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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1 on 12/05/2025.
Response to Arguments
The arguments are drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claim.
The rejection below provides two sets of rejections over Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso.
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 1-2, 4-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424).
Regarding claim 1, Lyons teaches a method of manufacturing a composite structure, the method comprising:
applying at least one of curable material to outer surfaces of a plurality of IML tools made of expandable material (Figures 4-6 and 20A-20H and [0037], [0039]-[0040], [0043], [0061]);
positioning the plurality of IML tools in a predetermined arrangement relative to each other to define an assembly (Figures 4-6 and 20A-20H and [0040]-[0041], [0063]);
enclosing the assembly within a rigid outer mold (Figures 4-6 and 20A-20H and [0041]-[0043], [0064]-[00657]); and
curing the assembly within the rigid outer mold (Figure 8 and 20A-20H and [0049], [0059], [0065]).
Lyons teaches the mandrel may be formed of expandable foam (Figure 19, step 304).
Lyons teaches the expandable mandrel is covered by a polymer layer, a stretchable film or sheet of material to accommodate the expansion of the mandrel (Figure 7 and [0046]). Lyons teaches the polymer layer may be non-porous and prevent resin and/or adhesive of the composite assembly from contacting the mandrel and/or bonding therewith (Figure 7 and [0046]). Lyons teaches the mandrel is sealed by the polymer layer prior to use [0062]-[0063]. Accordingly, the expandable foam sealed and covered by a non-porous polymer layer would provide an unvented, hollow airtight structure.
Regarding claim 2, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the mandrels are sized, shaped, and configured to be receivable within the OML tool (Lyons, [0039]), further comprising forming the plurality of hollow airtight structures (Lyons, [0062]).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the at least one layer of curable material comprises a fiber-reinforced composite material, wherein the fiber-reinforced composite material comprises a pre-preg composite material (Lyons, Figures 20A-20H and [0041] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising following the positioning and prior to the enclosing, applying at least one skin of curable material to the assembly (Lyons, [0039]-[0041] and [0061] and Figures 20A-20H).
Regarding claim 7, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures comprises a planar-faced prism (Lyons, Figure 6-8).
Regarding claim 8, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures comprises a six-sided prism (Lyons, Figure 6-8).
Regarding claim 9, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein curing the assembly comprises applying heat to the rigid outer mold and the assembly (Lyons, [0048]-[0049], [0065]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the applying heat to the rigid outer mold and the assembly causes air within the plurality of hollow airtight structures to expand (Lyons, [0048]-[0049], [0065]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 10, wherein each hollow airtight structure of the plurality of hollow airtight structures is deformable when heated, such that the air within the plurality of hollow airtight structures causes the plurality of hollow airtight structures to expand outward against adjacent structures within the rigid outer mold (Lyons, [0034], [0036], [0037], [0039]-[0040], [0043]).
Regarding claim 17, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the composite structure comprises an aerospace component (Lyons, [0002] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Lyons teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the composite structure winglet (Lyons, Figure 2-4 and [0032]-[0033]) or other aerospace structures, such as a control surface, wing, or fuselage (Lyons, [0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Jacaruso (US 4,853,172).
Regarding claim 1, Lyons teaches a method of manufacturing a composite structure, the method comprising:
applying at least one of curable material to outer surfaces of a plurality of IML tools made of expandable material (Figures 4-6 and 20A-20H and [0037], [0039]-[0040], [0043], [0061]);
positioning the plurality of IML tools in a predetermined arrangement relative to each other to define an assembly (Figures 4-6 and 20A-20H and [0040]-[0041], [0063]);
enclosing the assembly within a rigid outer mold (Figures 4-6 and 20A-20H and [0041]-[0043], [0064]-[00657]); and
curing the assembly within the rigid outer mold (Figure 8 and 20A-20H and [0049], [0059], [0065]).
Lyons teaches the mandrel may be formed of expandable foam (Figure 19, step 304).
Lyons does not teach a plurality of hollow airtight structures, wherein the plurality of hollow airtight structures are unvented.
Jacaruso teaches a process of manufacturing a tubular composite structure using a mandrel comprising an inner bag containing a solid filler core (Figure 1-2).
Jacaruso teaches the mandrel 20 is disposed within cell 3 and comprises a solid filler core (e.g. wood, closed cell foam) 6 that has substantially the same length as the
composite to be molded disposed within a bag. Jacaruso teaches the core 6 is enveloped or disposed within a nonstick airtight elastomer polymer bag (e.g. fluoropolymer bag) 12 (Col 2, ln 30-52). Jacaruso teaches the mandrels 20, 15 are appropriately located in a compaction forming tool 44 such that support members (e.g., vertical spar wall laminates 46, 48, 50 and 52) may be placed therebetween (Col 3, ln 10-22). Jacaruso teaches resulting ternary system (prepreg bag- core) is placed within mold 24 (which may be a two-piece structure as shown by phantom line 25) and a vacuum bag (e.g. nylon sheet) 34 is sealed (e.g. clamped, bonded) to the opened end 9 of the tool 24, and the bag material 34 is capable of expanding under pressure and capable of withstanding pressures up to about 1034 kiloPascals (kPa) (150 pounds per square inch (psi)) and should also be air tight, thus causing the inner bag to apply a substantially uniform predetermined pressure to the surface of 65 the prepreg (Col 2, ln 52- Col 3, ln 9).
Both Lyons and Jacaruso are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing hollow composite articles. While Lyons teaches using an expandable foam, Lyons does not disclose the structure of the foam, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lyons, in particular the structure of the expandable foam, with a closed-cell foam structure, a known suitable foam structure for mold cores used in manufacturing hollow articles as taught by Jacaruso. Accordingly, given that the expandable foam of Lyons in view of Jacaruso is a closed-cell foam and closed-cell foam comprises voids, the close-cell foam of Lyons in view of Jacaruso would be hollow airtight structures that are unvented.
Regarding claim 2, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the mandrels are sized, shaped, and configured to be receivable within the OML tool (Lyons, [0039]), further comprising forming the plurality of hollow airtight structures (Lyons, [0062]).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the at least one layer of curable material comprises a fiber-reinforced composite material, wherein the fiber-reinforced composite material comprises a pre-preg composite material (Lyons, Figures 20A-20H and [0041] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising following the positioning and prior to the enclosing, applying at least one skin of curable material to the assembly (Lyons, [0039]-[0041] and [0061] and Figures 20A-20H).
Regarding claim 7, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures comprises a planar-faced prism (Lyons, Figure 6-8).
Alternatively, a mere change in shape of an article, absent any new or unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures of Lyons in view of Jacaruso with a rectangular shape because Lyons in view of Jacaruso teach the airtight structures may have any shape and the shape modification would not present any new or unexpected results. Changing the shape of the one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures of Lyons in view of Jacaruso into a planar-shaped prism would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable shaped layup surface for fiber plies as desired by Lyons in view of Jacaruso.
Regarding claim 8, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures comprises a six-sided prism (Lyons, Figure 6-8).
Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches complex internal geometry of the composite part (Lyons, [0054]), and the mandrels are sized, shaped, and configured to be receivable within the OML tool for the desired application (Lyons, [0039]).
Alternatively, a mere change in shape of an article, absent any new or unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures of Lyons in view of Jacaruso with a rectangular shape because Lyons in view of Jacaruso teach the airtight structures may have any shape and the shape modification would not present any new or unexpected results. Changing the shape of the one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures of Lyons in view of Jacaruso into a six-sided prism would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable shaped layup surface for fiber plies as desired by Lyons in view of Jacaruso.
Regarding claim 9, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein curing the assembly comprises applying heat to the rigid outer mold and the assembly (Lyons, [0048]-[0049], [0065]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the applying heat to the rigid outer mold and the assembly causes air within the plurality of hollow airtight structures to expand (Lyons, [0048]-[0049], [0065]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 10, wherein each hollow airtight structure of the plurality of hollow airtight structures is deformable when heated, such that the air within the plurality of hollow airtight structures causes the plurality of hollow airtight structures to expand outward against adjacent structures within the rigid outer mold (Lyons, [0034], [0036], [0037], [0039]-[0040], [0043] and Jacaruso, Col 2, ln 21-65).
Regarding claim 17, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the composite structure comprises an aerospace component (Lyons, [0002] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the composite structure winglet (Lyons, Figure 2-4 and [0032]-[0033]) or other aerospace structures, such as a control surface, wing, or fuselage (Lyons, [0036]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) and Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Jacaruso (US 4,853,172), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Inazawa (US 8,808,480).
Regarding claim 3, Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1,wherein a vacuum bag may sealingly cover the IML tool including the expandable material such that when a vacuum is drawn, the internal compaction pressure is uniformly applied against the surface of the composite article positioned between the IML tool and OML tool (Lyons, Figures 5-6 and [0058]).
Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso do not teach one or more of the plurality of hollow airtight structures comprise an ABS plastic material.
Inazawa teaches a method of manufacturing hollow fiber-reinforced articles using a hollow resin core made of ABS resin (Col 5, ln 46-56), wherein the hollow resin core has sufficient airtightness to hold pressurized air during the molding process (Figure 9, Col 8, ln 58- Col 9, ln 12). Inazawa teaches the hollow resin core 10 is made of thermoplastic resin such as ABS resin, PS resin, or PC resin, and is preferably made of a resin material that softens but does not melt at a temperature for molding a fiber-reinforced resin hollow part which is described later(Col 5, ln 46-64). In an alternative embodiment, Inazawa teaches using the hollow resin core coupled with a pressurization bag disposed inside (Col 7, ln 16-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso, in particularly the composition of the vacuum bag sealing covering the expandable material, with ABS resin as taught by Inazawa, a known and suitable material for use in hollow airtight cores capable of pressurization during molding, to yield the predictable result of providing a bagging material that softens during heat to allow for expansion of the expandible material within.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) and Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Jacaruso (US 4,853,172), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Zilberman (PG-PUB 2014/0154458).
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein internal stiffeners or spars are integrally formed (Lyons, Figure 20A-20E and [0032]) for manufacturing aircraft wings or (Lyons, [0002]-[0003]).
Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso do not teach positioning comprises placing a plate between at least two adjacent hollow airtight structures, wherein the plate comprises a metal.
Zilberman teaches a method of manufacturing a composite material structure, such as a wing or spoiler [0011], wherein fittings are integrally formed in the structure (Figure 6A-9B). Zilberman teaches a fitting comprising a metal plate disposed between a stiffener (Figure 5, item 500; 9A and 9B; and [0050]-[0051], [0060]-[0062]).
Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso and Zilberman are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing composites with encapsulated or embedded fittings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso with the plate-based fitting of Zilberman, a known suitable fitting for embedding in a composite structure, for manufacturing a wing.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) and Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Jacaruso (US 4,853,172), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Arranz (“Bucking Optimization of Variable Stiffness Composite Panels for Curvilinear Fibers and Grid Stiffeners,” Journal of Composites Science, Dec 2021).
Regarding claim 14-16, Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1. 50).
Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso do not explicitly teach:
prior to the applying the at least one layer of the curable material, determining an optimal internal stiffening structure of the composite structure based on a load map;
following the determining and prior to the applying the at least one layer of the curable material, selecting the plurality of hollow airtight structures based on the optimal internal stiffening structure; and
wherein after the curing the assembly, the curable material applied to the outer surfaces of the plurality of hollow airtight structures forms an approximation of the optimal internal stiffening structure based on the load map.
Arranz teaches optimization of variable stiffness composite panels for curvilinear fibers and grid stiffeners (Title and Abstract). Arranz teaches optimization of panels for stiffeners for maximum buckling performance (Page 2). Arranz teaches modeling the stiffener laminate (Page 6 and 8) and optimizing the load of the stiffened composite panels (Page 8). Arranz teaches comparing fiber panels with different parameters, such as curvature of the stiffener, gap existence in the panels, and ply patterns, and layout using a load map (Figure 10-14 and Page 11-16). Arranz teaches optimization framework developed could help the designer to evaluate in which scenarios composite panels with curvilinear fibers and grid stiffeners provide the greatest benefit in terms of the critical buckling load (Page 17).
Based on the teachings of Arranz, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized stiffener layout on a composite panel is a complex matter of engineering design that can be modeled and optimized to consider various factors in order to obtain the optimal buckling performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processes of Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso with the stiffener layout optimization process as taught by Arranz to determine optimal stiffener designs for obtain desired strength and buckling properties. By performing the optimization as taught by Arranz, Lyons in view of Arranz and Lyons in view of Jacaruso and Arranz suggest selecting the appropriate stiffener design to put into practice, thereby selecting the corresponding plurality of hollow airtight structures based on the optimal internal stiffening structure and molding the composite panel according to the optimization.
Claim 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) and Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Jacaruso (US 4,853,172), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Rodman (US 10,434,731).
Regarding claim 19-20, Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the composite structure winglet (Lyons, Figure 2-4 and [0032]-[0033]) or other aerospace structures, such as a control surface, wing, or (Lyons, fuselage [0036]).
Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso do not teach:
the composite structure comprises a spoiler,
wherein after the curing the assembly, the curable material forms at least one internal rib, mid spar, a rear spar, and a front spar of the spoiler.
Rodman teaches a process of manufacturing a composite structures using pressurizable core structures, wherein the composite structures include rudders (i.e., a flight control structure) (Col 12, ln 50-Col 13, ln 12) or a trailing edge flap or spoiler, both a flight control structure, (Col 13, ln 12-20 and Claim 7). Rodman discloses curable material applied on the outer surface of the hollow pressurizable core structures, wherein the curable material forms spar(s) within the composite assembly (Col 10, ln 30-41 and Col 14, Ln 5-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Lyons and Lyons in view of Jacaruso, in particular the aerodynamic structure manufactured, with a spoiler as taught by Rodman, a known suitable aerodynamic structure comprising spars and integrated with outer layers using expandable more cores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights