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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 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 4 recites “each stiffener”. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Price et al. (WO 2015/015152, of record)
As to claim 1, Price discloses a method for manufacturing spars or ribs for aircrafts, the method comprising: placing at least one stiffener 32/33 on one side of a spar web 8/8b (fig 4, associated discussion); placing a vacuum bag on the at least one stiffener and the spar web; and co-curing the at least one stiffener and the spar web (figs 4-8, associated text p. 2, line 27 – p. 4, line 10; p. 7, line 12 – p. 8, line 34; p. 10, lines 6-15).
As to claims 4-5, Price discloses each stiffener has a cut foot that is cut at an acute angle with respect to the stiffener (fig 4, 6).
As to claim 6-7, Price discloses joining by co-bonding an additional stiffener (32 bonded on both sides spar, figs 4-7) to another side of the spar web (fis 4-7, p. 2, line 27 – p. 4, line 10; p. 7, line 12 – p. 8, line 34; p. 10, lines 6-15).
As to claim 8, the stiffener has an L-shape (fig 4, 7).
As to claim 9, at least figs 3-7 shows the spar web 8b/8 as flat or L-shaped.
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bechtold (CA 2715172).
Price does not expressly disclose co-curing to between 60-80% curing. Bechtold discloses co-curing spar webs to between 60-80% curing, and that curing to said percentage promotes stability (p. 4, 4th full paragraph, claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Price such that the stiffener and spar web are co-cured to a curing percentage of between 60% to 80% as such a curing as taught by Bechtold as such has reasonable expectation of success and promotes stability.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Charines (US 2016/0318238).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Price such that the co-curing of the stiffener and spar web is made placing tools outside the vacuum bag as taught by Charines (para 2) as such improves bonding uniformity (para 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights