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 .
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 12-13 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “at least two fasteners extending through the first chamfer and the second chamfer, such that the at least two fasteners couple the first composite fuselage member to the second composite fuselage member” is indefinite because it contradicts the limitation “wherein the first composite fuselage member and the second composite fuselage member are slidably transitionable between a first configuration, wherein the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member is recessed relative to the second composite fuselage member, a second configuration, wherein the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member and an outer surface of the second composite fuselage member are substantially flush, and a third configuration, wherein the outer surface of the second composite fuselage member is recessed relative to the first composite fuselage member” of claim by requiring that the first and second members be fixed. As such, this claim can not be understood as written. For examination, this claim is being treated as disregarding the requirement that the first and second fuselage members be slidable relative to each other.
Claim 13 is rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites the limitation “the second position” in line 5.There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griess (US 9441652 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Griess (US 9441652 B2) teaches a circumferential skin joint comprising:
a first composite fuselage member (Griess, figure 5, item 320) having a first composite skin (Griess, figure 5, item 322), the first composite skin comprising a first chamfer (Griess, figure 5, item 322, chamfer towards end of skin) that at least partially defines a first distal end (Griess, figure 5, item 326) of the first composite fuselage member, wherein the first chamfer defines a first tapered mating surface (Griess, figure 5, item 328, bond surface) that extends circumferentially around an outer surface of the first composite fuselage member (Griess, figure 3, item 230, joint coupling cylindrical fuselage sections together), wherein the first tapered mating surface slopes axially approaching the first distal end (Griess, figure 5, item 322, axial slope approaching the end); and
a second composite fuselage member (Griess, figure 5-6, item 310) having a second composite skin (Griess, figures 5-6, item 312), the second composite skin comprising a second chamfer (Griess, figures 5-6, item 312, chamfer towards end of skin) that at least partially defines a second distal end (Griess, figures 5-6, item 316) of the second composite fuselage member, wherein the second chamfer defines a second tapered mating surface (Griess, figures 5-6, item 328, bond surface) that extends circumferentially around an inner surface of the second composite fuselage member (Griess, figure 3, item 230, joint coupling cylindrical fuselage sections together), wherein the second tapered mating surface slopes axially approaching the second distal end (Griess, figure 5, item 312, axial slope approaching the end);
wherein the first tapered mating surface contacts the second tapered mating surface to form a tapered lap joint between the first composite fuselage member and the second composite fuselage member and to at least partially define a composite fuselage of an aerospace structure (Griess, figure 5, item 328, bond surface where tapered surfaces contact each other to for creating a joint);
wherein the first chamfer comprises a decrease in an outer diameter of the first composite fuselage member approaching the first distal end (Griess, figure 5, item 326, decreased outer diameter), and wherein the second chamfer comprises an increase in an inner diameter of the second composite fuselage member approaching the second distal end (Griess, figure 5, item 316, increased inner diameter); and
wherein the first composite fuselage member and the second composite fuselage member are slidably transitionable between a first configuration, wherein the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member is recessed relative to the second composite fuselage member (Griess, figure 5-6, items 312 and 322, first and second members can be spaced closer together than shown such that the outer surface of the first member is recessed relative to the outer surface of the second member), a second configuration, wherein the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member and an outer surface of the second composite fuselage member are substantially flush (Griess, figure 6, items 312 and 322, first and second members can be space as shown such that the outer surface of the first member is flush relative to the outer surface of the second member), and a third configuration, wherein the outer surface of the second composite fuselage member is recessed relative to the first composite fuselage member (Griess, figure 5-6, items 312 and 322, first and second members can be spaced further apart than shown such that the outer surface of the second member is recessed relative to the outer surface of the first member).
Regarding claim 2, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, wherein, within the tapered lap joint, the first chamfer is interior to the second chamfer (Griess, figure 6, first chamfer interior to the second chamfer).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gallant (US 20120104170 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, except:
wherein the first composite skin further comprises a first reinforced portion, and wherein a thickness of the first reinforced portion is greater than a thickness of the first composite skin in an area spaced apart from the circumferential skin joint.
Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) teaches wherein the first composite skin further comprises a first reinforced portion, and wherein a thickness of the first reinforced portion is greater than a thickness of the first composite skin in an area spaced apart from the circumferential skin joint (Gallant, figure 9, item 300a, first skin has a thickness greater than the thickness of the chamfered portion).
Griess and Gallant are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fuselage construction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Griess with the reinforced portions of Gallant with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the fuselage from failing at the areas to be reinforced.
Regarding claim 4, Griess as modified by Gallant (as previously applied) teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 3, except:
wherein the first reinforced portion further comprises a ramped junction between an outer surface of the first composite skin and the first chamfer, wherein the ramped junction comprises a decrease in an outer diameter of the first composite skin having a slope different from a slope of the first tapered mating surface.
Gallant also teaches wherein the first reinforced portion further comprises a ramped junction between an outer surface of the first composite skin and the first chamfer, wherein the ramped junction comprises a decrease in an outer diameter of the first composite skin having a slope different from a slope of the first tapered mating surface (Gallant, figure 9, items 300a and 310a, ramp between the area of maximum thickness and the mating surface).
Griess as modified by Gallant (as previously applied) and Gallant are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fuselage construction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Griess as modified by Gallant with the ramped junction between the outer surface of the first member and the first chamfer of Gallant with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide tolerance for assembly in case of damage.
Regarding claim 5, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 4, wherein the ramped junction has a height less than a thickness of the second distal end, such that the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member is recessed relative to an outer surface of the second composite fuselage member, and such that the second composite fuselage member protects the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member from airstream erosion damage (Griess, figures 5-6; Gallant, figure 9, items 300a-b and 310a-b, ramp reduces outer diameter of the first member allowing the second member to fit around the decreased diameter of the first member).
Regarding claim 7, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 3, wherein the second composite skin further comprises a second reinforced portion, and wherein a thickness of the second reinforced portion is greater than a thickness of the second composite skin (Gallant, figure 9, item 310b, increased thickness compared to the second skin portion).
Regarding claim 21, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 4, wherein the ramped junction has a height substantially equivalent to a thickness of the second distal end (Gallant, figure 9, items 100 and 300a, ramped section with a height substantially equivalent to a thickness of the second distal end), such that the outer surface of the first composite fuselage member and an outer surface of the second composite fuselage member are substantially flush when the first composite fuselage member and the second composite fuselage member are in the second position (Griess, figure 5; Gallant, figure 9, items 100 and 300a, outer surfaces of the first and second members are substantially flush).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) in view of Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schmaling (US 4793727 A).
Regarding claim 6, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 4, except:
wherein a recess defined by the ramped junction and the second distal end is at least partially filled with sealant.
Schmaling (US 4793727 A) teaches a recess defined by the ramped junction and the second distal end is at least partially filled with sealant (Schmaling, figure 3, item 48, col 2 lines 42-44).
Griess as modified by Gallant and Schmaling are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fuselage construction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recesses produced when joining fuselage sections of Griess as modified by Gallant with the sealant of Schmaling with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an aerodynamic surface (Schmaling, col 23 lines 42-44).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griess (US 9441652 B2) or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gallant (US 20120104170 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, wherein the first composite fuselage member comprises a first layered composite material that includes a plurality of first layers of composite material (Griess, col 1 lines 10-19 and col 4 lines 53-65); and
wherein the second composite fuselage member comprises a second layered composite material that includes a plurality of second layers of composite material (Griess, col 1 lines 10-19 and col 4 lines 53-65).
Alternatively, Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) teaches a composite fuselage member comprising a layered composite material that includes a plurality of layers of composite material (Gallant, ¶135, fuselage is made of composites).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) in view of Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nordmann (US 10059426 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Griess as modified by Gallant teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of first tear straps integrally laminated within the plurality of first layers of composite material (Nordmann, col 4, lines 42-4), wherein the plurality of first tear straps comprises fibers, and wherein the fibers of the plurality of first tear straps are oriented along a longitudinal axis of the first composite fuselage member (Nordmann, col 4, lines 47-55).
Nordmann (US 10059426 B2) teaches a plurality of first tear straps integrally laminated within the plurality of first layers of composite material (Nordmann, col 4, lines 42-46), wherein the plurality of first tear straps comprises fibers, and wherein the fibers of the plurality of first tear straps are oriented along a longitudinal axis of the first composite fuselage member (Nordmann, col 4, lines 47-55).
Griess as modified by Gallant and Nordmann are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft structure designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Griess as modified by Gallant with the tear straps of Nordmann with a reasonable expectation of success in order to arrest the propagation of cracks in the skin (Nordmann, col 1, lines 6-8).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) in view of Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) and Nordmann (US 10059426 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Velickiki (US 20090057487 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Griess as modified by Gallant and Nordmann teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 10, except:
wherein the plurality of first tear straps has a length at least equal to a width of the tapered lap joint and at most eight times the width of the tapered lap joint.
Velickiki (US 20090057487 A1) teaches plurality of first tear straps has a length at least equal to a width of the tapered lap joint and at most eight times the width of the tapered lap joint (Velicki, figure 3a-b, item 32 width of the tear strap is greater than the length of the joint and less than eight times that length).
Griess as modified by Gallant and Nordmann and Velicki are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft structure designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Griess as modified by Gallant and Nordmann with the tear straps of Velicki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the stress on the joint between the tear strap and the joint.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Villares (US 8500068 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, except:
further comprising at least two fasteners extending through the first chamfer and the second chamfer, such that the at least two fasteners couple the first composite fuselage member to the second composite fuselage member.
Villares (US 8500068 B2) also teaches a at least two fasteners extending through the first chamfer and the second chamfer, such that the at least two fasteners couple the first composite fuselage member to the second composite fuselage member (Villares, figure 4, items 12, 21, and 29, fasteners couple the first and second chamfers of the respective fuselage members together).
Griess and Villares are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft structure designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Griess with the fasteners of Villares with a reasonable expectation of success in order to join the first and second fuselage members together.
Regarding claim 14, Griess teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, except:
wherein the first tapered mating surface and the second tapered mating surface each have a slope of at least 5:1 and at most 20:1.
Villares (US 8500068 B2) teaches a joint wherein the first tapered mating surface and the second tapered mating surface each have a slope of at least 5:1 and at most 20:1 (Villares, claim 10, slope between 40:1 and 20:1).
Griess and Villares are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fuselage construction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Griess with the mating surface having a slope between 40:1 and 20:1 of Villares with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional surface area for the mating surfaces to be joined.
Alternatively, Griess shows a tapered mating surface having a dimension that is in a similar range to the claimed range and the slope has inherent dimensions.
The applicant has not established criticality for the slope being between 5:1 and 20:1. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the slope to be within this range in order to increase the contact surface between the two sections.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 9441652 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Normand (US 20090020646 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Griess as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 12, except:further comprising a stringer fitting, wherein the stringer fitting is coupled to the first composite fuselage member by a first fastener of the at least two fasteners and coupled to the second composite fuselage member by a second fastener of the at least two fasteners.
Normand (US 20090020646 A1) teaches a stringer fitting (Normand, figure 1, item 4), wherein
the stringer fitting is coupled to the first composite fuselage member by a first fastener of the at least two fasteners (Normand, figure 1, item 7 and 2a) and coupled to the second composite fuselage member by a second fastener of the at least two fasteners (Normand, figure 1, item 7 and 2b).
Griess as modified by Villares and Normand are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft structure designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gallant as modified by Villares and Nordmann with the fasteners of Normand with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the chance of the fuselage buckling at the joint between the first and second members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-20 of applicant’s reply, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-14 and 21 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Griess (US 9441652 B2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Linde (DE 102015114765 A1) teaches a circumferential joint with a tapered ramp
Merzhaeuser (US 11486352 B2) teaches a connection between different parts of the blade
Porte (US 11655045 B2) fig 13 teaches a nacelle arrangement with the required thickness
Elze (US 10118685 B2) fig 5 teaches a joint with cooperating wedges used to make a joint between aircraft skin panels.
Pancoast (US 3504710 A) teaches a fiber shell for a space vehicle with interlocking members
Blad (US 3885071 A) teaches a wedge joint for a composite structure and a 4 degree angle of a joint that meets (atan(1/5)>X>atan(1/20))
Schmaling (US 4793727 A) teaches a composite joint; figure 1 appears to match exactly
Griess (US 9441652 B2) teachers a skin joint for an aircraft fuselage
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights