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
As a result of the interview on 5/29/26 (see 5/1/26 interview summary), the pending claims will be examined. Please refer to the 5/1/26 interview summary for the reasons why said claims are appropriate for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 7 is 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.
In claim 7, the limitation “at least one additional stiffener is co-bonded the curing tool” is indefinite. The claim appears to require the additional stiffener to be co-bonded to the curing tool. This is not consistent with the specification, and it’s unclear, in the context of the claims and the specification, how this would occur.
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) 1, 4-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (previously cited) in view of Delgado et al. (US 2007/0175171)
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 (p. 4, line 1-10) 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).
While Price discloses the co-curing takes place in the absence of an adhesive layer (p. 4, line 1-10) between the at least one stiffener and spar web. Prince does not disclose said co-curing is made by placing a curing tool outside a vacuum bag.
Delgado discloses, when co-curing a stiffener to a composite layer in the absence of an adhesive layer (para 4-6, 15, 16, 37) placing a curing tool 60 outside the vacuum bag during said co-curing assures verticality and proper orientation of the stiffeners during curing (para 15, abstract, claim 1, para 43, figs).
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, during the co-curing of the stiffener to the spar web in the absence of an adhesive layer, a curing tool is placed outside the vacuum bag as taught by Delgado above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
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, 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 (fig 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(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price and Delgado, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Bechtold (CA 2715172).
As to claim 2, 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 and Delgado such that the stiffener and spar web are co-cured to a curing percentage of between 60% to 80% as taught by Bechtold as such has reasonable expectation of success and promotes stability.
As to claim 7, Price discloses joining by co-bonding an additional stiffener to another side of the spar web (see claim 6 above), wherein an adhesive ply between the spar web and the at least one additional stiffener is avoided (see claim 1 citations above).
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, during the co-bonding of the additional stiffener to the another side of the spar web in the absence of an adhesive layer, a curing tool is placed outside the vacuum bag as taught by Delgado above as such achieves the advantages detailed above.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to cure the spar web to a curing percentage of between 60% to 80% during the co-bonding as taught by Bechtold as such has reasonable expectation of success and promotes stability as detailed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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