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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diep et al. (US 2019/0039711).
Regarding to claim 1, Diep et al. discloses a pressure bulkhead assembly (pressure bulkhead system 304, as can be seen from Figure 3 in Diep et al.) for an aircraft [as can be seen from Figure 1 in Diep et al.], the pressure bulkhead assembly comprising: an aft pressure bulkhead (aft pressure bulkhead 114 comprising an outer compression ring 404, as described in paragraph 0059 and can be seen from Figure 5 in Diep et al.) comprising a bulkhead interface surface (interface surfaces of 114, including 404, as can be seen from Figures 3-6) and aft-pressure- bulkhead holes (holes 506 drilled through outer compression ring 404, as described in paragraph 0067 and can be seen from Figure 5 in Diep et al.), and a plurality of splice angles (skin spice angles 400, as can be seen from Figure 5 in Diep et al.) configured to be coupled to the aft pressure bulkhead [Figures 3-6 in Diep et al.], wherein: each one of the plurality of splice angles (400) comprises: a flange surface (flange surface, as described in paragraph 0066 and can be seen from Figure 5 in Diep et al.), configured to mate with the bulkhead interface surface [Figures 5]; splice-angle holes (holes 506 drilled through 400, as can be seen from Figure 5 in Diep et al.), drilled through the flange surface [Figure 5]; and a splice surface (an inner surface of 400, Figure 5 in Diep et al.) extending from the flange surface [Figure 5]; and with the splice-angle holes (holes 506 drilled through 400) aligned with the aft-pressure-bulkhead holes (holes 506 drilled through 404), a plurality of splice surfaces forms a circumferential splice surface with an optimized shape [as can be seen from Figures 3-5 in Diep].
However, Diep et al. does not explicitly disclose the aft pressure bulkhead holes being pre-drilled in the bulkhead interface surface and the splice-angle holes drilled through the flange surface at splice-angle hole positions before assembly of the splice angles and the aft pressure bulkhead. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of predrilling holes, including a step of pre-drilling the bulkhead holes in the bulkhead interface surface and pre-drilling the splice-angle holes through the flange surface at splice-angle hole positions before assembly of the splice angles and the aft pressure bulkhead, as a known technique used in manufacturing applied to a known device, which would yield predictable results.
However, Diep et al. does not explicitly disclose the splice-angle hole positions being based on measured aft-pressure-bulkhead-hole positions of the aft-pressure-bulkhead holes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of measuring the splice-angle hole positions relative to aft-pressure-bulkhead-hole positions, as a known technique used in manufacturing applied to a known device, which would yield predictable results.
Regarding to claim 2, Diep et al. discloses pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 1, wherein the optimized shape is approximately circular in which a step dimension between a mating edge of each one of the plurality of splice angles (400) and the mating edge of a directly adjacent one of the plurality of splice angles is minimized [as can be seen from Figure 3-6 in Diep et al.].
Regarding to claim 3, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 1, wherein splice-angle-hole positions of the splice- angle holes are determined based on: a virtual fit between the plurality of splice angles, at an optimized position, and the aft pressure bulkhead; and measured aft-pressure-bulkhead-hole positions of the aft-pressure-bulkhead holes [note that the recited limitations following the phrase “determined based on” is interpreted as being directed towards a product by process limitation which only requires the structure of the finished product. The structure corresponding to the finished product includes the pressure bulkhead assembly, a splice angle, and aft pressure bulkhead holes, which is disclosed by the prior art of Diep et al.].
7. Regarding to claim 4, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 1, further comprising fasteners (fasteners 700, as described in paragraph 0073 in Diep et al.) inserted through the splice-angle holes and the aft-pressure-bulkhead holes to fasten the plurality of splice angles to the aft pressure bulkhead [as described in paragraph 0073 in Diep et al.].
8. Regarding to claim 5, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 1 having a flange surface, plurality of splice angles, bulkhead interface surface and aft pressure bulkhead. Diep et al discloses reducing the need for shimming, as described in paragraph 0045 and 0070. However, Diep et al. does not explicitly disclose having a shim positioned between the flange surface of one of the plurality of splice angles and the bulkhead interface surface of the aft pressure bulkhead. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Diep et al. to include a shim, as recited, as a known technique used for improved fitting of parts, which would yield predictable results.
9. Regarding to claim 6, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 1, wherein the optimized shape of the circumferential splice surface, formed by plurality of splice surfaces of the plurality of splice angles, is generated virtually using a plurality of splice-angle scans, representing a plurality of splice surfaces of the plurality of splice angles [note that the recited limitations following “formed by” is interpreted as being directed towards a product by process limitation which only requires the structure of the finished product. The structure corresponding to the finished product includes the pressure bulkhead assembly, a splice angle, and splice surfaces, which is disclosed by the prior art of Diep et al.].
10. Regarding to claim 7, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 6, wherein the optimized shape is approximately circular in which a step dimension between a mating edge of each one of the plurality of splice angles and the mating edge of a directly adjacent one of the plurality of splice angles is minimized [as can be seen from Figures 3-6 in Diep et al.].
11. Regarding to claim 8, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 6, wherein: the plurality of splice-angle scans, representing the plurality of splice surfaces of the plurality of splice angles, are aligned to a nominal model, representing the pressure bulkhead assembly, to provide an initial position for the plurality of splice-angle scans such that a plurality of splice-surface scans of the plurality of splice-angle scans represents the circumferential splice surface with an initial shape; and an optimized position of the plurality of splice angles is determined by adjusting an angular displacement of each one of the plurality of splice-angle scans, relative to the nominal model, to minimize a step dimension between a mating-edge scan of each one of the plurality of splice-angle scans and the mating-edge scan of a directly adjacent one of the plurality of splice- angle scans [note that the recited limitations following “the plurality of splice-angles scans, representing” is interpreted as being directed towards a product by process limitation which only requires the structure of the finished product. The structure corresponding to the finished product includes the pressure bulkhead assembly, a splice angle, and splice surfaces, which is disclosed by the prior art of Diep et al.].
12. Regarding to claim 9, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 8, wherein the plurality of splice-angle scans, representing the plurality of splice surfaces of the plurality of splice angles, are aligned to the nominal model, representing the pressure bulkhead assembly, using a best fit alignment [note that the recited limitations following “the plurality of splice-angles scans, representing” is interpreted as being directed towards a product by process limitation which only requires the structure of the finished product. The structure corresponding to the finished product includes the pressure bulkhead assembly, a splice angle, and splice surfaces, which is disclosed by the prior art of Diep et al.].
13. Regarding to claim 10, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 9, wherein degrees of freedom of each one of the plurality of splice-angle scans, relative to the nominal model, is limited within a predetermined tolerance during the best fit alignment [note that the apparatus disclosed by Diep et al. discloses the recited structure, as can be seen from Figures 3-6 in Diep et al.].
14. Regarding to claim 11, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 8, wherein the optimized position of the plurality of splice angles provides the circumferential splice surface with the optimized shape in which a step dimension between a mating edge of each one of the plurality of splice angles and the mating edge of a directly adjacent one of the plurality of splice angles is minimized [as can be seen from Figure 3-6 in Diep et al.].
15. Regarding to claim 12, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 8, wherein splice-angle-hole positions of the splice-angle holes are determined based on a virtual fit between the plurality of splice angles, at the optimized position, and the aft pressure bulkhead [note that the recited limitations following “are determined based on” is interpreted as being directed towards a product by process limitation which only requires the structure of the finished product. The structure corresponding to the finished product includes the pressure bulkhead assembly, a splice angle, splice angles holes and splice surfaces, which is disclosed by the prior art of Diep et al.].
16. Regarding to claim 13, Diep et al. discloses the pressure bulkhead assembly the pressure bulkhead assembly of Claim 12, wherein splice-angle-hole positions of the splice-angle holes are further determined based on measured aft-pressure-bulkhead-hole locations and orientations of the aft-pressure-bulkhead holes [note that the recited limitations following “determined based on” is interpreted as being directed towards a product by process limitation which only requires the structure of the finished product. The structure corresponding to the finished product includes the pressure bulkhead assembly, a splice angle, splice angle holes, and aft pressure bulkhead holes, which is disclosed by the prior art of Diep et al.].
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art of Diep does not disclose or suggest aft-pressure bulkhead holes that are pre-drilled through the bulkhead interface surface and splice-angle holes that are drilled through the flange surface before assembly of the aft pressure bulkhead and the plurality of splice angles. However, a step of pre-drilling holes is a well-known manufacturing technique, as rejected above in the new grounds of rejection. Applicant argues that (1) pre-drilling would fundamentally contradict Diep’s teaching of drilling through assembled components at substantially the same time, (2) pre-drilling would eliminate Diep’s advantages of automatization and drilling from outside during assembly, (3), one of ordinary skill would have no motivation to modify Diep’s drill-through approach to a pre-drilling approach, as this would require abandoning Diep’s core innovation, (4) such modification would require a redesign of Diep’s assembly methodology, not a simple substitution of known techniques. This is not found to be persuasive and appears to be a speculation of applicant’s interpretation of the method disclosed by Diep. A pre-drilling step is a known technique used in manufacturing and would not destroy or contradict the teachings of Diep.
Applicant argues the prior art of Diep does not disclose or suggest the splice-angle holes are drilled through the flange surface at splice-angle-hole positions, which are based on measured aft-pressure-bulkhead-hole positions of the aft-pressure-bulkhead holes. However, a measuring step is a well-known technique used in manufacturing, as rejected above in the new grounds of rejection.
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 NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726