DETAILED ACTION
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, 20, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewit (US 20020178992) in view of Guzman (US 20090127393).
As to claims 11 and 12, 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 occupying a portion of the 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 33) which meets the claimed location and (inherently) extends in the longitudinal direction of the stringer.
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 (i) the gap between core and stringer, (ii) removal of the core from the space, and (iii) the second portion including two end surfaces opposed and spaced apart from the stringer in the width direction. Lewit is also silent to the parallel first and second end surfaces in claim 12.
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 incorporate these features from Guzman into Lewit because this is (ii) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and (i and iii) simple substitution of one core configuration for another to obtain a predictable result. (ii) Lewit represents a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by removing the core. However, Guzman teaches a comparable process which removes the core, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the Guzman improvement in the same way to make the composite lighter by removing the core. (i and iii) Lewit teaches a base process which differed from the claimed process by a substituted core configuration. However, the substituted core configuration and its function (as a core) were known in the art of Guzman, and one could have substituted one core for another for use in creating a cavity or stiffener in a composite article.
As to claim 16, in the combination of Guzman with Lewit 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, 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 occupying a portion of the 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 33) which meets the claimed location and (inherently) extends in the longitudinal direction of the stringer.
Lewit appears to be silent to (i) the gap between core and stringer, (ii) removal of the core from the space, and (iii) the second portion including two end surfaces opposed and spaced apart from the stringer in the width direction.
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 incorporate these features from Guzman into Lewit because this is (ii) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and (i and iii) simple substitution of one core configuration for another to obtain a predictable result. (ii) Lewit represents a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by removing the core. However, Guzman teaches a comparable process which removes the core, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the Guzman improvement in the same way to make the composite lighter by removing the core. (i and iii) Lewit teaches a base process which differed from the claimed process by a substituted core configuration. However, the substituted core configuration and its function (as a core) were known in the art of Guzman, and one could have substituted one core for another for use in creating a cavity or stiffener in a composite article.
As to claims 20 and 24, while Lewit and Guzman do not specifically teach the first portion/first structure and second portion/second structure being separable from each other, making integral parts separable is generally obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(V). In this case, it would have been prima facie obvious to make the Lewit/Guzman portions separable because the ordinary artisan would have recognized that individual pieces would be easier to disassemble and remove from the internal channel of a stringer.
Claims 13, 14, 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 claims 11 and 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 13, 14, 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).
Claims 20 and 24 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 Nitsch (US 20120097323). Lewit and Guzman teach the subject matter of claim 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 20 and 24, 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.
Claims 22 and 23 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 Munoz Royo (US 20070039284). Lewit and Guzman teach the subject matter of claims 11 and 17 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 22 and 23, Lewit appears to be silent to the fiber-reinforced resin including a thermoplastic resin.
Munoz Royo teaches that stringers may be made of a composite material comprising fibers with either thermosetting resin or thermoplastic resin ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate thermoplastic resin from Munoz Royo into the modified Lewit process because this is a simple substitution of one known element/resin for another to obtain a predictable result. Lewit differs from the prior art in that it does not teach the claimed matrix material, however, Munoz Royo teaches that stringers formed from either type of resin (thermosetting or thermoplastic) were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have selected either resin for use in the Lewit stringers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are addressed by the revised rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments against Nitsch on page 9 are noted, but are addressed by the revised rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments against Guzman on page 10 are noted, however, these arguments appear to take a different interpretation of Guzman than presented in the rejection above. The Examiner notes that the independent claims do not require separability of the portions (claim differentiation between claims 11/17 and 20/24 shows that claims 11 and 17 could encompass integral first and second portions) and the second portion of the core is not required to be in contact with the stringer.
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 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
Prosecution Insights