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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A2 without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. However, Applicant’s election is incomplete because Applicant is also required to elect one specie from species B, one specie from species C, and one specie from species D. For purposes of compact prosecution and in accordance with Applicant’s election of claims and Species A2, claims have been examined below as if Applicant elected B2, C3, and D2. Accordingly, claim(s) 4-5 and 13-16 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected Groups and Species and claim(s) 1-3 and 6-12 is/are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in French Republic on 01/13/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2300348 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Notes
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-3 and 6-12 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For instance, the recitation “for manufacturing an air deflection cascade for a thrust reverser system of an aircraft nacelle, the cascade comprising a plurality of spars extending along a longitudinal direction, each spar being connected to at least one adjacent spar by a plurality of deflection vanes” and “the compression of elements made of a composite material arranged in the tooling and intended to form at least one part of the air deflection cascade” are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use failing to add additional structure to the claimed apparatus.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-3, “a transverse direction of the tooling” should be changed to --the transverse direction of the tooling--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-12 is/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 recites the limitations “Tooling for manufacturing an air deflection cascade for a thrust reverser system of an aircraft nacelle, the cascade comprising a plurality of spars extending along a longitudinal direction, each spar being connected to at least one adjacent spar by a plurality of deflection vanes” and “compression of elements made of a composite material arranged in the tooling and intended to form at least one part of the air deflection cascade” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. The second limitation contradicts/broadens the scope of the first limitation. It is unclear if the tooling is configured for manufacturing the entire air deflection cascade or only portion of the air deflection cascade. Furthermore, the first limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. When the tooling comprises one molding bar and one molding column as encompassed by claim 1, Applicant’s tooling is incapable of manufacturing the cascade comprising a plurality of spars extending along a longitudinal direction, each spar being connected to at least one adjacent spar by a plurality of deflection vanes (See Applicant’s Figs. 3-4 and accompanying text). Thus, claim 1 has been examined below as if the claimed tooling is for manufacturing a part of an air deflection cascade.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a plurality of deflection vanes” and “a row of vanes” which make the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claimed vanes are same or different vanes. Claim 1 has been examined below as if the row of vanes is part of the plurality of deflection vanes.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the compression of elements” which is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the compression of elements” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --compression of elements--.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-12 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the guide system comprising rails providing guidance of movable elements of the tooling” which is indefinite. It is unclear the scope encompassed by the term “the movable elements of the tooling”. As currently written, the claimed language encompass movable elements of the tooling in claim 1 as well as other unclaimed movable elements. Thus, the language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Furthermore, the limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. For instance, the compression devices are movable elements of the tooling; however, they are not disclosed as being guided by the rails.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desjoyeaux (WO 2021123628 – of record) with (US 20220314558 – of record) being used as its English equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, Desjoyeaux discloses tooling (Fig. 1) for manufacturing at least a part of an air deflection cascade for a thrust reverser system of an aircraft nacelle (P0002, 0093, 0127), the cascade comprising a plurality of spars extending along a longitudinal direction, each spar being connected to at least one adjacent spar by a plurality of deflection vanes (P0093, Fig. 14), the tooling comprising:
at least one molding bar (bar 16B), extending along a longitudinal direction (L) of the tooling (P0094, annotated Fig. 1 below);
at least one molding column (column(s) of cores 16A) for molding a row of vanes of the plurality of deflection vanes (P0093-0094, 0127, Fig. 1), the at least one molding column comprising two opposite lateral faces extending along the longitudinal direction of the tooling and molding cavities (annotated Fig. 1 below), each cavity opening onto each of the two lateral faces of the molding column and forming a cavity for molding a vane of the row of vanes (P0093-0094, 0127, annotated Fig. 1 below);
a fixed structure (12) on which the molding bar (16B) and the molding column are mounted (P0092, Fig. 1), the fixed structure allowing a translational movement, along a transverse direction (T) of the tooling, of the molding bar (P0095, 0124, annotated Fig. 1 below); and
at least one compression device (cylinders, not shown) for providing a displacement of the molding bar (16B) towards the molding column and compression of elements made of a composite material arranged in the tooling and intended to form the at least part of the air deflection cascade (P0119-0120, 0123-0124, 0127-0128, annotated Fig. 1 below). Thus, Desjoyeaux discloses the tooling as claimed by applicant. Desjoyeaux further discloses/envisions vertical arrangement of the tooling (P0100).
PNG
media_image1.png
345
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Desjoyeaux further discloses at least two adjacent molding columns (P0094, Fig. 1), each molding column being movable in translation, along the transverse direction of the tooling, over the fixed structure of the tooling (P0095, 0119-0120, 0124), the tooling further comprising a second molding bar (2nd 16B), the two molding bars being arranged on either side of an assembly formed by the molding columns (P0094, annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Desjoyeaux further discloses wherein the second molding bar is mounted movable in translation, along the transverse direction of the tooling (P0095, 0119-0120, 0124), the tooling comprising a second compression device configured to provide the displacement of the second molding bar (P0128, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Desjoyeaux further discloses wherein each molding column comprises between 8 and 16 cavities (twelve cores in each molding column implies 12 molding cavities: P0096, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Desjoyeaux further discloses providing between 4 and 8 molding columns (P0096).
Regarding claim 9, Desjoyeaux further discloses wherein each molding column is rigid (molding columns of rigid cores are expected to be rigid: P0049, 0097).
Regarding claim 11, Desjoyeaux further discloses wherein each molding column is made of a fusible material (P0099).
Regarding claim 12, Desjoyeaux further discloses a guide system, the guide system comprising rails (guides) providing guidance of movable elements of the tooling (P0087, 0095, 0158-0163).
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) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desjoyeaux as applied to claims 1 and 6 above.
Regarding claim 7, Desjoyeaux further discloses wherein each molding column is made by assembling at least two subassemblies (cores or groups of cores making the molding columns are described as being subassemblies for the benefit(s) of facilitating/expediating demolding/adjuments: P0098, 0149-0153), but Desjoyeaux fails to explicitly disclose that each subassembly comprises between 4 and 8 cavities.
Since Desjoyeaux teaches to enable adjustments to the number of cores/cavities in each molding column (P0096) and it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routing skill in art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tooling of Desjoyeaux by making/separating each molding column into at least two subassemblies, each subassembly comprising between 4 and 8 cavities for the benefit(s) of facilitating/expediating adjustment to the number of cores/cavities in each molding column and/or facilitating/expediating demolding. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V) (C).
Regarding claim 10, Desjoyeaux fails to explicitly disclose wherein the molding cavities of each molding column are non-deformable.
However, since Desjoyeaux discloses the desire to make the space/volume of mold cavities less deformable in another embodiment (P0041) and a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Desjoyeaux, would have recognized that non-deformable cavities is one of a finite number of options (i.e., non-deformable and deformable molding cavities) available known to be useful for improving molding accuracy, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tooling of Desjoyeaux by making the molding cavities of each molding column non-deformable for yielding the predictable result/benefit of improving molding accuracy with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I E.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
VanDeMark (US 20210023745) discloses a relevant tooling (Fig. 3 and accompanying text).
Perez (US 5356692) discloses a relevant tooling (Figs. 3-5 and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743