with modification of Fig. 4 of Linde.
As to claim 29, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 28, wherein the first conductor (current-carrying layer 16, Linde: Fig. 4) includes aluminum or an aluminum alloy (current-carrying layer 16 may be made of aluminum as per Linde: [0055]).
As to claim 30, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 28, wherein the multiple stacked layers further comprise a second layer including a first electrode (electrode layer 15, Linde: Fig. 4) disposed on and over the first layer (electrode layer, 15 is disposed beneath current-carrying layer 16 as depicted in Linde: Fig. 4. However, the distinction between “beneath” and “above” is an arbitrary matter of perspective and an arrangement in which the orientation is reversed and 15 is disposed above 16 is within the scope of Linde’s disclosure).
As to claim 31, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 30, wherein the first electrode includes a lithium-metal-oxide compound (i.e., electrode layer 15 may be LiFePO4, Linde: [0055]).
As to claim 32, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 30, wherein the multiple stacked layers further comprise a third layer including a separator membrane (electrolyte layer 14, which is a glass fiber material that separates electrode layers 13 and 15 and thereby reads on a separator membrane, Linde: [0055] and Fig. 4) disposed on and over the second layer (electrolyte layer 14, is disposed above electrode layer, 15, Linde: and Fig. 4).
As to claim 34, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 32, wherein the multiple stacked layers further comprise a fourth layer including a second electrode (electrode layer, 13, Linde: [0055] and Fig. 4) disposed on and over the third layer (electrode layer, 13 is disposed on and over electrolyte layer 14).
As to claim 36, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 34, wherein the multiple stacked layers further comprise a fifth layer including a second conductor (current-carrying layer 16, Linde: Fig. 4) disposed on and over the fourth layer (current-carrying layer 16 is disposed on and over electrode layer, 13, Linde: Fig. 4).
As to claim 37, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 36, wherein the second conductor includes a copper or a copper alloy (current-carrying layer 16 may be made of copper foil as per Linde: [0055]).
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) 33 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde (DE 102021100713, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 33, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 32, including a battery (second energy storage device 4, which may be a battery as per Linde [0051]) comprising a separator membrane separating a cathode from and anode (electrolyte layer 14, which separates anode and cathode layers 13/15, Linde: [0055] and Fig. 4). While Linde does not explicitly state that this separator membrane includes a permeable, microporous material, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the intervening electrolyte layer which separates the cathode from the anode would necessarily needed to allow ions to permeate the separator in order for the battery to function and therefore would have found it obvious to make the separator membrane out of a permeable, microporous material.
As to claim 38, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more structurally-integrated rechargeable power sources is inside the upper composite wing section (second energy storage device 4 is integrated into the upper composite wing section, Linde: [0052], Figs. 3-4, and Illustration 1).
Linde does not explicitly disclose an aerospace structure in which a structurally-integrated rechargeable power source is integrated into both the both the upper composite wing section and the lower composite wing section.
However, Linde does not particularly limit the location of the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source, and teaches that the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source can be designed as a skin panel, a shell element, a control surface, a wing component, a tail segment and/or a fuselage segment (Linde: [0035]). Further, a structurally-integrated rechargeable power source installed in the lower composite wing section would not function in a patentably distinct manner from a structurally-integrated rechargeable power source installed in the upper composite wing section.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerospace structure of Linde by adding a second, duplicate structurally-integrated rechargeable power source in the lower composite wing section of the aerospace structure. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such an addition in order to increase the battery capacity of the aerospace structure.
As to claim 39, Linde as applied to claim 38 above teaches the aerospace structure of claim 38, wherein the one or more structurally- integrated rechargeable power sources comprise: a first structurally-integrated power source inside the upper composite wing section and a second structurally-integrated power source inside the lower composite wing section.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde (DE 102021100713, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kadowaki (US 2021/0226209).
As to claim 35, Linde discloses the aerospace structure of claim 34, wherein the second electrode includes an electrode that is composed of carbon fibers (electrode layer, 13, Linde: [0055] and Fig. 4). Linde does not disclose a second electrode that is a graphite electrode.
Kadowaki teaches an analogous laminated electrode structure (laminated body 100, Kadowaki: [0321] and Fig. 1) comprising an anode that may include carbon fiber or graphite (negative electrode active material, Kadowaki: [0391]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerospace structure of Linde by replacing Linde’s carbon fiber anode with the graphite anode taught by Kadowaki. This is because Kadowaki teaches that carbon fiber and graphite are functionally equivalent materials when used as an active material in an anode, and the use of graphite would not produce any new benefit that would not have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (KR 101772446B1), Kim ‘864 (KR 20160115864A), and Linde ‘410 (US 2022/0190410) all disclose related battery systems that are integrated with aerospace structures.
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 ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
