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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thable et al (US 2013/0084422 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Thable discloses a joined panel assembly (i.e., a structurally bonded arrangement) comprising a structure 115 (i.e., an interconnecting component), a first panel element 102a (i.e., a first component) having an edgeband 108a (i.e., a first connecting area) depicted as rigidly connected to the structure 115 (i.e., the first connecting area is rigidly connected to the interconnecting component), and a second panel element 102b (i.e., a second component) having an edgeband 108b depicted as structurally bonded to the structure 115 (i.e., the second area is structurally bonded to the interconnecting component in an associated bonding area) (Thable: Fig. 7; para. [0046]-[0047]). The joined panel assembly further includes a plurality of protrusions 123b depicted as formed in an associated bonding area between the second panel element 102b and the structure 115 (i.e., a plurality of separated sub-bondings is formed in the associated bonding area between the second component and the interconnecting component) (Thable: Fig. 7; para. [0046]-[0047]). In addition, Thable depicts the edgeband 108a as structurally bonded to the structure 115 via a subset of the protrusions 123b of the edgeband 108b (i.e., the first connecting area of the first component is structurally bonded to the interconnecting component in the associated bonding area for rigidly connecting the first component to the interconnecting component, wherein another plurality of separated sub-bondings is formed in the associated bonding area between the first component and the interconnecting component) (Thable: Fig. 7). For clarity is noted that the plurality of protrusions 123b include both the plurality of separated sub-bondings and the additional (i.e., another) plurality of separated sub-bondings (i.e., as the plurality of protrusions 123b is subdivisible into two pluralities of separated sub-bondings) (Thable: Fig. 7). Furthermore, the first and second connecting areas are connected to one another between alternating protrusions and recesses (i.e., the first connecting area and the second connecting area form an intermeshing pattern on the interconnecting component that separates the associated bonding area in its length direction into the plurality of separated sub-bondings and the other plurality of separated sub-bondings) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 3, the edgebands 108a and 108b are connected to an upper surface of the structure 115 (i.e., the first connecting area and the second connecting area are structurally bonded to a same side of the interconnecting component) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 4, in another embodiment, Thable depicts its first and second connecting areas as spaced apart from each other on the interconnecting component to form an interspace (Thable: Fig. 9C).
With regards to claim 5, the first and second connecting areas are connected to one another between alternating protrusions and recesses (i.e., the first connecting area and the second connecting area are alternatingly connected to the interconnecting component in a length direction of the associated bonding area to form the plurality of separated sub-bondings and the other plurality of separated sub-bondings) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 7, the first and second connecting areas are connected to one another between alternating rounded protrusions and recesses which fit into one another (i.e., the first connecting area comprises a first edge with a first shape, and wherein the second connecting area comprises a second edge with a second shape that fits into the first shape to form the intermeshing pattern) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 8, the first shape and the second shape are depicted as forming a sine wave (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 9, the panel of Thable is disclosed as used in a rotorcraft (i.e., constituting a panel of a rotorcraft) (Thable: para. [0038]).
With regards to claim 10, Thable depicts the interconnecting component as, more specifically, a beam (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 11, the interconnecting component is depicted as a connecting plate that connects the first and second components to each other in a lap shear manner (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 12, the connecting plate is depicted as comprising a width that equalizes at least approximately a respective width of the intermeshing pattern (Thable: Fig. 7). It is noted that the term “equalizes,” as best understood from the present specification, is denoting an equal width (i.e., that the connecting plate comprises a width that is at least approximately equal to a respective width of the intermeshing pattern).
With regards to claim 13, as best understood, the plurality of separated sub-bondings depicted by Thable could be construed as two separate pluralities of separated sub-bondings (i.e., the structure of Thable includes a plurality of separated sub-bondings and an other plurality of separated sub-bondings) (Thable: Fig. 7). That the plurality of separated sub-bondings and the other plurality of separated sub-bondings “are embodied to prevent upon occurrence of a crack growth of an a crack between adjacent sub-bondings in the associated bonding area” constitutes a functional property.
With regards to claim 14, the first and second components of Thable are interconnected by bonding only via the interconnecting component (i.e., a form-fit-free manner, per the definition of “form-fit-free manner” in the present specification) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 15, the panel of Thable is disclosed as used in a rotorcraft (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 17, Thable discloses a joined panel assembly (i.e., a structurally bonded arrangement) comprising a structure 115 (i.e., an interconnecting component), a first panel element 102a (i.e., a first component) having an edgeband 108a (i.e., a first connecting area) depicted as rigidly connected to the structure 115 (i.e., the first connecting area is rigidly connected to the interconnecting component), and a second panel element 102b (i.e., a second component) having an edgeband 108b depicted as structurally bonded to the structure 115 (i.e., the second area is structurally bonded to the interconnecting component in an associated bonding area) (Thable: Fig. 7; para. [0046]-[0047]). The joined panel assembly further includes a plurality of protrusions 123b depicted as formed in an associated bonding area between the second panel element 102b and the structure 115 (i.e., a plurality of separated sub-bondings is formed in the associated bonding area between the second component and the interconnecting component) (Thable: Fig. 7; para. [0046]-[0047]). In addition, Thable depicts the edgeband 108a as structurally bonded to the structure 115 via a subset of the protrusions 123b of the edgeband 108b (i.e., the first connecting area of the first component is structurally bonded to the interconnecting component in the associated bonding area for rigidly connecting the first component to the interconnecting component, wherein another plurality of separated sub-bondings is formed in the associated bonding area between the first component and the interconnecting component) (Thable: Fig. 7). For clarity is noted that the plurality of protrusions 123b include both the plurality of separated sub-bondings and the additional (i.e., another) plurality of separated sub-bondings (i.e., as the plurality of protrusions 123b is subdivisible into two pluralities of separated sub-bondings) (Thable: Fig. 7). Furthermore, the first and second connecting areas are connected to one another between alternating protrusions and recesses (i.e., the first connecting area and the second connecting area form an intermeshing pattern on the interconnecting component that separates the associated bonding area in its length direction into the plurality of separated sub-bondings and the other plurality of separated sub-bondings) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 18, the edgebands 108a and 108b are connected to an upper surface of the structure 115 (i.e., the first connecting area and the second connecting area are structurally bonded to a same side of the interconnecting component) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 19, in another embodiment, Thable depicts its first and second connecting areas as spaced apart from each other on the interconnecting component to form an interspace (Thable: Fig. 9C).
With regards to claim 20, the first and second connecting areas are connected to one another between alternating rounded protrusions and recesses which fit into one another (i.e., the first connecting area comprises a first edge with a first shape, and wherein the second connecting area comprises a second edge with a second shape that fits into the first shape to form the intermeshing pattern) (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 21, the first shape and the second shape are depicted as forming a sine wave (Thable: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 22, the panel of Thable is disclosed as used in a rotorcraft (i.e., constituting a panel of a rotorcraft), and in particular, a rotorcraft shell (Thable: para. [0005] and [0038]).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thable as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al (US2008/0111024A1).
With regards to claim 16, Thable discloses a rotorcraft panel (which may be used as a shell) as applied to claim 1 above (see above discussion). Thable does not appear to disclose its panel as formed of fiber reinforced polymer.
Lee is directed to a composite aircraft panel comprising glass or carbon fibers embedded in resin (i.e., fiber reinforced polymer) (Lee: abstract; para. [0016], [0031], and [0041]). As best understood from Lee, such materials are well-known in the art of composite aircraft panels (Lee: para. [0013] and [0016]). Thable and Lee are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of aircraft panels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the material of Lee (i.e., glass or carbon fibers embedded in resin) for the panel of Lee, in order to provide improved strength and rigidity (Lee: para. [0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant has removed the phrase “in particular” from claim 9 and provided antecedent basis for the term “crack” in claim 13, and therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On pages 8-11, Applicant summarizes the Thable reference, and argues that the first and second panel nonlinear edges overlap one another, but Thable fails to teach a plurality of separated sub-bondings. Applicant argues that Thable clearly forms a single connection plane. At the outset, this argument is not found persuasive as Thable discloses a plurality of fasteners (which may be taken as a plurality of separated sub-bondings). However, Applicant’s arguments are also not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The existence of a single connection plane is not mutually-exclusive from a plurality of separated sub-bondings (as best understood, Applicant’s Figures also depict a single plane having a plurality of sub-bondings). Since it is possible to delineate the bonding area of Thable into a plurality of sub-areas (i.e., sub-bondings) the present claims are also met in this manner.
On page 11, Applicant argues that Thable retains a portion of the width for connecting the plurality of projections to ensure that they are not separated from each other. This argument is not found persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with the claims, as the claims do not preclude a portion of a width for connecting projections.
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 ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783