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
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) 1-4, 6-7, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1) and Combes (US2024/0165708 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shinozaki discloses a method for forming a composite part for a vehicle [0002], the method comprising:
forming an additively manufactured (sub-structure is disclosed as laminate [0060] and are prefabricated before [0061]. This reads on formed additively manufactured) comprising at least one flange portion (324), at least one radius, and at least one radius filler [0042,0050, 0052] (figures 5a-5c);
forming a preform comprising one or more material layers of a skin (36), the additively manufactured sub-structure, and one or more material layers of a stiffener [0069], the stiffener comprising a flange and a web [0039];
infusing the preform with a liquid resin [0060];
and curing the liquid resin to form the composite part [0017].
Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the additively manufactured sub-structure is formed to permit resin to flow through during resin infusion and discloses infusing with liquid resin over a tool. However, analogous art, Matsen, discloses consolidating the composite material involves hardening or toughening of the composite material under heat and/or pressure, and during consolidation, the heat and/or pressure results in flow of resin and wetting of reinforcing fibers of the composite material [0083]. Therefore, it is intrinsic in the substructure for the additively manufactured substructure to be formed to permit resin to flow during resin infusion. Matsen further discloses infusing with liquid resin over a tool [0046]. One ordinary skill in the art would understand the skin and stiffener are included in the tool. MPEP 2144.04 states it has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are at least substantially identical, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 the step of infusing the preform with a liquid resin such that the liquid resin flows between the skin and the stiffener through the additively manufactured sub-structure since liquid will inherently flow between anything that has spaces/pores.
Shinozaki and Matsen does not explicitly disclose a porous structure. However one ordinary skill in the art would recognize materials are inherently have some degree of porosity. If Applicant does not agree with this, analogous art, Wilcoxson et al, discloses using porous materials to perforate material in order to infuse resin (FEP ) and prevent introducing contaminants to stiffeners and prevent vacuum chuck from sticking to stiffeners in order to strengthen the stiffener [0071]. 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 porous materials in order to infuse the stiffeners in order to strengthen the stiffener.
Further, analogous art, Combes, discloses using additive manufacturing to print parts for a vehicle including flange [0039]. 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 utilized additive manufacturing printing parts since it is cost effective and efficient. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As for the interface with the skin and the stiffener, Shinozaki discloses different arrangements of the skin and stiffener including directly placed on the skin member [0041]. MPEP 2144.05 states MPEP 2144.05 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.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 the skin and stiffener to interface since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Shinozaki discloses infusing the preform with the resin comprises drawing a vacuum to infuse the resin through the preform [0085].
Regarding claims 3-4, Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose wherein forming the additively manufactured sub-structure comprises forming one or more of the at least one flange portion and the at least one radius portion of the additively manufactured sub-structure from a material comprising a thermoplastic; wherein the material comprises one or more of a polyamide, polyimide, and/or polyaryletherketone. Analogous art, Matsen, discloses the composite material such as aircraft stiffeners and skins may be made from either thermoset or thermoplastic resin; thermoplastic resin such as polyamides, polyolefins, fluoropolymers, and/or other resin material 228 [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with thermoplastic resin such as polyamides instead of a thermoset impregnate since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one flange and the at least one radius filler comprise different material. However, Matsen disclose a radius filler and flange 416 made from different material [0044-0045]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to from the flange and radius filler in Shinozaki from different materials in view of Matsen in order to provide desired structural properties since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Shinozaki teaches wherein forming the additively manufactured sub-structure further comprises forming the one or more of the at least one flange portion and the at least one radius portion of the additively manufactured sub-structure with additives, fillers, or a combination of additives and fillers [0042].
Claim(s) 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1) and Combes (US2024/0165708 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kinlen (US 2019/03900037 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Shinozaki and Matsen do not explicitly disclose wherein the material comprises polyetherketone. However, polyetherketone is in the same class as polyamides as taught by Matsen. Further, analogous art, Kinlen “In at least one aspect, a polymer matrix/resin is at least one of a polyurethane, an epoxy, a bismaleimide, a polyimide, or a polyaryletherketone” [0024] and “Polyaryletherketones are thermoplastics that can provide adhesion of a composition of the present disclosure to a component and can also withstand chemical, thermal, and physical conditions experienced by a vehicle if the component is a vehicle component” [0025]. Poletherketoneketone is in the same family of polyaryletherketone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with thermoplastic resin such as polyetherketone instead of a thermoset impregnate since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results and since polyetherketones withstand chemical, thermal and physical conditions.
Regarding claim 8, Shinozaki and Matsen do not explicitly teach/disclose wherein forming the additively manufactured sub-structure further comprises forming the one or more of the at least one flange portion and the at least one radius portion of the additively manufactured sub-structure with nanomaterials. However, analogous art Kinlen, discloses “compositions of the present disclosure can further include a polymer matrix or resin. A polymer matrix/resin provides additional strength to a composition of the present disclosure. A matrix material, for example, can provide a medium for binding and holding a fiber-reinforcing sheet and a nanomaterial composite sheet together into a continuous, solid form. In at least one aspect, a polymer matrix/resin is selected from a polyurethane, an epoxy (such as Cycom® 977-3 epoxy resin from Cytec Industries, Inc. of Woodland Park, N.J.), a thermosetting polymer, a thermoplastic polymer, or a rubber. A polymer matrix resin of the present disclosure can include at least one of a thermosetting polymer or a thermoplastic polymer. In at least one aspect, a polymer matrix/resin is at least one of a polyurethane, an epoxy, a bismaleimide, a polyimide, or a polyaryletherketone” [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with nanomaterials since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results and nanomaterials provide a strong durable materials.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Shinozaki discloses a method for forming a composite part for a vehicle [0002], the method comprising: forming a preform comprising one or more material layers of a skin (36), and one or more material layers of a stiffener [0069], the stiffener comprising a flange and a web [0039]; and wherein the sub-structure comprises at least one radius and at least one radius filler [0042, 0050, 0052] (figure 5A-5c) and infusing the preform with a liquid resin [0060]; and curing the liquid resin to form the composite part [0017].
Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the additively manufactured sub-structure is formed to permit resin to flow through during resin infusion and discloses infusing with liquid resin over a tool. However, analogous art, Matsen, discloses consolidating the composite material involves hardening or toughening of the composite material under heat and/or pressure, and during consolidation, the heat and/or pressure results in flow of resin and wetting of reinforcing fibers of the composite material [0083]. Therefore, it is intrinsic in the substructure for the additively manufactured substructure to be formed to permit resin to flow during resin infusion. Matsen further discloses infusing with liquid resin over a tool [0046]. One ordinary skill in the art would understand the skin and stiffener are included in the tool. MPEP 2144.04 states it has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are at least substantially identical, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01. 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 the step of infusing the preform with a liquid resin such that the liquid resin flows between the skin and the stiffener through the additively manufactured sub-structure since liquid will inherently flow between anything that has spaces/pores.
Shinozaki and Matsen does not explicitly disclose a porous structure. However one ordinary skill in the art would recognize materials are inherently have some degree of porosity. If Applicant does not agree with this, analogous art, Wilcoxson et al, discloses using porous materials to perforate material in order to infuse resin (FEP ) and prevent introducing contaminants to stiffeners and prevent vacuum chuck from sticking to stiffeners in order to strengthen the stiffener [0071]. 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 porous materials in order to infuse the stiffeners in order to strengthen the stiffener.
Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose at least one flange portion comprises a porous flange portion. However, Matsen, discloses “the compaction pressure may compact the composite plies against the tool or mold to minimize or reduce porosity and voids in the final composite structure” [0005]. Therefore, Matsen essentially discloses the flange portion has some type of porosity. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have porous flange portions since it is part of the structure/inherent as taught by Matsen. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As for the interface with the skin and the stiffener, Shinozaki discloses different arrangements of the skin and stiffener including directly placed on the skin member [0041]. MPEP 2144.05 states MPEP 2144.05 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.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 the skin and stiffener to interface since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose wherein forming the additively manufactured sub-structure comprises forming one or more of the at least one flange portion and the at least one radius portion of the additively manufactured sub-structure from a material comprising a thermoplastic. Analogous art, Matsen, discloses the composite material such as aircraft stiffeners and skins may be made from either thermoset or thermoplastic resin; thermoplastic resin such as polyamides, polyolefins, fluoropolymers, and/or other resin material 228. [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with thermoplastic resin such as polyamides instead of a thermoset impregnate since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Shinozaki teaches wherein forming the additively manufactured sub-structure further comprises forming the one or more of the at least one flange portion and the at least one radius portion of the additively manufactured sub-structure with additives, fillers, or a combination of additives and fillers [0042].
Claim(s) 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1), as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Kinlen (US 2019/03900037 A1).
Regarding claim 16 Shinozaki and Matsen do not explicitly disclose wherein the material comprises polyetherketone. However, polyetherketone is in the same class as polyamides as taught by Matsen. Further, analogous art, Kinlen “In at least one aspect, a polymer matrix/resin is at least one of a polyurethane, an epoxy, a bismaleimide, a polyimide, or a polyaryletherketone” [0024] and “Polyaryletherketones are thermoplastics that can provide adhesion of a composition of the present disclosure to a component and can also withstand chemical, thermal, and physical conditions experienced by a vehicle if the component is a vehicle component” [0025]. Poletherketoneketone is in the same family of polyaryletherketone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with thermoplastic resin such as polyetherketone instead of a thermoset impregnate since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results and since polyetherketones withstand chemical, thermal and physical conditions.
Regarding claim 18, Shinozaki and Matsen do not explicitly teach/disclose wherein forming the additively manufactured sub-structure further comprises forming the one or more of the at least one flange portion and the at least one radius portion of the additively manufactured sub-structure with nanomaterials. However, analogous art Kinlen, discloses “compositions of the present disclosure can further include a polymer matrix or resin. A polymer matrix/resin provides additional strength to a composition of the present disclosure. A matrix material, for example, can provide a medium for binding and holding a fiber-reinforcing sheet and a nanomaterial composite sheet together into a continuous, solid form. In at least one aspect, a polymer matrix/resin is selected from a polyurethane, an epoxy (such as Cycom® 977-3 epoxy resin from Cytec Industries, Inc. of Woodland Park, N.J.), a thermosetting polymer, a thermoplastic polymer, or a rubber. A polymer matrix resin of the present disclosure can include at least one of a thermosetting polymer or a thermoplastic polymer. In at least one aspect, a polymer matrix/resin is at least one of a polyurethane, an epoxy, a bismaleimide, a polyimide, or a polyaryletherketone” [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with nanomaterials since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results and nanomaterials provide a strong durable materials.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1) and/or Combes (US2024/0165708 A1), as applied to claim 4/15, and further in view of Kim (US2020/0158263 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Shinozaki and Matsen are silent to polyetherketoneketone. However, analogous art, Kim, discloses constructed from one of a wide range of materials nonconductive thermoplastic polymer for example such as polyetheretherketone, polyaryletherketone, polyphenylene, amorphous thermoplastic polyetherimide, heat stabilized Nylon or other suitable materials [0021]. Poletherketoneketone is in the same family of polyaryletherketone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the composite of Shinozaki with thermoplastic resin such as polytherketoneketone instead of a thermoset impregnate since that involves the simple substitution of one material for another to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1) and/or Combes (US2024/0165708 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tsubaki (US 2004/0037978 A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, 14, and 21 Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose at least one flange portion comprises a porous flange portion. However, Matsen, discloses “the compaction pressure may compact the composite plies against the tool or mold to minimize or reduce porosity and voids in the final composite structure” [0005]. Therefore, Matsen essentially discloses the flange portion has some type of porosity. As for the range, wherein at least one flange portion with a pore space fraction of about 0.1%- to about 99%; 0.4% to about 20%, Matsen teaches minimizing or reducing porosity and voids. Additionally, analogous art Tsubaki discloses the void ratio (i.e. the ratio of pore space) in the ink-jet recording layer can be raised and the ink is more easily held in the layers when the ratio of the binder to the fine particles is smaller. Accordingly, the overflow of the ink can be prevented. Thus the ink-jet recording sheet having a porous layer can be obtained, which can be rapidly dried and has high strength of the coated layer and high resistivity against folding. Furthermore, the porous layer has high resistivity against cracking and peeling off the layer and to stress caused by folding before and after printing of image [0055]. Therefore, Tsubaki is teaches the pore space is a result effective variable. Further, MPEP 2144.05 states In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters (pore space fraction of about 0.1%-to about 99%) as taught by Tsubaki through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one flange portion has a different pore space fraction than the at least one radius filler. However, Tsubaki teaches the void ratio (i.e. the ratio of pore space) in the ink-jet recording layer can be raised and the ink is more easily held in the layers when the ratio of the binder to the fine particles is smaller. Accordingly, the overflow of the ink can be prevented. Thus the ink-jet recording sheet having a porous layer can be obtained, which can be rapidly dried and has high strength of the coated layer and high resistivity against folding. Furthermore, the porous layer has high resistivity against cracking and peeling off the layer and to stress caused by folding before and after printing of image [0055]. Therefore, Tsubaki is teaches the pore space is a result effective variable and based on the design needs of the final products. Further, depending on the material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have different pore space fraction depending on the design needs and placement of the final production. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (US 2019/0193371 A1) in view of Matsen (US 2014/0099477 A1), and further in view of Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1) and/ or Combes (US2024/0165708 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN103482620A, herein referred to as ‘620 A.
Regarding claim 9, Shinozaki does not explicitly disclose a grid pattern comprising a plurality of pores. However, analogous art, ‘620A, discloses porous arrays which reads on grid patterns (pg. 7 paragraph 5). 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 porous array in order to carry out oxidation through holes (pg. 2 paragraph 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Shinozaki fails to disclose wherein the additively manufactured sub-structure interfaces with the skin and the stiffener. However, Shinozaki discloses different arrangements of the skin and stiffener including directly placed on the skin member [0041]. MPEP 2144.05 states MPEP 2144.05 states It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.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 the skin and stiffener to interface since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Further, Applicants arguments are moot in light of the newly cited references Wilcoxson et al (US 2016/0075092 A1) and Combes (US2024/0165708 A1).
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 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