DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Korenaga (PG-PUB 2016/0159453) in view of Bloom (GB 2588967).
Regarding claim 1, Korenaga teaches a method for in-situ manufacturing a protective liner on an elongated finished structural part of an aircraft, comprising:
sequentially applying an adhesive and fiberglass layers (Figures 4A and 4B and [0029]-[0032]) to an edge of a composite blade stringer [0026]-[0028].
Korenaga does not teach:
a) attaching a sealant mold portion on the elongated finished structural part of the
aircraft in a detachable and non-movable manner, the elongated finished structural part
having a surface to be protected, wherein the sealant mold portion is arranged relative to the elongated finished structural part such that the sealant mold portion and the surface to be protected from a sealant mold having a mold cavity;
b) filling the mold cavity with a wet sealant;
c) curing, or letting cure, the wet sealant into cured sealant that is bonded to the
surface and forms the protective liner; and
d) removing the sealant mold portion from the manufactured composite.
Bloom teaches a method for in-situ manufacturing a protective liner on an elongated structural part of an aircraft, the method comprising:
a) attaching a sealant mold portion to a preform with an edge cap device in a detachable and non-movable manner, the preform having a surface to be protected, wherein the sealant mold portion is arranged relative to the preform such that the sealant mold portion and the surface to be protected from a sealant mold having a mold cavity (Figures 6-8, items 60, 63, and 64 and [0071]-[0073]);
b) filling the mold cavity with a wet sealant (Figure 7-9 and [0074]-[0075]);
c) curing, or letting cure, the wet sealant into cured sealant that is bonded to the surface and forms the protective liner [0075]; and
d) naturally removing the sealant mold portion from the manufactured composite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Korenaga with the in-situ injection-based edge protection treatment of Bloom, a known suitable technique for providing edge protection in composite stringers and structures, to yield the predictable result of providing edge protection. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the laminating technique of Korenaga with the injection-based technique of Bloom using a sealant mold portion suitable to form a sealant to the shape as desired by Korenaga to yield the predictable result of providing edge treatment to the composite stringer.
Regarding claim 2, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein in step c) the curing or letting cure, is carried out in-situ with the sealant mold portion attached to the elongated finished structural part (Bloom, [0075]).
Regarding claim 3, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein step d) is performed after step c) (Bloom, [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the sealant mold portion comprises an injection opening that fluidly connects the mold cavity, and in step b) the wet sealant is filled into the mold cavity through the injection opening (Bloom, Figures 7-9 and [0074]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 4, wherein the sealant mold portion comprises a discharge opening that fluidly connects to the mold cavity (Bloom, Figure 7-9 and [0070]-[0071]).
Korenaga in view of Bloom does not explicitly teach in step b) the wet sealant is filled, by being injected through the injection opening, into the mold cavity until the wet sealant is discharged through the discharge opening.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to completely fill the seal along the entire length of the elongated finished structural part without void as desired by Bloom, the wet sealant would naturally have to be filled, by being injected through the injection opening, into the mold cavity until the wet sealant is discharged through the discharge opening.
Regarding claim 6, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the elongated finished structural part comprises a top portion (Korenaga, Figure 2, 3A, and 3B) that, when the elongated finished structural part is installed on a skin of a fuselage of the aircraft, is spaced apart from the skin, and the surface to be protected is part of the top portion and faces away from the skin, wherein in step a) the sealant mold portion is arranged on the top portion of the elongated finished structural part such that the sealant mold portion and the top portion define the mold cavity (Korenaga, Figure 3A and 3B and [0024]-[0026]; Bloom, Figures 2, 3, and 5 and [0016], [0061]-[0064]).
Alternatively, claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (PG-PUB 2016/0159453) in view of Bloom (GB 2588967), as applied to claim 4, in further view of Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179).
Regarding claim 5, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 4, wherein the sealant mold portion comprises a discharge opening that fluidly connects to the mold cavity (Bloom, Figure 7-9 and [0070]-[0071]).
Korenaga in view of Bloom does not explicitly teach in step b) the wet sealant is filled, by being injected through the injection opening, into the mold cavity until the wet sealant is discharged through the discharge opening.
Bailly teaches injection adhesive into a gap through an initial injection orifice sp as to make the edge of the adhesive advance until the adhesive is ejected through the vent orifice (Figures 6A-6B and [0057]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Korenaga in view of Bloom with the injection technique of Bailly, a known suitable technique to inject resin to completely fill a cavity, as desired by Bloom.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 being unpatentable over Korenaga (PG-PUB 2016/0159453) in view of Bloom (GB 2588967) with Cheng (US 11,325,688) applied as evidence only.
Regarding claim 7, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the stringers can have I, J, and Z cross-sectional configurations (Korenaga, [0020]), wherein in step a) the sealant mold portion is arranged on the top portion of the elongated finished structural part such that the sealant mold portion and the top portion define the mold cavity (Korenaga, Figure 3A and 3B and [0024]-[0026], Figures 2, 3, and 5 and [0016], [0061]-[0064]).
Korenaga in view of Bloom does not explicitly teach the elongated finished structural part comprises at least one lateral portion that, when the elongated finished structural part is installed on a skin of a fuselage, is spaced apart from the skin, and the surface to be protected is part of each lateral portion and faces parallel to the skin, wherein in step a) the sealant mold portion is arranged on each lateral portion of the elongated finished structural part such that the sealant mold and each lateral portion define the mold cavity.
Cheng teaches a composite stringers coupled to skin in the I, J, and Z configuration (Figures 12-15).
As evidenced by Cheng, composite stringers of Korenaga in the I, J, and Z configuration would have lateral portion(s) such that when the elongated finished structural part is installed on a skin of a fuselage, is spaced apart from the skin, and the surface to be protected is part of each lateral portion and faces parallel to the skin.
Accordingly, when applying resin on the edge of the webs of the I, J, and Z stringers of Korenaga in view of Bloom, in step a) the sealant mold portion would be arranged on each lateral portion of the elongated finished structural part such that the sealant mold and each lateral portion define the mold cavity in order to mold the edge protection caps as desired by Korenaga in view of Bloom.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (PG-PUB 2016/0159453) in view of Bloom (GB 2588967), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Yamasaki (PG-PUB 2007/0292669).
Regarding claim 8, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Korenaga in view of Bloom does not teach in step b) the wet sealant is injected with an injection pressure of 0.5 bar to 10 bar.
Yamasaki teaches a process of injecting resin into a cavity (Figure 15 and [0182]), wherein the resin is pressure-injected to a pressure between 0.1 to 1.0 MPa (1 bar to 100 bar) to fill the cavity [00184], [0186].
Korenaga in view of Bloom is silent to the resin injection pressure, prompting one of ordinary skill to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Korenaga in view of Bloom with the resin injection pressure of Yamasaki, a known suitable resin injection pressure, to yield the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure to inject resin for filling a cavity.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (PG-PUB 2016/0159453) in view of Bloom (GB 2588967), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Kaye (PG-PUB 2011/0220006).
Regarding claims 9-11, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the resin injected can be a thermosetting epoxy resin (Bloom, [0063]).
Korenaga in view of Bloom does not teach:
(1) the method is performed at a temperature from 10 °C to 30 °C;
(2) the wet sealant is a self-curing sealant;
(3) the wet sealant is chosen from a group consisting of polysulfide based sealant, polythioether based sealant, epoxy based sealant, and polyurethane based sealant.
Kaye teaches a process of manufacturing a impact indicator applied to an edge of a stringer from a bead of molded uncured epoxy resin (Figure 2 and 9 and [0030], [0036]). Kaye teaches the uncured resin can be EA9394 epoxy resin and cured at room temperature so that heating is unnecessary [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Korenaga in view of Bloom with the epoxy resin of Kaye, a known suitable epoxy resin for use in edge treatment for stringers, to yield the predictable result of providing an edge cap with suitable material properties. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the process in room temperature to allow for the self-curing epoxy resin of Korenaga in view of Bloom and Kaye to cure.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korenaga (PG-PUB 2016/0159453) in view of Bloom (GB 2588967), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Song (PG-PUB 2017/0036381).
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Korenaga in view of Bloom teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Korenaga in view of Bloom does not teach the sealant mold comprises or is made of a non-stick material that is configured such that the wet sealant does not bond to the sealant mold, wherein the non-stick material is PTFE or a fluorosilicone.
Song teaches a process of in-situ molding of fastener sealing caps [0026] using a molded from PTFE or similar non-stick material. Song teaches the inner cavity of the mold is filled entirely to providing shaping of the in-situ cap formed upon curing
of the mold material, and the use of PTFE or similar materials for the mold provides a "non-stick" surface for the mold cavity to allow enhanced disengagement of the mold from the sealing cap upon completion of the injection process [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Korenaga in view of Bloom with the PTFE-based molds to provide non-stick surfaces for the mold cavity for enhanced disengagement of the molded article as taught by Song.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745