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
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/01/2024.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-5, 7-9, 12, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) in view of Villares (US 8500068 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) disclose a circumferential skin joint comprising:
a first composite fuselage member having a first composite skin (Gallant, figure 9, item 300a), the first composite skin comprising a first chamfer that at least partially defines a first distal end of the first composite fuselage member (Gallant, figure 9, item 310a), wherein the first chamfer defines a first tapered mating surface that extends circumferentially around an outer surface of the first composite fuselage member (Gallant, figure 9, item 310b, includes a mating surface which is arranged circumferentially around the fuselage); and
a second composite fuselage member having a second composite skin (Gallant, figure 9, item 300b), the second composite skin comprising a second chamfer that at least partially defines a second distal end of the second composite fuselage member (Gallant, figure 9, item 310b), wherein the second chamfer defines a second tapered mating surface that extends circumferentially around an inner surface of the second composite fuselage member (Gallant, figure 9, item 310b, includes a mating surface which is arranged circumferentially around the fuselage);
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 (Gallant, figure 9, mating surfaces cooperate to form a lap joint between members and create a composite fuselage), except:
wherein the first tapered mating surface slopes axially approaching the first distal end;
wherein the second tapered mating surface slopes axially approaching the second distal end;
wherein the first chamfer comprises a decrease in an outer diameter of the first composite fuselage member approaching the first distal end, and wherein the second chamfer comprises an increase in an inner diameter of the second composite fuselage member approaching the second distal end.
Villares (US 8500068 B2) teaches a first tapered mating surface which slopes axially approaching a first distal end (Villares, figure 3-4, item 27); and
wherein the second tapered mating surface slopes axially approaching the second distal end (Villares, figure 3-4, item 29);
wherein a first chamfer comprises a decrease in an outer diameter of the first composite fuselage member approaching the first distal end (Villares, figure 5, item 31), and wherein the second chamfer comprises an increase in an inner diameter of the second composite fuselage member approaching the second distal end (Villares, figure 5, item 33).
Gallant 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 mating surface of Gallant with the axially sloping mating surfaces of Villares with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional surface area for the mating surfaces to be joined.
Regarding claim 2, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, wherein, within the tapered lap joint, the first chamfer is interior to the second chamfer (Gallant, figure 9, items 310a-b, inner and outer chamfers, with the first surface being interior to the second surface).
Regarding claim 3, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, 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, items 300a, first skin has a thickness greater than the thickness of the chamfered portion).
Regarding claim 4, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 3, 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).
Regarding claim 5, Gallant as modified by Villares 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 (Gallant, figure 9, items 300a-b and 310a-b, ramp reduces outer diameter of first member allowing the second member to fit around the decreased diameter of the first member).
Regarding claim 7, Gallant as modified by Villares 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, items 310b, increased thickness compared to the second skin portion).
Regarding claim 8, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, wherein the first chamfer comprises a decrease in an outer diameter of the first composite fuselage member approaching the first distal end (Gallant, figure 9, items 300a and 310a, outer diameter decreased near the first end), and wherein the second chamfer comprises an increase in an inner diameter of the second composite fuselage member approaching the second distal end (Gallant, figure 9, items 300a and 310a, inner diameter increased near the first end).
Regarding claim 9, Gallant as modified by Villares 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; and
wherein the second composite fuselage member comprises a second layered composite material that includes a plurality of second layers of composite material (Gallant, ¶135, fuselage is made of composites).
Regarding claim 12, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, 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).
Gallant as modified by Villares (as previously applied) 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 Gallant as modified by Villares 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, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 1, 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).
Alternatively, Gallant 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.
Regarding claim 21, Gallant as modified by Villares 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 (Gallant, figure 9, items 100 and 300a, outer surface of the first member and the second member are substantially flush).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) in view of Villares (US 8500068 B2) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Schmaling (US 4793727 A).
Regarding claim 6, Gallant as modified by Villares 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).
Gallant as modified by Villares and Schmaling are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fuselage section joining. 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 of Gallant as modified by Villares with the sealant of Schmaling with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an aerodynamic surface (Schmaling, col 2, lines 42-44).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) and Villares (US 8500068 B2) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nordmann (US 10059429 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Gallant as modified by Villares teaches the circumferential skin joint of claim 9, except:
further comprising a plurality of first tear straps integrally laminated within the plurality of first layers of composite material, 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 teaches a plurality of first tear straps integrally laminated within the plurality of first layers of 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 fuselage member (Nordmann, col 4, lines 47-55).
Gallant as modified by Villares 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 Gallant as modified by Villares 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 Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) in view of Villares (US 8500068 B2) and Nordmann (US 10059429 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Velicki (US 20090057487 A1) .
Regarding claim 11, Gallant as modified by Villares 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.
Velicki (US 20090057487 A1) teaches a 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).
Gallant as modified by Villares 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 Gallant as modified by Villares 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant (US 20120104170 A1) in view of Villares (US 8500068 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Normand (US 20090020646 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Gallant 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).
Gallant 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 filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The joints of Villares are not formed by the skin
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here Villares is being relied upon to teach a joint structure, and is not being bodily incorporated entirely into the structure of Gallant.
There is no motivation to combine the teachings of Gallant and Villares and no objective reason to combine the teachings of Gallant and Villares
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the mating surface of Gallant is modified with the axially sloping mating surfaces of Villares with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional surface area for the mating surfaces to be joined.
There is no evidence that the shape of the coupling of Villares would be suitable for joining two fuselage members without intervening layers of skin
Applicant does not provide evidence that the shape of the coupling of Villares would be unsuitable. Additionally the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It should be noted that applicant’s arguments do not take the place of evidence on the record.
That the combination of Gallant and Villares has no motivation absent hindsight reasoning
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that the mating surface of Gallant as modified with the axially sloping mating surfaces of Villares in order to provide additional surface area for the mating surfaces to be joined would be warranted.
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