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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response dated 04/24/2026 Claim 1 has been amended to change the scope of the claim, requiring a new interpretation and rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 23 and 27 recite “the stiffing structure”. This is interpreted as “the stiffening structure”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first HFQ process or the second HFQ process forms a stiffening structure” and then later “wherein the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process form respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure”. There was no evidence found in the specification that the method included using the first or second HFQ process to form a stiffening structure and also using both the first and second HFQ process to form parts of the same stiffening structure.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the first HFQ process or the second HFQ process forms a stiffening structure” and then later “wherein the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process form respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure”. There was no evidence found in the specification that the method included using the first or second HFQ process to form a stiffening structure and also using both the first and second HFQ process to form parts of the same stiffening structure.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the first HFQ process or the second HFQ process forms a stiffening structure” and then later “wherein the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process form respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure”. There was no evidence found in the specification that the method included using the first or second HFQ process to form a stiffening structure and also using both the first and second HFQ process to form parts of the same stiffening structure.
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 1-4, 7-12 and 21-30 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the first HFQ process or the second HFQ process forms a stiffening structure” and then later “wherein the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process form respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure”. It unclear whether the stiffening structure is formed by one of the first HFQ process, the second HFQ process, or both.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the first HFQ process or the second HFQ process forms a stiffening structure” and then later “wherein the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process form respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure”. It unclear whether the stiffening structure is formed by one of the first HFQ process, the second HFQ process, or both.
Claim 23 recites “the respective surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 24 recites “the stiffening structure is hexagonal”. Claim 23 recites “…wherein the first HFQ process forms only horizontal stiffening elements…”. It is unclear how a hexagonal structure can only have horizontal stiffening elements. Applicant’s Figure 3B shows said hexagonal structure. There are no horizontal portions (compared to Figure 3A) of the stiffening structure.
Claim 27 recites “wherein the first HFQ process or the second HFQ process forms a stiffening structure” and then later “wherein the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process form respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure”. It unclear whether the stiffening structure is formed by one of the first HFQ process, the second HFQ process, or both.
Claim 27 recites “the respective surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 27 recites “the respective surface” in relation to the first HFQ process and the second HFQ process. Claim 27 also recites that the first HFQ process forms the first aluminum sheet and the second HFQ process forms the second aluminum sheet. It is unclear whether the first and second HFQ process is applied to the same respective surface.
For the purposes of advancing prosecution, the second recitation will be interpreted as “a respective surface on the second aluminum sheet” or similar with regard to the prior art.
Claim 28 recites “the stiffening structure is hexagonal”. Claim 23 recites “…wherein the first HFQ process forms only horizontal stiffening elements…”. It is unclear how a hexagonal structure can only have horizontal stiffening elements. Applicant’s Figure 3B shows said hexagonal structure. There are no horizontal portions (compared to Figure 3A) of the stiffening structure.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V).
Claim 1
Periyasamy teaches a method comprising: forming a first aluminum sheet (Figure 1, Item 200 and ¶0058) using a first process (¶0093); forming a second aluminum sheet (Figure 1, Item 100 and ¶0049) using a process (¶0049 teaches a forming process for the first panel. Figure 1 shows the panel is curved), wherein a first process or a second forms a stiffening structure on a surface of the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet (Figure 3 shows stiffening structures (210, 220, 230). ¶0096 teaches the formation process of the first panel (200) forms these features integrally with the panel.) joining together the first aluminum sheet and the second aluminum sheet (¶0098 teaches the two panels (100, 200) are bonded.) so that the stiffing structures is located between the first aluminum sheet and the second aluminum sheet thereby forming a reinforced aluminum component (Figure 4 shows that the stiffening portions (210, 220, 230) are located between the outer bounds of the first (200) and second (100) panel.); wherein the first process (Figure 3 shows stiffening structures (210, 220, 230). ¶0096 teaches the formation process of the first panel (200) forms these features integrally with the panel.) and the second process (¶0046 teaches the second sheet (100) is formed such that pockets are created on the surface (102) to optimize strength.) forms respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure. (Figures 3-4 show that the surface (102) that has the pockets formed thereon (¶0046) and the stiffening elements (210, 220, 230) are connecting with one another when bonded. This is a joining of the stiffening elements as claimed. The claim does not indicate how the elements are “complementary”.)
Periyasamy does not disclose HFQ as the formation method.
However, Kumar teaches the use of HFQ to form aircraft structures from aluminum. (Page 10, “Introduction” teaches the document relates to aircraft structures. Page 13, “The Advanced metal forming” teaches the use of HFQ to form an aluminum alloy.”
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known HFQ technique of Kumar to the forming methods of Periyasamy in order to use a forming method that provides a homogenous microstructure, enhances ductility, enhances the formability, reduces spring back on complex components (such as a curved shape), and improves mechanical characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known HFQ technique of Kumar to the forming method of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the panels, including the two sets of stiffening elements, of Periyasamy will be formed using HFQ.
Claim 2
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stiffening structure is orthogonal. (Periyasamy, Figures 2-3 teach the stiffening structure extends at a right angle from the side surface of the panel.)
Claim 3
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stiffening structure is non-orthogonal. (Periyasamy, ¶0062 teaches the stiffening structures can be orthogonal or non-orthogonal (angled) with respect to the surface (201).)
Claim 7
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reinforced aluminum component is an airframe. (Periyasamy ¶0107 teaches the component is used for an airframe component.)
Claim 8
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reinforced aluminum component is a fuselage, a wing, or a empennage skin. (Periyasamy ¶0107 teaches the component is used for a fuselage, wing, or tail component.)
Claim 9
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein joining together comprises adhesive bonding the first and second aluminum sheets. (Periyasamy ¶0098 teaches the use of adhesives to join the panels.)
Claim 10
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein joining together comprises fastening the first and second aluminum sheets. (Periyasamy ¶0098 teaches the use of rivets to join the panels.)
Claim 11
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein joining together comprises welding the first and second aluminum sheets. (Periyasamy ¶0098 teaches the use of fusion bonding to join the panels.)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Victor (US2742247A).
Claim 4
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stiffening structure has a shape. (Periyasamy ¶0046 teaches the second sheet (100) is formed such that pockets are created on the surface (102) to optimize strength. These pockets are part of the stiffening structure.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the stiffening structure is hexagonal.
However, Victor teaches hexagonal reinforcing structure for an aircraft component made up of pockets formed in a metal sheet. (See Figure 8 and Col. 4, Line 70 through Col. 5, Line 12)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known hexagonal reinforcement shape of Victor to the unknown reinforcement shape in Periyasamy in order to provide a reinforcement where the joining of the skin panels occur (See Victor Col. 3 Lines 43-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known hexagonal reinforcement shape of Victor to the unknown reinforcement shape in Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the pockets formed in the method of Periyasamy in view of Kumar will have a hexagonal shape.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of AL2024 NPL (NPL U).
Claim 12
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises an aluminum alloy. (Periyasamy ¶0049 teaches the use of an aluminum alloy.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises aluminum alloy 2024.
However, AL2024 NPL teaches the use of aluminum alloy 2024 for aircraft applications. (The “general description” section teaches the use of AL2024 in aircraft parts.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known aluminum alloy 2024 of AL2024 NPL to the aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy in order to use an alloy that has a high strength to weight ratio and is widely used in aerospace applications. (See AL 2024 NPL “general description” section.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known aluminum alloy 2024 of AL2024 NPL to the aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the panels in Periyasamy will be formed using Aluminum alloy 2024.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of MatWeb Aluminum 6061 (NPL X on PTO-892 dated 03-26-2026).
Claim 21
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises an aluminum alloy. (Periyasamy ¶0049 teaches the use of a 6000 series alloy.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises aluminum alloy 6061.
However, Matweb Aluminum 6061 teaches the use of aluminum alloy 6061 for aircraft applications. (“Material Notes” indicates the use of AA6061 in aircraft parts.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known AA6061 of Matweb Aluminum 6061 to the 6000 series aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy in order to use an alloy that has high strength, good workability, high resistance to corrosion, and is widely available. (See Matweb Aluminum 6061 “Material Notes” section.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known AA6061 of Matweb Aluminum 6061 to the 6000 series aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the panels in Periyasamy will be formed using AA6061.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of AL7075 NPL (NPL V).
Claim 22
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises an aluminum alloy. (Periyasamy ¶0049 teaches the use of an aluminum alloy.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises aluminum alloy 7075.
However, AL7075 NPL teaches the use of aluminum alloy 7075 for aircraft applications. (“Grade Summary” section teaches the use of aluminum alloy 7075 in aircraft parts.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known aluminum alloy 7075 of AL7075 NPL to the aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy in order to use an alloy that has a high strength to weight ratio and is suited for stressed aircraft parts. (“Grade Summary” section)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known aluminum alloy 7075 of AL7075 NPL to the aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the panels in Periyasamy will be formed using Aluminum alloy 7075.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V).
Claim 23
Periyasamy teaches a method comprising: forming a first aluminum sheet (Figure 1, Item 200 and ¶0058) using a first process (¶0093); forming a second aluminum sheet (Figure 1, Item 100 and ¶0049) using a process (¶0049 teaches a forming process for the first panel. Figure 1 shows the panel is curved), wherein a first process or a second forms a stiffening structure on a surface of the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet (Figure 3 shows stiffening structures (210, 220, 230). ¶0096 teaches the formation process of the first panel (200) forms these features integrally with the panel.) joining together the first aluminum sheet and the second aluminum sheet (¶0098 teaches the two panels (100, 200) are bonded.) so that the stiffing structures is located between the first aluminum sheet and the second aluminum sheet thereby forming a reinforced aluminum component (Figure 4 shows that the stiffening portions (210, 220, 230) are located between the outer bounds of the first (200) and second (100) panel.); wherein the first process (Figure 3 shows stiffening structures (210, 220, 230). ¶0096 teaches the formation process of the first panel (200) forms these features integrally with the panel.) and the second process (¶0046 teaches the second sheet (100) is formed such that pockets are created on the surface (102) to optimize strength.) forms respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure. (Figures 3-4 show that the surface (102) that has the pockets formed thereon (¶0046) and the stiffening elements (210, 220, 230) are connecting with one another when bonded. This is a joining of the stiffening elements as claimed. The claim does not indicate how the elements are “complementary”.); wherein the first HFQ process forms only horizontal stiffening elements in the respective surface. (Figure 3 shows the stiffening elements (210, 220, 230) formed in the first sheet (200) during the process are horizontally oriented.)
Periyasamy does not disclose HFQ as the formation method.
However, Kumar teaches the use of HFQ to form aircraft structures from aluminum. (Page 10, “Introduction” teaches the document relates to aircraft structures. Page 13, “The Advanced metal forming” teaches the use of HFQ to form an aluminum alloy.”
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known HFQ technique of Kumar to the forming methods of Periyasamy in order to use a forming method that provides a homogenous microstructure, enhances ductility, enhances the formability, reduces spring back on complex components (such as a curved shape), and improves mechanical characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known HFQ technique of Kumar to the forming method of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the panels, including the two sets of stiffening elements, of Periyasamy will be formed using HFQ.
Claim 25
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reinforced aluminum component is a fuselage, a wing, or a empennage skin. (Periyasamy ¶0107 teaches the component is used for a fuselage, wing, or tail component.)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 23, further in view of Victor (US2742247A).
Claim 24
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stiffening structure has a shape. (Periyasamy ¶0046 teaches the second sheet (100) is formed such that pockets are created on the surface (102) to optimize strength. These pockets are part of the stiffening structure.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the stiffening structure is hexagonal.
However, Victor teaches hexagonal reinforcing structure for an aircraft component made up of pockets formed in a metal sheet. (See Figure 8 and Col. 4, Line 70 through Col. 5, Line 12)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known hexagonal reinforcement shape of Victor to the unknown reinforcement shape in Periyasamy in order to provide a reinforcement where the joining of the skin panels occur (See Victor Col. 3 Lines 43-51)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known hexagonal reinforcement shape of Victor to the unknown reinforcement shape in Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the pockets formed in the method of Periyasamy in view of Kumar will have a hexagonal shape.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 23, further in view of MatWeb Aluminum 6061 (NPL X on PTO-892 dated 03-26-2026).
Claim 26
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of Claim 23, wherein the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises an aluminum alloy. (Periyasamy ¶0049 teaches the use of a 6000 series alloy.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises aluminum alloy 2024, aluminum alloy 6061 or aluminum alloy 7075.
However, Matweb Aluminum 6061 teaches the use of aluminum alloy 6061 for aircraft applications. (“Material Notes” indicates the use of AA6061 in aircraft parts.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known AA6061 of Matweb Aluminum 6061 to the 6000 series aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy in order to use an alloy that has high strength, good workability, high resistance to corrosion, and is widely available. (See Matweb Aluminum 6061 “Material Notes” section.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known AA6061 of Matweb Aluminum 6061 to the 6000 series aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the panels in Periyasamy will be formed using AA6061.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view of Makela (US20100181427A1), further in view of Kumar (NPL V).
Claim 27
Periyasamy teaches a method comprising: forming a first aluminum sheet (Figure 1, Item 200 and ¶0058) using a first process (¶0093); forming a second aluminum sheet (Figure 1, Item 100 and ¶0049) using a process (¶0049 teaches a forming process for the first panel. Figure 1 shows the panel is curved), wherein a first process or a second forms a stiffening structure on a surface of the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet (Figure 3 shows stiffening structures (210, 220, 230). ¶0096 teaches the formation process of the first panel (200) forms these features integrally with the panel.) joining together the first aluminum sheet and the second aluminum sheet (¶0098 teaches the two panels (100, 200) are bonded.) so that the stiffing structures is located between the first aluminum sheet and the second aluminum sheet thereby forming a reinforced aluminum component (Figure 4 shows that the stiffening portions (210, 220, 230) are located between the outer bounds of the first (200) and second (100) panel.); wherein the first process (Figure 3 shows stiffening structures (210, 220, 230). ¶0096 teaches the formation process of the first panel (200) forms these features integrally with the panel.) and the second process (¶0046 teaches the second sheet (100) is formed such that pockets are created on the surface (102) to optimize strength.) forms respective complementary stiffening elements that when joined form the stiffening structure. (Figures 3-4 show that the surface (102) that has the pockets formed thereon (¶0046) and the stiffening elements (210, 220, 230) are connecting with one another when bonded. This is a joining of the stiffening elements as claimed. The claim does not indicate how the elements are “complementary”.); wherein the first HFQ process forms only horizontal stiffening elements in the respective surface. (Figure 3 shows the stiffening elements (210, 220, 230) formed in the first sheet (200) during the process are horizontally oriented.)
Periyasamy does not disclose wherein the second process forms the vertical stiffening elements but not the horizontal stiffening elements on the respective surface. Periyasamy does disclose that stiffening elements are formed on the second sheet. (¶0046 teaches the second sheet (100) is formed such that pockets are created on the surface (102) to optimize strength.)
However, Makela teaches a second process forms the vertical stiffening elements but not the horizontal stiffening elements on the respective surface. (Figures 3a-3b show two panels (14, 21) that have orthogonally oriented stiffening elements (20, 25) formed on their respective surfaces.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known orthogonally oriented reinforcement shape technique of Makela to the unknown reinforcement shape product of Periyasamy in order to provide strength in a direction transverse relative to the longitudinal direction of the reinforcements. (See Makela ¶0045 and 0046)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known orthogonally oriented reinforcement shape technique of Makela to the unknown reinforcement shape product of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the first panel will have the horizontally oriented reinforcements as shown in Periyasamy Figure 3 and the reinforcements in the second panel of Periyasamy will be vertically oriented in order to provide strength in both directions based on the teachings from Makela.
Periyasamy does not disclose HFQ as the formation method.
However, Kumar teaches the use of HFQ to form aircraft structures from aluminum. (Page 10, “Introduction” teaches the document relates to aircraft structures. Page 13, “The Advanced metal forming” teaches the use of HFQ to form an aluminum alloy.”
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known HFQ technique of Kumar to the forming methods of Periyasamy in order to use a forming method that provides a homogenous microstructure, enhances ductility, enhances the formability, reduces spring back on complex components (such as a curved shape), and improves mechanical characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known HFQ technique of Kumar to the forming method of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the panels, including the two sets of stiffening elements, of Periyasamy will be formed using HFQ.
Claim 25
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reinforced aluminum component is a fuselage, a wing, or a empennage skin. (Periyasamy ¶0107 teaches the component is used for a fuselage, wing, or tail component.)
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Periyasamy (US20250236382A1) in view Makela (US20100181427A1) and Kumar (NPL V), as applied in Claim 27, further in view of MatWeb Aluminum 6061 (NPL X on PTO-892 dated 03-26-2026).
Claim 30
Periyasamy in view of Kumar teaches the method of Claim 27, wherein the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises an aluminum alloy. (Periyasamy ¶0049 teaches the use of a 6000 series alloy.)
Periyasamy in view of Kumar does not disclose the first aluminum sheet or the second aluminum sheet comprises aluminum alloy 2024, aluminum alloy 6061 or aluminum alloy 7075.
However, Matweb Aluminum 6061 teaches the use of aluminum alloy 6061 for aircraft applications. (“Material Notes” indicates the use of AA6061 in aircraft parts.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known AA6061 of Matweb Aluminum 6061 to the 6000 series aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy in order to use an alloy that has high strength, good workability, high resistance to corrosion, and is widely available. (See Matweb Aluminum 6061 “Material Notes” section.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known AA6061 of Matweb Aluminum 6061 to the 6000 series aluminum alloy teaching of Periyasamy because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the panels in Periyasamy will be formed using AA6061.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not provide arguments regarding the combination of Periyasamy in view of Kumar as presented in the prior office action.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
US20190077093A1 – Figure 16 shows an aircraft panel made from two sheets (1600 and 1602) where an orthogonally oriented reinforcement is formed in the sheets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights