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 .
FINAL REJECTION
Interview Summary
An interview was conducted on 3/25/26. See attached PTO-413 for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires that “cutting a first composite tow segment at approximately 3/5 of a length of the first semi-major axis from the center, thereby forming a first linear gap”. The specification as originally filed does not support the first linear gap to be formed solely by the cutting. Rather, the specification supports a limitation wherein the first linear gap is formed by the cutting AND the subsequent continuing of the laying-up of the first composite tow a distance from a cut end of the first composite tow segment, said distance forming a first elongated gap.
Claim 1 further recites “cutting a second composite tow segment at approximately 3/5 of the length of the second semi-major axis from the center, thereby forming a second linear gap which is configured as an elongated linear gap”. The specification does not support a limitation wherein the second elongated gap is formed as a direct result of the cutting. See discussion of the first elongated gap above.
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 1, 4 and 7-11 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.
As to claim 1, it’s not clear how the first and second elongated gaps are formed as a directly result of the cutting. See new matter rejection above.
As to claim 4, the limitation “a the second linear gap” is not clear.
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 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, 4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanner et al. (US 8443575) in view of Benson et al. (US 2005/0056362).
As to claim 1 and 10, Tanner discloses a lay-up method of composite aircraft wings (abstract) comprising an opening 25 (fig 2-3, C3, L34-63), the opening comprising a perimeter, a major axis, a minor axis, a center, and a first semi-major axis and a second semi-major axis extending from the center (figs 1-3, 6, 10, 12, C3, L34 – C4, L44), the lay-up method comprising the steps of: laying-up a first composite tow having an orientation forming plies which in turn form a first composite laminate 22 (C3, L34-54), wherein the first composite tow has an orientation parallel to the major axis of the opening (see fig 1 and 3 – composite tows 22 parallel to major axis), and wherein the laying-up of the first composite tow comprises the following steps:
forming a first composite tow segment at approximately that extends to 3/5 of a length of the first semi-major axis from the center (figs 1-3, 6, 10, 12, C3, L34 – C4, L44), leaving a first gap at approximately 3/5 of a length of the first semi-major axis perpendicular to the orientation of the composite tow (figs 1-3, 6, 10, 12, C3, L34 – C4, L44); and continuing the lay-up of the first composite tow while leaving the first gap unfilled until a position approximately 3/5 of a length of the second semi-major axis of the opening from the center, thereby forming a second composite tow segment that extends to 3/5 of a length of the second semi-major axis, and second gap (C3, L34 – C4, L44), leaving a second gap and continuing the lay-up of the composite tow while leaving the second gap free of the composite tow material (figs 1-3, 6, 10, 12, C3, L34 – C4, L44).
While Tanner does not expressly disclose the first and second gaps as elongated linear gaps which extend longitudinally perpendicular to the orientation of the first composite tow, Tanner discloses the shape/configuration can be varied based on the required design/application (C3, L64 – C4, L31). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the first gap to be configured as a first elongated gap which extends longitudinally perpendicular to the orientation of the first composite tow, and the second gap to be configured as a second elongated linear gap which extends longitudinally perpendicular to the orientation of the first composite tow as the shape is a design choice within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Tanner above. Additionally, changes in shape are obvious absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant. MPEP 2144.04.
Tanner does not expressly disclose the first composite tow has a 0o orientation parallel to the major axis. Benson discloses a method of laying up composite tows to make a composite part, wherein the composite tows have a 0o orientation (para 67) as doing such is advantageous to optimizing stress loads of the composite part (para 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tanner such that the first composite tow has and orientation of 0o parallel to the major axis, wherein said 0o tows are also the tows that form the gaps as taught by Benson above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
Tanner does not disclose: the first composite tow segment and first gap being formed by: cutting the first tow segment at the approximately 3/5 length of the first semi-major axes; and the second composite tow segment and second gap being formed by cutting the second tow segment at the approximately 3/5 length of the second semi-major axis from the center.
Benson discloses cutting of the tows at desired location as such allows plies to dropped and added on the fly in order accommodate the variable stress loads requirements (para 64-74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Tanner such that the first composite tow segment and first gap are formed by cutting the first tow segment at the approximately 3/5 length of the first semi-major axes; and the second composite tow segment and second gap are formed by cutting the second tow segment at the approximately 3/5 length of the second semi-major axis from the center as taught by Benson above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
As to claim 4, Benson discloses laying-up a second composite tow having an orientation of +/-45º (para 67) and that such an orientation is advantageous to customizing the stress load of the composite. Further, Benson discloses this customization advantage is fostered by cutting the second composite tow when said tow crossed a desired gap location (para 64-67, plies “dropped and added on the fly”). The gaps create composites with different thicknesses. One of ordinary skill reading such would have understood that applying a second composite tow via the cutting and depositing processes of Benson to maintain the gaps create by the first composite would yield the customization benefits of Benson, while maintaining the gaps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to: lay-up a second composite tow having an orientation of +45° or -45*, forming plies which in turn form a second composite laminate, wherein the laying-up of the second composite tow comprises the following steps: when the second composite tow crosses the first linear gap, cutting the second composite tow along the first linear gap ,leaving the first linear gap unfilled and continuing the lay-up of the second composite tow, when the second composite tow crosses a the second linear gap, cutting the second composite tow along the second linear gap, and leaving the second linear gap unfilled and continuing the lay-up of the second composite tow for reasons detailed above as such yields the beneficial results suggested by the combination of references.
As to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the width of the gaps to be between 1.5mm and 2mm as selection of dimensions is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality. MPEP 2144.04.
As to claim 8, the major and minor axis can have the same length (Tanner, figs 1-3).
As to claim 9, it would have been obvious for the tow width to be greater than 12.7mm as the width is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (Benson para 66-67).
As to claim 11, Tanner discloses the exact locations of the openings are design choices based on the required end use of the product, and regulatory requirements (C3< L44-63). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the first linear gap and the second linear gap to be substantially symmetric with respect to the center of the opening along the major axis of the opening as the location of said gaps is a design obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/26 have been fully considered but they are either moot in light of the new grounds of rejection or not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments directed at Westre are moot. With respect to Tanner and Benson, the examiner notes that the structure of the rejection has changed such that the applicant’s arguments directed at the combination of references are moot. However, the examiner will address the arguments that may apply to the new grounds of rejection. The applicant asserts Tanner fails to disclose cutting individual tows. Examiner notes Tanner clearly discloses the deposition of individual tows (C4, L5-19). Tanner need not disclose cutting as Benson discloses such. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually and in a vacuum of each other as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a consideration relating to the combined teachings of the references (and not each reference in a vacuum of the others). With respect to Benson the applicant asserts that Benson fails to disclose cutting the same composite tow twice during lay-up. This is not accurate. Benson’s disclosure that the plies cut from the same reel are “dropped and added on the fly” (para 64) is a clear disclosure that same composite tow can be cut twice. Benson’s disclosure that the ply is cut, dropped and later added at a downstream location amounts a disclosure of forming a gap. The remainder of the applicant’s arguments are moot and/or fail to holistically consider the combination of references above.
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 CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights