DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-14 are pending.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
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) 1-2, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Journade et al (“Journade”) (US 2017*0106990) in view of Victorazzo (US 2014/0186586).
Re claim 1, Journade discloses an isogrid structure (Fig. 3-6; [0044]) comprising:
a single panel (17) having adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4; see examiner comments); and
at least one added stiffener (27) having a first side (left side of 27) and a second side (right side of 27);
wherein the at least one added stiffener (27) is attached to (Fig. 6) the single panel (17);
wherein the adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) from the single panel (17) are disposed on both (Fig. 6) the first side (left side of 27) and the second side (right side of 27)of the at least one added stiffener (27);
wherein the triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) are formed partly from ribs (40);
wherein the at least one added stiffener (27) forms one side (Fig. 6) of the triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments);
wherein the at least one added stiffener (27) has a longitudinal axis (vertically) that spans a length (Fig. 4, spanning the same as Applicant’s Fig. 2B) of the single panel (17) and the triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) are spaced along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4); and
wherein at least three ribs (see examiner comments, where 6 ribs intersect at the first node) intersect at a first node (see examiner comments) and the at least one added stiffener (27) is located at a second node (see examiner comments) of the single panel (17),
but fails to disclose at least one pad-up formed along an edge, the at least one added stiffener is attached on the at least one pad-up.
However, Victorazzo discloses at least one pad-up (62) formed along an edge (of the pockets between 12 and 14) of adjacent triangular pockets (between 12 and 14; per the above), the at least one added stiffener (14) attached on (Fig. 3B-3E) the at least one pad-up (62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade with at least one pad-up formed along an edge of adjacent triangular pockets, the at least one added stiffener attached on the at least one pad-up as disclosed by Victorazzo in order to reinforce the connection at the attachment location to manage high stress, improve damage tolerance without incurring a weight penalty of increasing the thickness of the entire structure, as is the normal and logical manner of use of a pad-up, and as pad-ups are very well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 2, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one added stiffener comprises at least one mouse hole which forms a tunnel for two of the adjacent triangular pockets of the single panel to pass beneath the added stiffener.
However, Victorazzo discloses wherein the at least one added stiffener (14) comprises at least one mouse hole (20a) which forms a tunnel (20a) for two of the adjacent triangular pockets (via the above, per 12) of the single panel (16a) to pass beneath (Fig. 3E) the added stiffener (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein the at least one added stiffener comprises at least one mouse hole which forms a tunnel for two of the adjacent triangular pockets of the single panel to pass beneath the added stiffener as disclosed by Victorazzo in order to add modularity to the structure for smaller items for shipping and transportation, and to allow for the features passing therethrough to have increased strength and rigidity as compared to segmented features.
Re claim 10, Journade discloses an isogrid structure (Fig. 3-6; [0044]) comprising:
a single panel (17) having adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4; see examiner comments), the adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) formed from ribs (40); and
at least one added stiffener (27) attached to (Fig. 6) the single panel (17);
one side of the adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) is formed by the at least one added stiffener (27), a triangular pocket structure (Fig. 4, Fig. 6) is maintained throughout (Fig. 4, Fig. 6) the single panel (17); and
wherein at least three ribs (see examiner comments, where 6 ribs intersect at the first node) intersect at a first node (see examiner comments) and the at least one added stiffener (27) is located at a second node (see examiner comments) of the single panel (17),
but fails to disclose at least one pad-up formed along an edge, the at least one added stiffener is attached on the at least one pad-up, wherein the at least one pad-up is along one side of the adjacent triangular pockets formed from ribs, wherein the at least one pad-up extends an entire length from a topmost edge to a bottommost edge of the single panel.
However, Victorazzo discloses at least one pad-up (62) formed along an edge (of the pockets between 12 and 14) of adjacent triangular pockets (between 12 and 14; per the above), the at least one added stiffener (14) attached on (Fig. 3B-3E) the at least one pad-up (62), wherein the at least one pad-up (62) is along one side (Fig. 3B) of the adjacent triangular pockets (between 12 and 14; per the above) formed from ribs (12) and wherein the at least one pad-up (62) extends an entire length (Fig. 3B) from a topmost edge (top edge of 16) to a bottommost edge (bottom edge of 16) of the single panel (16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade with at least one pad-up formed along an edge of adjacent triangular pockets, the added stiffener attached on the at least one pad-up, wherein the at least one pad-up is along one side of the adjacent triangular pockets formed from ribs and wherein the at least one pad-up extends an entire length from a topmost edge to a bottommost edge of the single panel as disclosed by Victorazzo in order to reinforce the connection at the attachment location to manage high stress, improve damage tolerance without incurring a weight penalty of increasing the thickness of the entire structure, as is the normal and logical manner of use of a pad-up, and as pad-ups are very well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 12, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the pad-up has a thickness greater than a thickness of a bottom of the triangular pockets of the single panel.
However, 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 isogrid structure of Journade wherein the pad-up has a thickness greater than a thickness of a bottom of the triangular pockets of the single panel in order to increase the rigidity and strength along the edge at the bottom of the panel, at the pad-up, at the connection with the at least one added stiffener. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8-9 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Journade et al (“Journade”) (US 2017/0106990) in view of Victorazzo (US 2014/0186586), and Kunichi et al (“Kunichi”) (US 2009/0314892).
Re claim 3, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein said at least one mouse hole is edged to provide reinforcement.
However, Kunichi discloses wherein said at least one mouse hole (21d) is edged (21n) to provide reinforcement ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein said at least one mouse hole is edged to provide reinforcement as disclosed by Kunichi in order to reduce the chance of cracking at the mouse hole.
Re claim 5, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one added stiffener has a bottom flange.
However, Kunichi discloses wherein the at least one added stiffener (21) has a bottom flange (21f).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein the at least one added stiffener has a bottom flange as disclosed by Kunichi in order to provide a flange for mounting ([0029]) or to increase the strength and rigidity of the added stiffener.
Re claim 6, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the bottom flange is thicker than the pad-up formed along the edge of the adjacent triangular pockets of the single panel.
However, 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 isogrid structure of Journade wherein the bottom flange is thicker than the pad-up formed along the edge of the adjacent triangular pockets of the single panel in order to increase the rigidity and strength along the edge at the bottom flange. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 8, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 5, Kunichi discloses wherein the bottom flange (21f) of the at least one added stiffener (21) comprises a fastener (27) for attaching the at least one added stiffener (21) to the single panel (20), but fails to disclose the fastener as at least one of glue, welding, or bolts.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade with disclose the fastener as at least one of glue, welding, or bolts (instead of rivets 27) in order to provide superior strength, a seamless appearance, and provide leak proof seal (such as by adhesion or welding). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 9, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 5, Victorazzo discloses wherein the at least one pad-up (62) has a thickness (Fig. 3B), Kunichi discloses the bottom flange (21f) has a thickness (Fig. 4), and Journade discloses the triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) have a thickness (Fig. 10a), but fails to disclose wherein the thickness of the bottom flange is equal to or greater than the thickness of the at least one pad-up plus the thickness of the triangular pockets.
However, 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 isogrid structure of Journade wherein the thickness of the bottom flange is equal to or greater than the thickness of the at least one pad-up plus the thickness of the triangular pockets in order to increase the rigidity and strength along the edge at the bottom flange. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 13, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the added stiffener has a cap on top and the bottom flange on at least one side.
However, Kunichi discloses wherein the added stiffener (21) has a cap (14b) on top (Fig. 4) and the bottom flange (21f) on at least one side (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein the added stiffener has a cap on top and the bottom flange on at least one side as disclosed by Kunichi in order to increase strength at the top and to offer protection to the top edge.
Re claim 14, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the thickness of the triangular pockets and the pad-up is equivalent to the thickness of the bottom flange of the added stiffener.
However, 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 isogrid structure of Journade wherein the thickness of the triangular pockets and the pad-up is equivalent to the thickness of the bottom flange of the added stiffener in order to simplify design and manufacture by making each element an identical thickness. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Journade et al (“Journade”) (US 2017*0106990) in view of Victorazzo (US 2014/0186586) and McCoskey JR et al (“McCoskey”) (US 2004/0035979).
Re claim 7, Journade as modified discloses the isogrid structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one added stiffener has a tapered height along a length of the at least one added stiffener.
However, McCoskey discloses wherein the at least one added stiffener (20) has a tapered height (Claim 10) along a length (Claim 10) of the at least one added stiffener (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein the at least one added stiffener has a tapered height along a length of the at least one added stiffener as disclosed by McCoskey in order to reduce stiffness mismatches, preventing dangerous stress concentrations, providing a smooth transition of structural loads.
Re claim 11, Journade discloses (Fig. 3-6; [0044]) comprising:
a single panel (17) having adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments), the adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) are formed from ribs (40); and
at least one added stiffener (27) attached to the single panel (17); and
wherein one side of the adjacent triangular pockets (Fig. 4, see examiner comments) is formed by the at least one added stiffener (27), so that a triangular pocket structure (Fig. 4, Fig. 6) is maintained throughout the single panel (17),
wherein the at least one added stiffener (20) is tapered along an entire length (Claim 10) of the at least one added stiffener (20) from a topmost edge (longitudinal center of 10) to a bottommost edge (side edges of 1) of the single panel (10),
but fails to disclose at least one pad-up formed along a side of adjacent triangular pockets, the added stiffener attached on the at least one pad-up, wherein the at least one added stiffener comprises at least one mouse hole at an intersection of the ribs which forms a tunnel for the adjacent triangular pockets of the single panel to pass beneath the at least one added stiffener; and wherein a height of the at least one added stiffener tapers from a topmost edge to a bottommost edge.
However, Victorazzo discloses at least one pad-up (52) formed along a side (of the pockets between 12 and 14) of adjacent triangular pockets (between 12 and 14; per the above), the added stiffener (14) attached on (Fig. 3B-3E) the at least one pad-up (62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade with at least one pad-up formed along a side of adjacent triangular pockets, the added stiffener attached on the at least one pad-up as disclosed by Victorazzo in order to reinforce the connection at the attachment location to manage high stress, improve damage tolerance without incurring a weight penalty of increasing the thickness of the entire structure, as is the normal and logical manner of use of a pad-up, and as pad-ups are very well-known and common in the art.
In addition, Victorazzo discloses wherein the at least one added stiffener (14) comprises at least one mouse hole (20a) at the intersection of ribs (per the above) which forms a tunnel (20a) for two of the adjacent triangular pockets (via the above, per 12) of the single panel (16a) to pass beneath (Fig. 3E) the at least one added stiffener (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein the at least one added stiffener comprises at least one mouse hole at an intersection of the ribs which forms a tunnel for the adjacent triangular pockets of the single panel to pass beneath the at least one added stiffeneras disclosed by Victorazzo in order to add modularity to the structure for smaller items for shipping and transportation, and to allow for the features passing therethrough to have increased strength and rigidity as compared to segmented features.
In addition, McCoskey discloses wherein the at least one added stiffener (20) is tapered along an entire length (Claim 10) of the at least one added stiffener (20) from a topmost edge (longitudinal center of 10) to a bottommost edge (side edges of 1) of the single panel (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the isogrid structure of Journade wherein a height of the at least one added stiffener tapers from a topmost edge to a bottommost edge as disclosed by McCoskey in order to reduce stiffness mismatches, preventing dangerous stress concentrations, providing a smooth transition of structural loads.
PNG
media_image1.png
447
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Comments
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot as they do not apply to any of the combination of references relied upon in the above.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights