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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response and amended claims 1 and 10 on 06/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
The arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claim.
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 1-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Wang (PG-PUB 2020/0039156) and 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 IML may be formed of expandable foam (Figure 19, step 304). Lyons teaches the expandable material may have a rate of expansion such that when heated, results in the generation of a substantially uniform internal compaction pressure of at least approximately 85 psi applied to the composite assembly positioned between the IML tool surfaces and the OML tool surfaces [0040] and [0043].
Lyons teaches covering the IML with a polymer layer comprising a stretchable material capable of accommodating expansion of the IML and preventing resin and/or adhesive the composite assembly from contacting the IML [0046]. Accordingly, Lyons teaches a plurality of airtight structures.
Lyons does not teach a plurality of hollow airtight structures, wherein each hollow airtight structure of the plurality of hollow airtight structures defines a single unvented, internal cavity containing only air.
Wang teaches a process of manufacturing a composite workpiece comprising inserting a plurality of unexpanded pellets into a cavity of an uncured composite workpiece assembly; expanding the plurality of unexpanded pellets in the cavity; and curing the workpiece. Wang teaches expanding the pellets through heating [0119], optionally using a bag to enclose the pellets (Figure 32 and [0126]-[0127]). Wang teaches using different combinations of various expandible pellets [0119]-[0125]. Wang teaches expandable pellets can be made of ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) plastic [0119]. Wang teaches expandable pellets can comprise at least an expandable component configured to expand when heated and at least a material configured to prevent the expandable pellets from sticking to each other, and/or from sticking to the
inner surface of the cavity of the workpiece, such as gas-filled balloons or expandable pellets can be made of ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) plastic [0119].
Both Lyons and Wang are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing hollow composite articles using expandable materials. 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 expandable material, with a plurality of expandable pellets of Wang, including gas-filled balloons, a known suitable expandable material used in thermally responsive mold cores for composite manufacturing.
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 with an air space within the bag (Col 2, ln 30-52). Jacaruso teaches resulting ternary system (prepreg bag- core) is placed within the mold and autoclave, wherein 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)), thereby causing the bag to transfer a substantially uniform pressure via the air in the airspace to the surface of the prepreg (Col 2, ln 52- Col 3, ln 9).
While Wang teaches using gas-filled balloons, Wang does not disclose the composition of the gas-filled balloons, 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 view of Wang with air, a known suitable gas for expanding under heat and pressure for purposes of pressurization as taught by Jacaruso, to yield the predictable result of providing gas-filled balloons capable of expanding under heat and pressure.
Given that the plurality of airtight structures of Lyons in view of Wang and Jacaruso comprises a plurality of air-filled balloons, each airtight structure defines an unvented, balloon internal cavity containing only air and would therefore be hollow.
Regarding claim 2, Lyons in view of Wang and 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 3, Lyons in view of Wang and Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein one or more the plurality of hollow airtight structures comprises an ABS plastic material (Wang, [0119]).
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang and 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 Wang and 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 Wang and Jacaruso with a rectangular shape because Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang and Jacaruso.
Regarding claim 8, Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang and 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 Wang and Jacaruso with a rectangular shape because Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang and 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 Wang and Jacaruso.
Regarding claim 9, Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang and 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 within the single unvented, internal cavity of each hollow airtight structure of the plurality of hollow airtight structures to expand (see rejection of claim 1 and Lyons, [0048]-[0049], [0065]-[0067], [0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang and 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 Wang and 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]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (PG-PUB 2015/0137424) in view of Wang (PG-PUB 2020/0039156) and 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 in view of Wang and 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 in view of Wang and 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 in view of Wang and 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 in view of Wang and 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) in view of Wang (PG-PUB 2020/0039156) and 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 in view of Wang and Jacaruso teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Lyons in view of Wang and 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 Wang, 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) in view of Wang (PG-PUB 2020/0039156) and Jacaruso (US 4,853,172), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Rodman (US 10,434,731).
Regarding claim 19-20, Lyons in view of Wang and 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 in view of Wang and 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 in view of Wang and 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
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 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.
/H.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights