DETAILED ACTION
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 11-20 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.
As to claims 11 and 17, both claims recite a second portion “located at an opposite side of the skin across the first portion”. This feature was discussed in the attached interview summary and is indefinite – it seems that Applicant intended for this to instead recite the second portion located on an opposite side of the first portion (not opposite side of the skin as claimed). Other claims are rejected by dependence.
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, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Nitsch (US 20120097323).
As to claim 11, Lewit teaches a method of forming a structural body (Fig. 2, Fig. 4A). The Lewit method comprises inserting a core (Fig. 2, items 16 and 18; Fig. 4A, items 32-34) into a space between a skin (15) and a stringer (13). Lewit teaches integrally molding the skin and the stringer ([0027]) when the core is in the space between the skin and the stringer (Fig. 2, Fig. 4A). Lewit teaches the skin (15) includes fiber-reinforced resin ([0033]) and the stringer (13) includes a hat-shaped section (Figs. 2 and 4) that is open toward the skin. Lewit’s core includes a first portion/first structure (Fig. 2, item 18; Fig. 4A, item 34) to contact the skin and (inherently) extends in a longitudinal direction into the page. Lewit teaches a second portion/second structure (Fig. 2, item 16; Fig. 4A, item 32 or 33) which meets the claimed location and (inherently) extends in the longitudinal direction of the stringer. Lewit’s first portion/first structure and second portion/second structure are interpreted to be separable from each other. In the alternative, one would have found it obvious to make separable the Lewit portions in order to permit easier removal of the core.
Although the dimensions in the drawings cannot be relied upon to show a relative size between the second portion and the first portion in the width direction, this is the selection from only three possible alternatives: (i) second portion smaller than first portion, (ii) second portion equal to first portion, and (iii) second portion larger than first portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from any of these interchangeable alternatives.
Lewit appears to be silent to removal of the core from the space.
Nitsch teaches a core (Fig. 2, item 7) which can be removed from a part ([0035]). It would have been prima facie obvious to remove the Lewit core according to the Nitsch teaching as an improvement allowing cost reduction by reuse and weight reduction by removal ([0029]). The Nitsch process is a comparable process improved in the same way as the claimed invention, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement in the same way to the Lewit process to provide a predictable result (cost reduction by reuse and weight reduction).
As to claim 15, Lewit teaches a first structure (Fig. 2, item 18; Fig. 4A, item 34) that includes the first portion; and a second structure includes the second portion (Fig. 2, item 16; Fig. 4A, item 32 or 33). Although Lewit appears to be silent to the separability of the structures, Nitsch teaches that structures within a similar core can be made separable ([0082]). It would have been obvious to incorporate this improvement for the same reasons as discussed above in the rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 16, in the rejection of claim 11 above, Lewit teaches a first portion/first structure and second portion/second structure. However, in an alternative interpretation of Lewit, Lewit provides a first portion, second portion, and third portion as shown in Fig. 4A, items 32-34. Although the dimensions in the drawings cannot be relied upon to show a relative size between the second portion and the first portion in the width direction, the claimed relative size is the selection from a finite list of alternatives/sizes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from any of these interchangeable alternatives, including the claimed third portion relative size.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Nitsch (US 20120097323), and further in view of Guzman (US 20090127393).
As to claim 12, Lewit’s core includes a first portion/first structure (Fig. 2, item 18; Fig. 4A, item 34) to contact the skin and (inherently) extends in a longitudinal direction into the page. Lewit teaches a second portion/second structure (Fig. 2, item 16; Fig. 4A, item 32 or 33) which meets the claimed location and (inherently) extends in the longitudinal direction of the stringer.
Lewit is silent to a first end portion of the second portion in the width direction and a second end surface which is located at a second end portion of the second portion in the width direction and is to be opposed to the stringer so as to be spaced apart from the stringer in the width direction; and the first end surface and the second end surface are parallel to each other.
Guzman teaches that various stringer core configurations can be used interchangeably. In particular, Guzman teaches that a core with a channel (second) portion which would be spaced apart from the stringer (Fig. 10, channels 1004 and 1006; Fig. 11, channels 1104 and 1106) and having parallel end surfaces can be used interchangeably with a layered mandrel structure (Fig. 7, Fig. 12) like that of Lewit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing because (as Guzman shows) the core with lateral channels spaced apart from the stringer can be used interchangeably for a layered core structure like that of Lewit. The result of the substitution would have been predictable, namely that the Guzman configuration would have operated as a stringer core in the same way already taught by Lewit.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Nitsch (US 20120097323), and further in view of Lee (US 20080111024).
As to claims 13 and 14, Lewit is 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 Lewit as an obvious interchangeable substitute material. Lewit teaches 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 (Lewit process is performed with a different mandrel material).
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Guzman (US 20090127393).
As to claim 17, Lewit teaches a method of forming a structural body (Fig. 2, Fig. 4A). The Lewit method comprises inserting a core (Fig. 2, items 16 and 18; Fig. 4A, items 32-34) into a space between a skin (15) and a stringer (13). Lewit teaches integrally molding the skin and the stringer ([0027]) when the core is in the space between the skin and the stringer (Fig. 2, Fig. 4A). Lewit’s core includes a first portion/first structure (Fig. 2, item 18; Fig. 4A, item 34) to contact the skin and (inherently) extends in a longitudinal direction into the page. Lewit teaches a second portion/second structure (Fig. 2, item 16; Fig. 4A, item 32 or 33) which meets the claimed location and (inherently) extends in the longitudinal direction of the stringer.
Lewit is silent to a part of the second portion spaced apart from the stringer.
Guzman teaches that various stringer core configurations can be used interchangeably. In particular, Guzman teaches that a core with a channel portion which would be spaced apart from the stringer (Fig. 10, channels 1004 and 1006; Fig. 11, channels 1104 and 1106) can be used interchangeably with a layered structure (Fig. 7, Fig. 12) like that of Lewit.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing because (as Guzman shows) the core with lateral channels spaced apart from the stringer can be used interchangeably for a layered core structure like that of Lewit. The result of the substitution would have been predictable, namely that the Guzman configuration would have operated as a stringer core in the same way already taught by Lewit.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Guzman (US 20090127393) and further in view of Lee (US 20080111024). Lewit and Guzman teach the subject matter of claim 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 18 and 19, Lewit is 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 Lewit as an obvious interchangeable substitute material. Lewit teaches 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 (Lewit process is performed with a different mandrel material).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Guzman (US 20090127393) and further in view of Nitsch (US 20120097323). Lewit and Guzman teach the subject matter of claim 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 20, Lewit teaches a first structure that includes the first portion and a second structure includes the second portion, and the first structure and the second structure are interpreted to be separable from each other.
Although Lewit appears to be silent to the separability of the structures, Nitsch teaches that structures within a similar core can be made separable ([0082]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to provide the Lewit core in separable pieces according to the Nitsch teaching as an obvious improvement that would permit easier removal of the core. Lewit provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be interpreted as an improvement, and Nitsch teaches a comparable device improved in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the same improvement to Lewit to permit removal and easier removal of the Lewit core.
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