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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 9 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9/18/2025. Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17 are examined here within.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 13, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolukbasi et al. (US 2009/0206202 A1), hereinafter Bolukbasi, and Cochrane (US 2,664,740).
Regarding claim 1, Bolukbasi discloses a stanchion for an aircraft (40, Fig. 5), comprising:
a composite body defining a channel having a web extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges (Examiner notes the body of stanchion 40 in Fig. 5 defining the channel clearly depicted in Fig. 6 having web 40a extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges 40b),
wherein the composite body includes a plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply count that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality of longitudinal segments (Examiner notes the plurality of longitudinal segments making up the body, i.e., groups 48 and 50, Fig. 8, §§ [0038]-[0039], each segment having a ply count, i.e., multiple plies 46, that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality, e.g., ply drop-offs), but does not appear to disclose wherein the stanchion specifically comprises:
two of the disclosed composite bodies, wherein the first composite body is fixed relative to the second composite body; and wherein a plurality of fasteners extend through the first web and the second web.
However, Cochrane teaches a method for supporting a structure in a similar field of endeavor (Fig. 4) including a first c-shaped body (left channel post 7, Fig. 4) and a second c-shaped body (right channel post 7, Fig. 4), each body defining respective first and second channels having a respective first web and second web extending between a respective first pair of flanges and second pair of flanges (c-shape in Fig. 4), wherein the first body is fixed relative to the second body (Fig. 4); and wherein a plurality of fasteners extend through the first web and the second web (cross bolts 9, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion for an aircraft disclosed by Bolukbasi with the method for supporting a structure as taught by Cochrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the stanchion for an aircraft comprises a first body and a second body wherein the first body is fixed relative to the second body; and the plurality of fasteners extend through the web of the first body and the web of the second body, specifically as taught by Cochrane, the benefit being providing the predictable outcome of a practical and reliable support structure that can withstand a primary load (Cochrane; para. (9) and (10)). Examiner notes specifically, an I-shaped support is known to offer a more balanced centroid than a C-shaped support and therefore delayed web buckling. Additionally, the web fasteners offer the ability to control crush force via the pattern of fastening. While modified Bolukbasi does not specifically disclose wherein both the first body and the second body are the composite bodies disclosed by Bolukbasi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a duplicate of the composite body so that the stanchion for an aircraft comprises a first composite body defining a first channel having a first web extending between a first pair of spaced apart flanges, wherein the first composite body includes a first plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply count that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the first plurality of longitudinal segments; and a second composite body defining a second channel having a second web extending between a second pair of flanges, wherein the second composite body includes a second plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the second plurality of longitudinal segments, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The benefit being a stanchion for a particular aircraft that is long lasting and light weight, effectively designed for the particular needs of the intended aircraft and mission the stanchion is intended to be used for, specifically by combining two or more functional components via a practical and reliable method that offers balance and control to the design.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose a stiffening plate attached to one of the first pair of flanges with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of the second pair of flanges with a second fastener.
However, Cochrane teaches a stiffening plate attached to one of a first pair of flanges with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of a second pair of flanges with a second fastener (tie plate 12 attached to adjacent end flanges 11 of channel posts 7 with cross bolts 13; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion disclosed by modified Bolukbasi with the stiffening plate attached to one of a first pair of flanges with the first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of a second pair of flanges with the second fastener, as taught by Cochrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the comprises the stiffening plate attached to one of the first pair of flanges with the first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of the second pair of flanges with the second fastener. The benefit being an effective securement between the first body and the second body that is easy to assemble (Cochrane, para (28)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 1, wherein the first web and the first pair of flanges are a unitary structure having a C-shaped cross section (Cochrane, Fig. 4) and the first web includes a first surface facing into the first channel (Fig. 4) and a second surface at least partially in engagement with the second composite body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 10, wherein the second web and the second pair of flanges are a unitary structure having a C-shaped cross section (Cochrane, Fig. 4) and the second web includes a first surface facing into the second channel (Fig. 4) and a second surface in engagement with the first composite body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bolukbasi discloses a fuselage segment (Fig. 5), comprising:
a plurality of ribs extending in a circumferential direction (fuselage frames 36, Fig. 5);
a plurality of stringers extending in a longitudinal direction and in engagement with the plurality of ribs (Examiner notes a plurality of stringers 38 best depicted in Fig. 4 extending in a longitudinal direction and in engagement with the plurality of ribs 36);
a plurality of floor beams extending laterally between corresponding segments of the plurality of ribs (32, Fig. 4); and
a plurality of stanchions extending between one of the plurality of floor beams and a corresponding one of the plurality of ribs (40, Fig. 5), wherein the plurality of stanchions include:
a first composite body defining a first channel having a first web extending between a first pair of flanges (Examiner notes the body of a first instance of stanchion 40 in Fig. 5 defining the channel clearly depicted in Fig. 6 having web 40a, Fig. 6 extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges 40b, Fig. 6),
wherein the first composite body includes a first plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply count that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the first plurality of longitudinal segments (Examiner notes a first instance of the plurality of longitudinal segments making up the first body, i.e., groups 48 and 50, Fig. 8, §§ [0038]-[0039], each segment having a ply count, i.e., multiple plies 46, that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality, e.g., ply drop-offs); and
a second composite body defining a second channel having a second web extending between a second pair of flanges (Examiner notes the body of a second instance of stanchion 40 in Fig. 5 defining the channel clearly depicted in Fig. 6 having web 40a, Fig. 6 extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges 40b, Fig. 6),
wherein the second composite body includes a second plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the second plurality of longitudinal segments (Examiner notes a first instance of the plurality of longitudinal segments making up the first body, i.e., groups 48 and 50, Fig. 8, §§ [0038]-[0039], each segment having a ply count, i.e., multiple plies 46, that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality, e.g., ply drop-offs) and
the first composite body is fixed relative to the second composite body (Examiner notes the first body is fixed relative to the second, see Fig. 5).
Bolukbasi does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each stanchion of the plurality of stanchions include the first composite body and the second composite body, the first composite body fixed relative to the second composite body; and a stiffening plate attached to one of the first pair of flanges with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of the second pair of flanges with a second fastener.
However, Cochrane teaches an arrangement for supporting a structure specifically including a first c-shaped body (left channel post 7, Fig. 4) fixed relative a second c-shaped body (right channel post 7, Fig. 4); and a stiffening plate attached to one of a first pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of a second pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a second fastener (tie plate 12 attached to adjacent end flanges 11 of channel posts 7 with cross bolts 13; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the plurality of stanchions disclosed by Bolukbasi (i.e., having the first composite body and the second composite body each composite body defining the respective channel having the respective web extending between the respective pair of flanges, wherein each composite body includes the respective plurality of longitudinal segments, wherein each segment has a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the respective plurality of longitudinal segments), with the with the arrangement for supporting a structure as taught by Cochrane, specifically comprising a first c-shaped body fixed relative to a second c-shaped body; and a stiffening plate attached to one of a first pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of a second pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a second fastener, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that each stanchion of the plurality of stanchions comprises the first composite body fixed relative the second composite body, each composite body defining the respective channel having the respective web extending between the respective pair of flanges, wherein each composite body includes the respective plurality of longitudinal segments, wherein each segment has a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the respective plurality of longitudinal segments and the first composite body fixed relative to the second composite body and the stiffening plate attached to one of the first pair of flanges with the first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of the second pair of flanges with the second fastener.
The benefit being having a plurality of c-shaped composite bodies making up each stanchion, therefore increasing energy absorption per unit length of each stanchion and thus providing the ability to reduce twisting reactions and unstable lateral buckling reactions of each stanchion in the aircraft for which the plurality of stanchions is intended. Examiner notes specifically by combining two or more functional components via a practical and reliable method that offers balance and control to the design, the resulting support structure can reliably withstand a primary load (Cochrane; para. (9) and (10)) with a more balanced centroid than it would using a stanchion comprised of just one C-shaped support.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bolukbasi discloses the fuselage segment of claim 13, wherein the first web and the first pair of spaced apart flanges are a unitary structure having a C-shaped cross section (Cochrane, Fig. 4) and the first web includes a first surface facing into the first channel (Fig. 4) and a second surface at least partially in engagement with the second composite body (Fig. 4); and
wherein the second web and the second pair of spaced apart flanges are a unitary structure having a C-shaped cross section (Cochrane, Fig. 4) and the second web includes a first surface facing into the second channel (Fig. 4) and a second surface in engagement with the first composite body (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bolukbasi discloses the fuselage segment of claim 13, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of stanchions further includes a plurality of fasteners extending through the first web and the second web.
However, Cochrane teaches a plurality of fasteners extend through the first web of a first body and the second web of a second body (cross bolts 9, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fuselage segment disclosed by modified Bolukbasi with the plurality of fasteners extending through a first web and a second web (cross bolts 9, Fig. 4) as taught by Cochrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the fuselage segment comprises the plurality of fasteners extending through the first web and the second web. The benefit being the predictable outcome reinforcing the connection between the webs of the first and second bodies of the fuselage segment.
Regarding claim 22, Bolukbasi discloses a stanchion for an aircraft comprising:
a composite body defining a channel having a web extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges (Examiner notes the body of stanchion 40 in Fig. 5 defining the channel clearly depicted in Fig. 6 having web 40a extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges 40b),
wherein the composite body includes a plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply count that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality of longitudinal segments (Examiner notes the plurality of longitudinal segments making up the body, i.e., groups 48 and 50, Fig. 8, §§ [0038]-[0039], each segment having a ply count, i.e., multiple plies 46, that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality, e.g., ply drop-offs), but does not appear to disclose wherein the stanchion specifically comprises:
two of the disclosed composite bodies, wherein the first composite body is fixed relative to the second composite body; and a stiffening plate attached to one of the first pair of flanges with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of the second pair of flanges with a second fastener.
However, Cochrane teaches a method for supporting a structure in a similar field of endeavor (Fig. 4) including a first c-shaped body (left channel post 7, Fig. 4) and a second c-shaped body (right channel post 7, Fig. 4), each body defining respective first and second channels having a respective first web and second web extending between a respective first pair of flanges and second pair of flanges (c-shape in Fig. 4), wherein the first body is fixed relative to the second body (Fig. 4); and a stiffening plate attached to one of a first pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of a second pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a second fastener (tie plate 12 attached to adjacent end flanges 11 of channel posts 7 with cross bolts 13; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion for an aircraft disclosed by Bolukbasi with the method for supporting a structure as taught by Cochrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the stanchion for an aircraft comprises a first body and a second body wherein the first body is fixed relative to the second body, specifically as taught by Cochrane; and the stiffening plate attached to one of a first pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a first fastener and attached to a corresponding one of a second pair of flanges of the first and second bodies with a second fastener. The benefit being providing the predictable outcome of a practical and reliable support structure that can withstand a primary load (Cochrane; para. (9) and (10)). Examiner notes specifically, an I-shaped support is known to offer a more balanced centroid than a C-shaped support and therefore delayed web buckling.
While modified Bolukbasi does not specifically disclose wherein both the first body and the second body are the composite bodies disclosed by Bolukbasi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a duplicate of the composite body so that the stanchion for an aircraft comprises a first composite body defining a first channel having a first web extending between a first pair of spaced apart flanges, wherein the first composite body includes a first plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply count that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the first plurality of longitudinal segments; and a second composite body defining a second channel having a second web extending between a second pair of flanges, wherein the second composite body includes a second plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the second plurality of longitudinal segments, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The benefit being a stanchion for a particular aircraft that is long lasting and light weight, effectively designed for the particular needs of the intended aircraft and mission the stanchion is intended to be used for, specifically by combining two or more functional components via a practical and reliable method that offers balance and control to the design.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Bolukbasi as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Reese et al. (US 5,993,934), hereinafter Reese.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 1, including a ply lay-up arrangement (Fig. 8 for example), but does not appear to specifically disclose the specific arrangement wherein the ply count for each of the first plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the first plurality of longitudinal segments, and/or wherein the ply count for each of the second plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the second plurality of longitudinal segments.
However, Reese teaches a near zero coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) laminate in the same field of endeavor including a quasi-isotropic and balanced ply lay-up arrangement, i.e., wherein the ply count for each of a first plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the first plurality of longitudinal segments (see Figs. 3 and 8), and/or wherein the ply count for each of the second plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the second plurality of longitudinal segments (see Figs. 3 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion disclosed by modified Bolukbasi with the quasi-isotropic and balanced ply lay-up arrangement as taught by Reese, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the ply count for each of the first plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about the central longitudinal segment of the first plurality of longitudinal segments, and/or wherein the ply count for each of the second plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about the central longitudinal segment of the second plurality of longitudinal segments. The benefit being a near zero CTE stanchion that is capable of maintaining dimensional stability within severe thermal environments (col. 2, ln. 23).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 12:
Claims 1, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolukbasi, Prebil et al. (US 2015/0053333 A1), hereinafter Prebil, and Hovey Jr. (US 2005/0252161 A1), hereinafter Hovey.
Regarding claim 1, Bolukbasi discloses a stanchion for an aircraft (40, Fig. 5), comprising:
a first composite body defining a first channel having a first web extending between a first pair of spaced apart flanges (Examiner notes the body of a first instance of stanchion 40 in Fig. 5 defining the channel clearly depicted in Fig. 6 having web 40a extending between a pair of spaced apart flanges 40b),
wherein the first composite body includes a first plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply count that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the first plurality of longitudinal segments (Examiner notes a first instance of the plurality of longitudinal segments making up the first body, i.e., groups 48 and 50, Fig. 8, §§ [0038]-[0039], each segment having a ply count, i.e., multiple plies 46, that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the plurality, e.g., ply drop-offs), but does not appear to disclose wherein the stanchion specifically comprises:
a second composite body defining a second channel having a second web extending between a second pair of flanges, wherein the second composite body includes a second plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the second plurality of longitudinal segments, and wherein the first composite body is fixed relative to the second composite body; and a plurality of fasteners extend through the first web and the second web.
However, Prebil teaches a method for fabricating composite parts including an I-shaped composite stiffened member configured to support framework in an aircraft fuselage, which (Fig. 23, §[0114]), comprises
a first composite body (2303, Fig. 23) and
a second composite body (2304, Fig. 23),
each composite body defining respective first and second channels having a respective first web and second web extending between a respective first pair of flanges and second pair of flanges (§[0114], composite material 2303 [and 2304] may be formed into a U-shape, i.e., the U-shape defining a channel having a web extending between a pair of flanges)
wherein the first composite body and the second composite body each include a plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the second plurality of longitudinal segments (Examiner notes the respective composite bodies may have ply additions, ply drops, ramp ups, ramp downs as is evidenced by at least §[0160], and further notes each composite body comprises the longitudinal segments as claimed as is evidenced by at least Fig. 23 and §§ [0121]-[0122], the addition of ply 2308 and ply 2312 to the I-shaped composite part),
wherein the first composite body is fixed relative to the second composite body (Examiner notes the first composite body 2303 is fixed relative to the second composite body 2304, as is evidenced by at least Fig. 23 and §[0114], Composite filler 2306, composite ply 2308, composite filler 2310, and composite ply 2312 may be positioned relative to composite material 2303 and composite material 2304 to form an I-shaped composite part).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion for an aircraft disclosed by Bolukbasi with the method for fabricating composite parts including an I-shaped composite stiffened member configured to support framework in an aircraft fuselage as taught by Prebil, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the stanchion comprises a second composite body (e.g. a duplicate of the first composite body, i.e., defining a second channel having a second web extending between a second pair of flanges, wherein the second composite body includes a second plurality of longitudinal segments each having a ply that varies between adjacent longitudinal segments of the second plurality of longitudinal segments), and wherein the first composite body is fixed relative to the second composite body, specifically as taught by Prebil. The benefit being creating a stanchion for a particular aircraft that is long lasting and light weight, effectively designed for the particular needs of the intended aircraft and mission the stanchion is intended to be used for, specifically by combining two or more functional components via a low cost continuous method that may reduce product inconsistencies (§§[0008]-[0009], [0174]; Prebil).
While modified Prebil does not specifically disclose a plurality of fasteners extend through the first web and the second web, Hovey teaches a structural beam in a similar field of endeavor (10, Fig. 3), specifically comprising a first c-beam 12 and second c-beam 14 fastened back to back to create an I-beam configuration (§[0046]) with a plurality of fasteners extending through the first web and the second web (series of fasteners 36, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion disclosed by modified Bolukbasi with the plurality of fasteners extending through a first web and a second web as taught by Hovey, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the stanchion comprises the plurality of fasteners extending through the first web and the second web. The benefit being the predictable outcome of uniformly transfer loads throughout the structure in which the stanchion is configured to support (Hovey, §[00489]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 1, wherein the first composite body is longitudinally offset from the second composite body (Examiner notes the first composite body is positioned relative the second composite body, positioning that naturally comprises a longitudinal offset by definition, as is evidenced by Prebil, Fig. 23 and §[0114], Composite filler 2306, composite ply 2308, composite filler 2310, and composite ply 2312 may be positioned relative to composite material 2303 and composite material 2304 to form an I-shaped composite part).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 6, wherein the first web includes a first attachment surface facing away from the first channel (Examiner notes the surface of the channel formed by 2303, Prebil, Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 6, wherein the second web includes a second attachment surface facing away from the second channel (Examiner notes the surface of the channel formed by 2304, Prebil, Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 1, wherein the first composite body is bonded to the second composite body (Examiner notes bonding is evidenced by the co-curing of the polymeric component of the matrix resin in the disclosed method of fabricating composite parts, §[0070]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Bolukbasi as applied to claim 13, and further, in view of Reese.
Regarding claim 14, modified Bolukbasi discloses the stanchion of claim 1, including a ply lay-up arrangement (Fig. 8 for example), but does not appear to specifically disclose the specific arrangement wherein the ply count for each of the first plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the first plurality of longitudinal segments, and the ply count for each of the second plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the second plurality of longitudinal segments.
However, Reese teaches a near zero coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) laminate in the same field of endeavor including a quasi-isotropic and balanced ply lay-up arrangement, i.e., wherein the ply count for each of a plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about a central longitudinal segment of the plurality of longitudinal segments (see Figs. 3 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the stanchion disclosed by modified Bolukbasi with the quasi-isotropic and balanced ply lay-up arrangement as taught by Reese, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the ply count for each of the first plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about the central longitudinal segment of the first plurality of longitudinal segments, and the ply count for each of the second plurality of longitudinal segments is symmetric about the central longitudinal segment of the second plurality of longitudinal segments. The benefit being a near zero CTE stanchion that is capable of maintaining dimensional stability within severe thermal environments (col. 2, ln. 23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang (US 8,910,455 B2) teaches a composite I-beam member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/Shanna Danielle Glover/Examiner, Art Unit 3642