DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 4, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 20150298388) in view of Guzman (US 20090127393).
As to claims 11 and 12, Wong teaches a method of forming a structural body (Fig. 10). The Wong method comprises integrally molding a hat-shaped thermoplastic fiber reinforced stringer open in a width direction toward a thermoplastic fiber-reinforced skin (Figs. 8 and 10). Wong teaches that other embodiments may include a removable mandrel/core (Fig. 16, item 104) that assists in maintaining the shape of the hat.
Wong is silent to a core having the claimed configuration in a space providing a gap between the core and stringer, the claimed first and second portion, size of the second portion smaller than a size of the first portion in the width direction, the second portion including the first end surface and second end surface, and removal of this specifically shaped core from the space.
Guzman teaches (Fig. 11) a core with a gap between the core and a stringer (see annotated figure below), removal of the core (Abstract, last sentence), and the second portion including two parallel end surfaces opposed and spaced apart from the stringer in the width direction (see annotated figure below). Note that the claim does not require the first and second portions of the core to be separable, nor does it require the second portion to contact the stringer (only the first portion contacts the skin).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Guzman into Wong because:
(i) Wong suggests a removable mandrel/core (Fig. 16, item 104), and Guzman teaches a mandrel/core within the scope of the Wong suggestion with a reasonable expectation of success evident from the similar configuration of the Wong and Guzman skin and stringers, or
(ii) This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar process in the same way. Wong provides a base process upon which the claimed invention can be viewed as an improvement by using a specific core/mandrel configuration. The prior art (of Guzman) provides a core/mandrel improved in the same way by providing a solid mandrel/core that avoids the problems of bladder deflation (Guzman, [0007], contrast with Wong, Fig. 16, item 104), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this Guzman improvement in the same way to the Wong device in order to similarly maintain the shape of the Wong stringer without bladder deflation.
As to claim 16, in the combination of Guzman with Wong above, Guzman provides a third portion (near item marker 1100) between the second portion and stringer where the second portion is smaller in the width direction than the third portion (see annotated figure above).
As to claims 17 and 21, Wong teaches a method of forming a structural body (Fig. 10). The Wong method comprises integrally molding a hat-shaped thermoplastic fiber reinforced stringer open in a width direction toward a thermoplastic fiber-reinforced skin (Figs. 8 and 10). Wong teaches that other embodiments may include a removable mandrel/core (Fig. 16, item 104) that assists in maintaining the shape of the hat.
Wong is silent to a core having the claimed configuration in a space providing a gap between the core and stringer, the claimed first and second portion, the second portion including the first end surface and second end surface, and removal of this specifically shaped core from the space.
Guzman teaches (Fig. 11) a core with a gap between the core and a stringer (see annotated figure below), removal of the core (Abstract, last sentence), and the second portion including two parallel end surfaces opposed and spaced apart from the stringer in the width direction (see annotated figure below). Note that the claim does not require the first and second portions of the core to be separable, nor does it require the second portion to contact the stringer (only the first portion contacts the skin).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Guzman into Wong because:
(i) Wong suggests a removable mandrel/core (Fig. 16, item 104), and Guzman teaches a mandrel/core within the scope of the Wong suggestion with a reasonable expectation of success evident from the similar configuration of the Wong and Guzman skin and stringers, or
(ii) This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar process in the same way. Wong provides a base process upon which the claimed invention can be viewed as an improvement by using a specific core/mandrel configuration. The prior art (of Guzman) provides a core/mandrel improved in the same way by providing a solid mandrel/core that avoids the problems of bladder deflation (Guzman, [0007], contrast with Wong, Fig. 16, item 104), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this Guzman improvement in the same way to the Wong device in order to similarly maintain the shape of the Wong stringer without bladder deflation.
As to claims 25 and 28, in the annotated Fig. 11 of Guzman above, item marker 1100 points at another part of the second portion that contacts the stringer.
Claims 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 20150298388) in view of Guzman (US 20090127393), and further in view of Lee (US 20080111024). Wong and Guzman teach the subject matter of claims 11 and 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 13, 14, 18, and 19, Wong and Guzman are silent to the solid metal core.
Lee teaches forming composite structures with hat stiffeners. The forming mandrel is aluminum (see Lee claim 22) which is interpreted to be solid.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Lee aluminum material into Wong as an obvious interchangeable substitute material. Wong and Guzman teach a prior art process that differs from the claimed process by the use of a different mandrel material. However, the substituted component (solid metal) and its purpose (a mandrel) were known in the art of Lee. One could have substituted one known mandrel material for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (modified Wong process is simply performed with a different mandrel material that would maintain shape).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Certain claims (claims 20, 24, 27, and 30) are indicated allowable because of the separability of the different portions or structures. While claims 20 and 24 were previously rejected, the Examiner has reconsidered and withdrawn those rejections in light of the amended independent claim and new Wong reference. Other claims (claims 26 and 29) are allowed because of the spaced apart configuration relationship in these claims, which is generally consistent with the Examiner’s recommendations in the last sentence of the Interview Summary mailed September 1, 2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
