DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I Species 1, Figure 4A, claims 1, 3-9, 12 and 14, in the reply filed on July 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 10, 11, 13, 15-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 18, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 1, 3-9, 12 and 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (lines 10-13) recites “wherein the second part forms a first interface with the support plate, forms an intermetallic bond with the tab first surface at a second interface, and forms a metallurgical bond with the support plate at the first interface formed between the second part and the support plate”.
It is unclear as to how the second part longitudinally extends relative to the first part; and unclear as to how the tab extends from the first part relative to longitudinal axes of each of the first and second parts such to define the tab first and second surfaces, and such that the second part can form both a “first interface with the support plate” and a “second interface” with the tab first surface. Claims 3-9 and 12 depend from claim 1 and are likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Claim 14 (lines 11-14) recites “wherein the second part forms a first interface with the support plate, forms a second interface with the tab, forms an intermetallic bond with the tab first surface and the tab third surface at the second interface, and forms a metallurgical bond with the support plate at the first interface formed between the second part and the support plate”.
It is unclear as to how the second part longitudinally extends relative to the first part; and unclear as to how the tab extends from the first part relative to longitudinal axes of each of the first and second parts such to define the tab first, second and third surfaces, and such that the second part can form both a “first interface with the support plate” and a “second interface” with the tab first and third surfaces.
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 1, 3-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arul (US 10,859,103).
As to claim 1, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint, comprising:
a first part 106 made from a first metallic material having a first melting temperature, wherein the first part comprises a tab 104 comprising a tab first surface 110 and a tab second surface A (Figure 3 reprinted below with annotations), opposite the tab first surface;
a support plate 108 forming a butt joint with the tab, wherein the support plate is made from a second metallic material having a second melting temperature; and
a second part 102 made from a third metallic material having a third melting temperature, the second part distinct from the first part and the support plate, wherein the second part forms a first interface 306 with the support plate, forms an intermetallic bond with the tab first surface at a second interface 305, and forms a metallurgical bond with the support plate at the first interface formed between the second part and the support plate (Figures 1-3).
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
133
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arul fails to disclose a joint wherein the second and third melting temperatures of the support plate and the second part are less than the first melting temperature of the first part. Arul does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the support plate or second part.
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 joint disclosed by Arul wherein the second and third melting temperatures of the support plate and the second part are less than the first melting temperature of the first part, as Arul does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the support plate or second part, 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 3, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint wherein the second part 102 is in intimate contact with the first part 104,106 such that the second interface 305 between the first part and the second part is gapless (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 4, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint wherein the second part 102 is a capable of being cast (Figures 1-3).
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 second being cast in claim 4 are given little patentable weight; all that is required of such claim is that the second part is capable of being cast.
As to claim 5, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint wherein the second part 102 is capable of being additively manufactured part (Figures 1-3).
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 second being additively manufactured in claim 5 are given little patentable weight; all that is required of such claim is that the second part is capable of being additively manufactured.
As to claim 6, Arul discloses a joint wherein the second metallic material and the third metallic material are a same type or similar types of metallic material (Figures 1-3).
Arul fails to disclose a joint wherein the first metallic material and the third metallic material are different types of metallic material. Arul does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the first and second parts.
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 joint disclosed by Arul wherein the first metallic material and the third metallic material are different types of metallic material, as Arul does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the first and second parts, 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 7, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint wherein the permanent metallic joint is free of fasteners and adhesives (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 9, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint wherein the permanent metallic joint:
prevents movement of the first part 106 relative to the second part 102 in a first direction, a second direction, opposite the first direction, and a third direction, perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction; and
enables movement of the first part relative to the second part in a fourth direction opposite the third direction (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 12, Arul discloses a permanent metallic joint wherein:
the tab 104 further comprises a tab third surface that is perpendicular to the tab first surface 110 and the tab second surface A, and extends between the tab first surface and the tab second surface; and
the tab first surface is parallel to the tab second surface (Figures 1-3).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arul in view of Thable et al. (US 9,126,670).
As to claim 14, Arul discloses vehicle frame joint comprising:
a first part 106 made from a first metallic material having a first melting temperature, wherein the first part comprises a tab 104 comprising a tab first surface, a tab second surface, opposite the tab first surface, and a tab third surface, extending between the tab first surface and the tab second surface;
a support plate 108 forming a butt joint with the tab second surface, wherein the support plate is made from a second metallic material having a second melting temperature; and
a second part 102 made from a third metallic material having a third melting temperature, the second part distinct from the first part and the support plate, wherein the second part forms a first interface 306 with the support plate, forms a second interface 305 with the tab, forms an intermetallic bond with the tab first surface and the tab third surface at the second interface, and forms a metallurgical bond with the support plate at the first interface formed between the second part and the support plate (Figures 1-3).
Arul fails to disclose a joint wherein the second and third melting temperatures of the support plate and the second part are less than the first melting temperature of the first part. Arul does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the support plate or second part.
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 joint disclosed by Arul wherein the second and third melting temperatures of the support plate and the second part are less than the first melting temperature of the first part, as Arul does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metallic material of the support plate or second part, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Arul fails to disclose the use of the vehicle frame joint within an aircraft.
Thable et al. teach the use of a vehicle frame joint structurally and functionally similar to the vehicle frame joint disclosed by Arul within an aircraft (Figures 1-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a vehicle frame joint as disclosed by Arul within an aircraft, as taught by Thable et al., as the two vehicle frame joints are structural and functional equivalents within the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 8, Arul discloses the claimed permanent metallic joint with the exception of wherein: the first part comprises a plurality of tabs spaced apart from each other along a length of the first part; the permanent metallic joint comprises a plurality of support plates spaced apart from each other along a length of the first part; each one of the plurality of support plates forms a butt joint with a corresponding one of the plurality of tabs; the second part forms an intermetallic bond with the tab first surface and a tab third surface, extending between the tab first surface and the tab second surface, of each one of the plurality of tabs; and the second part forms a metallurgical bond with each one of the plurality of support plates.
There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the joint disclosed by Arul to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
04/02/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights