Detailed Action1
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 22, 2025 has been entered.
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites one or more first shims positioned between the first flange section and an external surface of the composite member; and one or more second shims positioned between the second flange section and the external surface of the composite member. Applicant’s originally filed specification teaches one or more shims between the repair component and the composite member. However, Applicant’s originally filed specification does not teach more than one shim between the first flange section and the external surface of the composite member, or more than one shim between the second flange section and the external surface of the composite member.
Claim 7 recites the repair component comprises a fabrication length, wherein the repair component is cut down to a selectable length shorter than the fabrication length. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, requires the repair component to be attached to the composite member. While Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches cutting a repair component from a fabrication length to a selectable length prior to attaching the repair component to the composite member, Applicant does not have support for the repair component (which is already attached to the composite member) having a fabrication length that is cut to a selectable length.
Claim 8 recites a first shim positioned between a respective first flange section of one or more of the repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members; and a second shim positioned between a respective second flange section of the one or more of the repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members. Applicant’s originally filed specification teaches placing the repair section 405/815 of the repair component over a damaged section of the composite member (see e.g. ¶ [0047] & [0054]-[0057] of Applicant’s originally filed specification). Applicant’s originally filed specification does not teach the flange sections of the repair component being placed over a damaged section of the composite members. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure also fails to teach a first or second shim being placed between more than one repair component and a composite member.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected for depending from one of claims 1 and 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the repair component is attached to one of the composite members via a plurality of fastened bolts, … wherein the repair section is positioned over at least a damaged section of one of the composite members, wherein the repair surface faces an external surface of one of the composite members; a first shim positioned between a respective first flange section of one or more of the repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members; and a second shim positioned between a respective second flange section of the one or more of the repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members.. It is unclear if the second to fifth recitations of “one of the composite members” is referring to the same composite member as the first recitation, or are referring to other composite members when the repair component is attached to a first composite member. The examiner recommends amending the second to fifth recitations of “one of the composite members” to recite “the one of the composite members”.
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected for depending from claim 8.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2019/0210308 (“Marouze”) in view of USPGPub No. 2022/0281188 (“Staal”).
Regarding claim 1, Marouze discloses a system comprising a composite member (12) (figs. 2-4, paras. [0059] & [0061]-[0062]); and a repair component (26) attached to the composite member (12) (figs. 2-5, paras. [0053] & [0063]-[0064], teaching the repair component attached to an external surface of a damaged portion of a composite stringer) comprising: a first flange section; a second flange section; and a repair section between the first flange section and the second flange section and comprising an internal cross-sectional profile defined on a repair surface of the repair section (figs. 4 & 5, wherein the illustrated component 26 is the repair section). Marouze also teaches the repair component 26 can comprise flange sections that extend over the foot portions 25 of the stringer (paras. [0065]-[0066]). These flange sections are interpreted as the first and second flanges.
Claim 1 further recites wherein the repair section is positioned over at least a damaged section of the composite member, wherein the repair surface faces an external surface of the composite member, wherein the composite member comprises an external cross-sectional profile defined on the external surface. Marouze teaches positioning the repair section over a damaged portion of a composite member 12 such that the repair surface faces an external surface of the composite member (fig. 4, paras. [0062]-[0064]).
Marouze fails to explicitly teach the first flange section and the second flange section are flat and coplanar, wherein the first flange section extends outwardly away from the repair section in a first direction, wherein the second flange section extends outwardly away from the repair section in a second direction that is opposite from the first direction, and wherein one or more portions of the repair section are not coplanar with the first flange section and the second flange section. However, this would have been obvious in view of Staal.
Staal is also directed to repairing an aircraft stringer with a composite member (paras. [0002] & [0024]). Staal teaches to assemble a composite stack and cure the stack in a shape matching an aircraft stringer, thereby forming a repair piece 240 having the claimed structure (figs. 2-3, paras. [0024] & [0036]-[0037]). Then the repair piece 240 is attached to a stringer to be repaired, for example via fasteners (fig. 3, paras. [0038]-[0039]).
In this case, each of Marouze and Staal are directed to repairing a hat-shaped stringer by forming a repair piece having a shape similar to the stringer so that the repair piece can be attached over the stringer. While Marouze teaches that the repair piece can extend over foot portions 25 of the stringer (para. [0065] of Marouze), Marouze fails to teach an embodiment wherein the flanges are flat and coplanar. Staal teaches that it is known to form a stringer repair piece that has flat and coplanar flanges configured to extend over foot portions of the stringer, wherein the flanges extend in opposite directions of the repair section, and wherein one or more portions of the repair section are not coplanar with the first flange section and the second flange section. Thus, in order to repair a stringer as illustrated in fig. 2A of Marouze or fig. 3 of Staal, it would be obvious for the repair piece of Marouze to have the shape of the repair piece 240 illustrated in fig. 3 of Staal.
Claim 1 further recites a first surface on the first flange section, the second flange section, and the repair section, wherein the first flange section comprises a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the second flange section comprises a third surface opposite the first surface. As illustrated in figs. 4 & 5 of Marouze, each section of the repair component comprises an inner surface facing a stringer and an opposite outer surface. Thus, when including the first and second flanges as detailed above, each of the repair section, first flange, and second flange will have an inner/first surface facing the stringer. Further, each flange will have an opposite outer surface (i.e. second and third surfaces). This is also illustrated in figs. 2-5 of Staal.
Marouze further teaches the repair component further comprises a plurality of bolt holes (32) (fig. 5, para. [0067]); and wherein the repair component is attached to the composite member via a plurality of fastened bolts, wherein each fastened bolt of the plurality of fastened bolts is positioned in a respective bolt hole of the plurality of bolt holes (figs. 3-5, para. [0067]).
Marouze et al. fail to explicitly teach one or more first shims positioned between the first flange section and the external surface of the composite member; and one or more second shims positioned between the second flange section and the external surface of the composite member. However, this would have been obvious in view of a separate teaching of Marouze.
Marouze teaches that shims can be provided that are configured to be placed between mating surfaces of the repair component and the stringer (para. [0088]).
In this case, the repair component of Marouze et al. has a few mating surfaces that are configured to contact the external surface of the composite member—the first and second flanges, the top portion extending parallel to the first and second flanges, and the two angled portions connecting the top portion to the first and second flanges. One of skill in the art would find it predictable to place shims between any or all of these five mating surfaces and the external surface of the composite member in order to fill a gap between these portions and the external surface of the composite member. Thus, in order to fill gaps and provide support for the repair component, it would be obvious to modify Marouze et al. so that a first shim is placed between the first flange and the external surface of the composite member, and a second shim is placed between the second flange and the external surface of the composite member.
Claim 2 recites the external cross- sectional profile defined on the external surface of the composite member comprises a hat-stiffened structural profile. Marouze teaches the repair component being used with a hat-shaped stringer (fig. 2a, para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Marouze further teaches the composite member comprises a stringer component in an aircraft (paras. [0062]-[0063]).
Claim 5 recites one or more third shims positioned between the repair section and the external surface of the composite member. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above, one of skill in the art would find it obvious and predictable to place shims between any or all of the five mating surfaces of the repair component and the external surface of the composite member in order to fill a gap between these portions and the external surface of the composite member. Thus, in order to fill gaps and provide support for the repair component, it would be obvious to modify Marouze et al. so that a third shim is placed between the repair section and the external surface of the composite member.
Regarding claim 6, Marouze further teaches the repair component comprises a composite material (paras. [0055] & [0063]).
Claim 7 recites the repair component comprises a fabrication length, wherein the repair component is cut down to a selectable length shorter than the fabrication length. This is interpreted as intended. Thus, the component of Marouze merely has to be capable of being cut. One of skill in the art appreciates that the composite repair component of Marouze (for example, formed out of fiber reinforced polymer; see para. [0055] of Marouze) is capable of being cut because it is possible to cut fiber reinforced polymers with a variety of cutting tools. Marouze also teaches that the repair components 26 can be manufactured longer than required and subsequently cut/trimmed to the correct size (para. [0087]). Thus, the repair component of Marouze et al. is capable of being cut to a shorter length.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marouze in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0177007 (“Griess”).
Claim 8 recites a system comprising: composite members of a composite structure system; and a repair system. Marouze teaches a repair system for composite stringers of an aircraft comprising at least a repair component 26, bolts, and shims (figs. 1, 4-5, paras. [0002], [0059], [0063], [0067] & [0088]). Wherein the aircraft is interpreted as the composite structure system, and the composite stringers are interpreted as the composite members. Claim 8 also requires a repair component comprising the structure of claim 1. Thus, the teachings of Marouze provided in the rejection to claim 1 above are incorporated herein to teach the same structure of claim 8.
Marouze fails to explicitly teach the system comprising: a total set of repair components comprising a plurality of repair component subsets, where each repair component in respective repair component subset comprises features for repairing a subset of the composite members of the composite structure system, wherein each repair component subset of the plurality of repair component subsets comprises: repair components comprising sizing dimensions suitable to repair the subset of composite members. However, this would have been obvious in view of Griess.
Griess is directed to a composite repair kit for an aircraft (Title, para. [0005]). Griess teaches the kit can comprise a plurality of hat-shaped repair pieces to repair hat-shaped stringers (fig. 3A, paras. [0040] & [0042]-[0043]). Each of the hat-shaped repair pieces comprises a plurality of plies of material, may have different shapes, and may be stacked on top of each other in a nested and/or staggered manner (figs. 3-5, paras. [0044]-[0047]). For example, the kit can comprise a repair piece having the shapes illustrated in figure 8, 9, and 10, i.e. with flanges that vary in width and/or vary in length with respect to the repair section (paras. [0054]-[0058]). Different pieces of the kit, including different shaped pieces, can be stacked on each other, for example in a staggered manner (figs. 11-12, paras. [0059]-[0062]).
In this case, each of Marouze and Griess are directed to hat-shaped repair pieces that can overlay and repair hat-shaped stringers. Griess teaches that it is known to provide a kit of repair pieces, wherein the repair pieces can comprise different shapes and be stacked on top of each other. Thus, in order to allow flexibility in repairing, replacing, or creating stringers, it would be obvious to provide a kit comprising a plurality of the hat-shaped repair pieces of Marouze, wherein the kit can include different subsets wherein each subset has flanges of different dimensions (e.g. the shapes illustrated in figs. 8-10 of Griess).
Given the above modification, the repair pieces have dimensions capable of repairing a subset of stringers in an aircraft.
Marouze also fails to explicitly teach the first flange section and the second flange section are flat and coplanar, wherein the first flange section extends outwardly away from the repair section in a first direction, wherein the second flange section extends outwardly away from the repair section in a second direction that is opposite from the first direction, and wherein one or more portions of the repair section are not coplanar with the first flange section and the second flange section. However, this would have been obvious in view of Griess.
Griess teaches the hat-shaped repair pieces having flanges that are flat, coplanar, extend in opposite direction from the repair section, and are not coplanar with at least one section of the repair section (see figs. 3-5 & 8-10, most specifically figure 5).
In this case, each of Marouze and Griess are directed to repairing a hat-shaped stringer by forming a repair piece having a shape similar to the stringer so that the repair piece can be attached over the stringer. While Marouze teaches that the repair piece can extend over foot portions 25 of the stringer (para. [0065] of Marouze), Marouze fails to teach an embodiment wherein the flanges are flat and coplanar. Griess teaches that it is known to form a stringer repair piece that has flat and coplanar flanges configured to extend over foot portions of the stringer, wherein the flanges extend in opposite directions of the repair section, and wherein one or more portions of the repair section are not coplanar with the first flange section and the second flange section. Thus, in order to repair a stringer as illustrated in fig. 2A of Marouze or fig. 3A of Griess, it would be obvious for the repair pieces of Marouze et al. to have the shape of the repair pieces illustrated in fig. 5 of Griess.
Claim 8 also recites where the repair section is positioned over at least a damaged section of one of the composite members, where the repair surface faces an external surface of the composite member, where the composite member comprises an external cross- sectional profile defined on the external surface, and where the internal cross-sectional profile matches the external cross-sectional profile within a given tolerance. Marouze teaches positioning the repair components 26 over a damaged portion of a composite member 12 such that the repair surface faces an external surface of the composite member, and the internal cross-sectional profile matches the external cross- sectional profile within a given tolerance (fig. 4, paras. [0062]-[0064]). Thus, the repair components of each subset of Marouze et al. are at least capable of performing the claimed limitations.
Claim 8 further recites each repair component comprises a first surface on the first flange section, the second flange section, and the repair section, wherein the first flange section comprises a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the second flange section comprises a third surface opposite the first surface. As illustrated in figs. 4 & 5 of Marouze, each section of the repair component comprises an inner surface facing a stringer and an opposite outer surface. Thus, when including the first and second flanges as detailed above, each of the repair section, first flange, and second flange will have an inner/first surface facing the stringer. Further, each flange will have an opposite outer surface (i.e. second and third surfaces). This is also illustrated in figs. 3-5 & 8-10 of Griess.
Marouze further teaches each repair component further comprises a plurality of bolt holes (32) (fig. 5, para. [0067]); and wherein each repair component is attached to the composite member via a plurality of fastened bolts, wherein each fastened bolt of the plurality of fastened bolts is positioned in a respective bolt hole of the plurality of bolt holes (figs. 3-5, para. [0067]).
Claim 8 further recites a first shim positioned between a respective first flange section of the repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members; and a second shim positioned between a respective second flange section of repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members. The examiner notes that since this claim is interpreted as the repair component configured to attach to the composite member (given the claim language such as “each repair component in respective repair component subset comprises features for repairing a subset of the composite members” and “repair components comprising sizing dimensions suitable to repair the subset of composite members”), the repair component merely has to comprise shims that are capable of being placed between the flanges and the composite member. Marouze teaches that shims (plural) can be provided that are configured to be placed between mating surfaces of the repair component and the stringer (para. [0088]). These shims are at least capable of being placed between the flange sections and a composite member.
Claim 9 recites the external cross-sectional profile comprises a hat-stiffened structural profile. Marouze teaches the repair components being used with a hat-shaped stringer (fig. 2a, para. [0059]).
Claim 10 recites the composite structure system comprises an aircraft, wherein the subset of composite members comprises a plurality of stringer components in the aircraft, and wherein the composite member comprises a stringer in the aircraft. See rejection to claim 8 above, wherein the repair kit comprises repair components for different stringers of an aircraft.
Claim 12 recites one or more third shims positioned between a respective repair section and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members. While Marouze teaches that shims (plural) can be provided between mating surfaces of composite repair cap 26 and a damaged composite stringer 12 (para. [0088]), Marouze fails to explicitly teach a third shim. However, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, providing a third shim that can be applied between mating surfaces of the repair component and the composite stringer, or for use between another repair component and another composite stringer, will provide the expected result of being able to apply a third shim between any of the repair components and a composite stringer. Thus, providing a third shim (which is capable of being applied to a mating surface—including a mating surface of the repair section) does not have patentable significance.
Regarding claim 13, Marouze further teaches each repair component comprises a composite material (paras. [0055] & [0063]).
Claim 14 recites each repair component comprises a fabrication length, wherein a respective repair component is cut down to a selectable length shorter than the fabrication length. This is interpreted as intended use. Thus, the components of Marouze et al. merely have to be capable of being cut prior to attachment to a composite member. One of skill in the art appreciates that the composite repair components of Marouze et al. (for example, formed out of fiber reinforced polymer; see para. [0055] of Marouze) are capable of being cut because it is possible to cut fiber reinforced polymers with a variety of cutting tools. Marouze also teaches that the repair components 26 can be manufactured longer than required and subsequently cut/trimmed to the correct size (para. [0087]).
In the alternative, claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marouze in view of Griess.
Regarding claim 8, Marouze in view of Griess teach all the limitations of claim 8 as detailed above. Assuming arguendo that the claims require the repair component to be attached to the composite member, Marouze et al. teaches the repair sections to attach to an external surface of a damaged portion of a composite stringer (figs. 3-4, paras. [0062]-[0063]). Marouze et al. fail to explicitly teach a first shim positioned between a respective first flange section of the repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members; and a second shim positioned between a respective second flange section of repair components and the external surface of the damaged section of one of the composite members. However, this would have been obvious in view of a separate teaching of Marouze.
Marouze teaches that shims can be provided that are configured to be placed between mating surfaces of the repair component and the stringer (para. [0088]).
In this case, the repair component of Marouze et al. has a few mating surfaces that are configured to contact the external surface of the composite member—the first and second flanges, the top portion extending parallel to the first and second flanges, and the two angled portions connecting the top portion to the first and second flanges. One of skill in the art would find it predictable to place shims between any or all of these five mating surfaces and the external surface of the composite member in order to fill a gap between these portions and the external surface of the composite member. Thus, in order to fill gaps and provide support for the repair component, it would be obvious to modify Marouze et al. so that a first shim is placed between the first flange of at least one repair component and the external surface of the composite member, and a second shim is placed between the second flange of the at least one repair component and the external surface of the composite member.
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons detailed in the previous 103 rejections, above.
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, one of skill in the art would find it predictable to place shims between any or all of the five mating surfaces of the repair component and the external surface of the composite member in order to fill a gap between these portions and the external surface of the composite member. Thus, in order to fill gaps and provide support for the repair component, it would be obvious to modify Marouze et al. so that a third shim is placed between the repair section and the external surface of the damaged section of the composite member.
Claim 14 recites each repair component comprises a fabrication length, wherein a respective repair component is cut down to a selectable length shorter than the fabrication length. This is interpreted as intended. Thus, the component of Marouze merely has to be capable of being cut. One of skill in the art appreciates that the composite repair component of Marouze (for example, formed out of fiber reinforced polymer; see para. [0055] of Marouze) is capable of being cut because it is possible to cut fiber reinforced polymers with a variety of cutting tools. Marouze also teaches that the repair components 26 can be manufactured longer than required and subsequently cut/trimmed to the correct size (para. [0087]). Thus, the repair component of Marouze et al. is capable of being cut to a shorter length.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Applicant argues that Marouze does not explicitly teach or suggest positioning a shim between the flange sections and external surface of a composite member.
While the cited references don’t explicitly teach positioning a shim between the flange sections and external surface of the composite member, the examiner believes it is suggested by Marouze because Marouze generally teaches providing shims between the mating surfaces of the composite member and repair component, and, the two flanges of the repair component of Marouze et al. are two of five possible mating surfaces.
If Applicant’s argument were persuasive, it does not appear it would be obvious to place the shims taught by Marouze between any mating surfaces of the system of Marouze et al. because no specific mating surface is explicitly taught by Marouze. The examiner believes that this is an unreasonable position because one of skill in the art (having ordinary creativity) would look at the structure of the composite member and repair component of Marouze et al. and identify five potential mating surfaces of the repair component (the first and second flanges, the top portion extending parallel to the flanges, and the two angled portions connecting the top portion to the first and second flanges). One of skill in the art would find it obvious and predictable to place a shim between any of these five mating surfaces and the exterior surface of the composite member in order to fill gaps and provide support for the repair component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Sunil Singh (571-272-3460). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”