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 1-20 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 1, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-20 rely on claim 1 and hence are also rejected.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US2020/0047867 A1) in view of Gordon (US2019/0091945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Griess discloses a method of fabricating an aircraft structural component for an aircraft [0001], the method comprising: providing a component precursor (100) comprising a web (120) and a flange (122) that extends from the web (see figure 5), wherein the web has a length (114 [0082]),
a height which is shorter than the length ([0178-0179] discloses height can vary along the length. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a height which is shorter than the length given the limited number of options: the height is longer, height is shorter, or the height is the same. MPEP 2144.05 states obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the height shorter than the length given the design needs of the final product.),
a thickness which is shorter than the height ([0186] discloses maximum web thickness corresponds to the minimum height), a first end proximal to the flange (area between 138 and 152) and a second end distal from the flange (area between 120 and 136).
Griess does not explicitly disclose applying tension to the component precursor in a direction parallel to the length of the web and with a magnitude that varies along the height of the web to increase the length of the web to different extents between the first end of the web and the second end of the web; sectioning the component precursor; and releasing the tension to allow shaping of the component precursor into a form required for the aircraft structural component. However, analogous art, Gordon, discloses applying tension to the component precursor in a direction parallel to the length of the web [0008, 0013 claim 1 (discloses longitudinally varying cross section)], and with a magnitude that varies along the height of the web [0052]
such that the web undergoes elastic deformation by increasing the length of the web to different extents between the first end of the web and the second end of the web ([0013, and claim 20 discloses varying the longitudinally, [0054, 0056 discloses adjusting tensions along the preform( [0232-0233 discloses the web elongating in response to loading conditions, which would implicitly disclose the web undergoes elastic deformation when the loading conditions are adjusted/removed ] while primary reference Griess disclosed varying heights [00186-00187]) ;
Such that the length of the web along the first end is different from the length of the web along the second end while the web is elastically deformed (Gordon discloses adjusting the heights of the web structures based on the loading conditions applied to the structure [0232-0233]. One ordinary skill in the art would understand increasing/decreasing the height is akin to stretching the material based on the outside force/load);
sectioning the component precursor (step 708; [0053); and releasing the tension to allow shaping of the component precursor into a form required for the aircraft structural component (step 714 of [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated applying tension to the component precursor in a direction parallel to the length of the web and with a magnitude that varies along the height of the web to increase the length of the web to different extents between the first end of the web and the second end of the web; sectioning the component precursor; and releasing the tension as taught by Gordon into the method taught by Griess for the benefit for forming complex contour composite parts [0004].
Such that the elastic deformation of the web is reversed after the component precursor has been sectioned and after the tension has been released (Gordon teaches adjusting tensions on the web/ heights of the web structure based on the loading conditions [0232-0233]. One ordinary skill in the art would understand increasing/decreasing the height is akin to stretching the material based on the outside force/load and that decreasing the loading conditions would revert the web back to the original condition).
and such that the component precursor has a curved shaped due to the sectioning while the tension was applied (Gordon discloses curved shapes [0011]. Further MPEP 2144.05 states mere changes in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claim 2, Griess discloses wherein the component precursor comprises a composite material [0124, 0072].
Regarding claim 3, Griess discloses wherein the composite material is a fiber composite material [0072].
Regarding claim 4, Gordon discloses wherein the fiber composite material comprises pre-impregnated fibers, curable into a rigid fiber composite material [0041].
Regarding claim 5, Gordon discloses wherein the component precursor comprises dry fibers that are permeable by a matrix material that is curable to form a rigid fiber composite material with fibers [0030-0031].
Regarding claim 6, Gordon discloses wherein the magnitude of the tension varies from a maximum at the first end of the web to a minimum at the second end of the web; or a minimum at the first end of the web to a maximum at the second end of the web [0056, 0233].
Regarding claim 7, Gordon discloses wherein the varies linearly from the maximum to the minimum [0056, 0137].
Regarding claim 8, Gordon discloses wherein in applying tension to the component precursor [0232], the flange also undergoes elastic deformation (obvious in order for the flange to take the shape required by the design needs of the final product).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon disclose wherein the applying tension to the component precursor comprises applying tension to the flange [0057].
Regarding claim 10, Gordon discloses wherein the applying tension to the component precursor comprises applying tension to the flange with a magnitude that is equal to the tension applied to the first end of the web [0037].
Regarding claim 11, Gordon teaches sectioning of the component precursor is performed by cutting the component precursor [ 0048-0049, 0052].
Regarding claim 12, Gordon discloses wherein the curved shape has a first radius of curvature at the first end of the web and a second radius of curvature at the second end of the web, the second radius of curvature is greater than the first radius of curvature [0027].
Regarding claim 13, Gordon discloses comprising curing the component precursor while the component precursor is in the curved shape [0031].
Regarding claim 14, Griess depicts wherein the flange extends from the web substantially perpendicularly (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, Gordon discloses wherein the releasing of the tension (step 708; [0053) is caused by the sectioning of the component precursor (step 714 of [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Griess discloses wherein the tension continues being applied to the component precursor during the sectioning of the component precursor (step 708; [0053); and releasing the tension to allow shaping of the component precursor into a form required for the aircraft structural component (step 714 of [0053]).
Regarding claim 17, Griess discloses wherein the sectioning of the component precursor comprises sectioning the web perpendicular to the length of the web (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 18 Gordon discloses wherein the sectioning of the component precursor comprises performing two cuts through the web at respective locations that are spaced apart from each other along the length of the web [0047-0048, 0052, 0060]. Although Gordon doesn’t explicitly disclose two cuts, it would be within the skillset of one ordinary skill in the art to have more than one cut since MPEP 2144.04 VI states duplicating parts or cuts have no patentable significance unless new and unexpected result is provided. As for claim 19, it would have been obvious for the cuts to be parallel given the limited number of options: parallel, perpendicular, horizontal or vertical. MPEP 2144.05 states obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, Greiss discloses wherein the aircraft structural component is a stringer [0001].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 12, 14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12397929B2 in view of Griess (US2020/0047867 A1) in view of Gordon (US2019/0091945 A1).
‘929 discloses A method of fabricating an aircraft structural component for an aircraft, the method comprising: providing a component precursor comprising a web and a flange that extends from the web, wherein the web has: a length; a height which is shorter than the length; a height which is shorter than the length (claim 1); a thickness which is shorter than the height (claim 1), a first end proximal to the flange (claim 1) and a second end distal from the flange (claim 1);
929 does not explicitly disclose the height can vary along the length. Griess discloses a height which is shorter than the length ([0178-0179] discloses height can vary along the length. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a height which is shorter than the length given the limited number of options: the height is longer, height is shorter, or the height is the same. MPEP 2144.05 states obvious to try is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the height shorter than the length given the design needs of the final product.
‘929 discloses applying tension to the component precursor in a direction parallel to the length of the web (claim 4).
‘929 does not disclose a magnitude that varies along the height of the web to increase the length of the web to different extents between the first end of the web and the second end of the web; sectioning the component precursor; and releasing the tension to allow shaping of the component precursor into a form required for the aircraft structural component. However, analogous art, Gordon, discloses applying tension to the component precursor in a direction parallel to the length of the web [0008, 0013 claim 1 (discloses longitudinally varying cross section)], and with a magnitude that varies along the height of the web to increase the length of the web to different extents between the first end of the web and the second end of the web ([0013, and claim 20 discloses varying the longitudinally, [0054, 0056 discloses adjusting tensions along the preform] while primary reference Griess disclosed varying heights [00186-00187]) ; sectioning the component precursor (step 708; [0053); and releasing the tension to allow shaping of the component precursor into a form required for the aircraft structural component (step 714 of [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated applying tension to the component precursor in a direction parallel to the length of the web and with a magnitude that varies along the height of the web to increase the length of the web to different extents between the first end of the web and the second end of the web; sectioning the component precursor; and releasing the tension to allow shaping of the component precursor into a form required for the aircraft structural component as taught by Gordon into the method taught by ‘929 for the benefit for forming complex contour composite parts [0004].
929 discloses claims 2-3 in its respective claims 2-3.
‘929 discloses claim 4 in respective claim 5.
‘929 discloses claim 12 in respective claim 9.
‘929 discloses claim 14 in claim 11.
’929 discloses claim 20 in claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior arts on record fail to disclose or suggest the web undergoes elastic deformation and specifically deforms the web such that the length of the web along the first end is different from the length of the web along the second end while the web is elastically deformed and the elastic deformation is reversed.
Examiner disagrees. However, Gordon discloses ([0013, and claim 20 discloses varying the longitudinally, [0054, 0056 discloses adjusting tensions along the preform( [0232-0233 discloses the web elongating in response to loading conditions, which would implicitly disclose the web undergoes elastic deformation when the loading conditions are adjusted/removed ] while primary reference Griess disclosed varying heights [00186-00187]) ;
As for the length of the web along the first end is different from the length of the web along the second end while the web is elastically deformed (Gordon discloses adjusting the heights of the web structures based on the loading conditions applied to the structure [0232-0233]. One ordinary skill in the art would understand increasing/decreasing the height is akin to stretching the material based on the outside force/load);
Applicant argues Gordon and Geiss do not teach applying tension. However, absent a specific definition of tension, Examiner is interpreting tension as the tensions suggested by Gordon which states tension drives apply different amounts of tensions [0008]. As for the web, it is the combination of Gordon and Geiss that teaches the claim limitation. 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).
Further, Applicant’s claims are directed more to the effects of the method rather than the actual method steps. Since the prior art reads on the method steps of the claim language, it would implicitly have the same effects of the method. In order to differentiate between the prior art, Applicant needs to focus on explicit actions that differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Astwood et al (US 8,758, 664 B2).
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights