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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application
Examiner’s Notes
With Regards to Claims 1-16: Instant claims 1-16 recite limitations containing reference numbers. In that the claims are not read in view of the specification or drawings, it is recommended to remove any reference numbers from the claims. (Note: Potential issues arise when different aspects share the same reference number (e.g., claim 1 recites --the plurality of ribs (14) comprises at least one reinforced rib (14)-- in lines 6 to 7; as explained in the rejection below).)
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 15 May 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." (The filed specification recites uncited references EP 2,367,681, US 787,927, and US 8,403,263 on [Pg. 2: li. 1 to 3].) Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
With Regards to Claim 3: Instant claim 3 recites --an area of a cross-section (S1) [...] is greater than or equal to 5% of an area of a cross-section (S0)-- in lines 2 to 4. However, the specification only provides written support for --an area of a cross-section S1 is greater than or equal to 10% of an area of a cross-section S0-- in [Pg. 6: li. 22-24] of the filed specification. Furthermore, the specification is absent any working examples. As such, the filed specification doesn't provide proper antecedence for values of greater than or equal to 5% to less than 10%, as currently recited in claim 3.
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --an area of a cross-section (S1) [...] is greater than or equal to 5% of an area of a cross-section (S0)-- in lines 1 to 3. However, the specification only provides written support for --an area of a cross-section S1 is greater than or equal to 10% of an area of a cross-section S0-- in [Pg. 6: li. 22-24] of the filed specification. Furthermore, the specification is absent any working examples. As such, the filed specification doesn't provide proper antecedence for values of greater than or equal to 5% to less than 10%, as currently recited in claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --each rib-- in lines 3 and 4, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct both instances to read "each stiffening rib".
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --a top (20) that-- in line 4, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "a top (20) of each stiffening rib that".
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --plurality of ribs-- in line 6, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "plurality of stiffening ribs".
With Regards to Claim 1: Instant claim 1 recites --said stiffening portion-- in line 8, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "said elongate stiffening portion".
With Regards to Claims 2-8 and 11-16: Instant claims 2-8 and 11-16 each recite --The panel-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct each instance to read "The open composite panel".
With Regards to Claim 3: Instant claim 3 recites --the skin-- in line 6 and again in line 7, both of which appear to be typographical errors; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct both instances to read "the composite skin".
With Regards to Claim 5: Instant claim 5 recites --The panel-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "The open composite panel".
With Regards to Claim 5: Instant claim 5 recites --the rib-- in line 6, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "the reinforced rib".
With Regards to Claim 9: Instant claim 9 recites --a panel-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "the open composite[[a]] panel".
With Regards to Claim 11: Instant claim 11 recites --the skin-- in line 4 and again in line 6, both of which appear to be typographical errors; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct both instances to read "the composite skin".
With Regards to Claim 13: Instant claim 13 recites --The panel-- in line 1, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read as "The open composite panel".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
With Regards to Claims 1-16: Claim 1 recites the limitation --the plurality of ribs (14) comprises at least one reinforced rib (14)-- in lines 6 to 7. As written, the claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) that each stiffening rib is a reinforced rib, and that there is at least one of said "stiffening/reinforced rib" present in the claimed invention; (2) that the stiffening rib is a genus and the reinforced rib is a species of the genus, wherein stiffening rib can be formed as to constitute one or more reinforced ribs (i.e., a collection of reinforced rib comprise one of the stiffening ribs); or (3) that stiffening rib is different from said reinforced rib, wherein of the plurality of stiffening ribs, at least one is a reinforced rib. (NOTE: The issue stems from the use of reference characters in the claims, wherein two components of the claim share the same reference number.) For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be implied on the claims (i.e., a stiffening rib is a reinforced rib, and that there is at least one of them in the claimed invention).
Claims 2-16 which depend from claim 1, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
With Regards to Claim 3: Instant claim 3 recites the limitation --for each reinforced rib (14), [...], an area of a cross-section (S0), [...], of fibers of the composite skin (12) which extend substantially in said direction of extension (X) and which are located in a portion of the composite skin (12) that is between two neighboring ribs (14) of the reinforced rib (14)-- in lines 2 to 7. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there would exist at least a reinforced rib at or along the edge of the skin which is not between two neighboring ribs (14)). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read as "for each reinforced rib (14) with two neighboring ribs (14), [...], an area of a cross-section (S0), [...], of fibers of the composite skin (12) which extend substantially in said direction of extension (X) and which are located in a portion of the composite skin (12) that is between the two neighboring ribs (14) of the reinforced rib (14)".
With Regards to Claims 11-16: Instant claim 11 recites the limitation --for each reinforced rib (14), [...], an area of a cross-section (S0), [...], of fibers of the composite skin (12) which extend substantially in said direction of extension (X) and which are located in a portion of the composite skin (12) that is between two neighboring ribs (14) of the reinforced rib (14)-- in lines 1 to 6. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention (i.e., there would exist at least a reinforced rib at or along the edge of the skin which is not between two neighboring ribs (14)). For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read as "for each reinforced rib (14) with two neighboring ribs (14), [...], an area of a cross-section (S0), [...], of fibers of the composite skin (12) which extend substantially in said direction of extension (X) and which are located in a portion of the composite skin (12) that is between the two neighboring ribs (14) of the reinforced rib (14)".
Claims 12-16, which depend from claim 11, are rejected for the same reasons as recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munoz Royo et al. (US 2007/0039284 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Munoz Royo teaches an open composite panel for an aircraft, the open composite panel comprising a panel (ref. #51; which is considered equivalent to the claimed "skin") made of composite material, and at least one stringer (ref. #11, #21, and/or #31; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "stiffening rib" and "reinforced rib") made of a composite material (i.e., carbon fiber or fiberglass with thermosetting or thermoplastic resin) (figures 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10, [0001], [0015], [0016], [0029], and [0030] of Munoz Royo). Munoz Royo also teaches that the panel has an inner face and an outer face, with each stringer extending from the inner face to a top of the stringer that is opposite the inner face, wherein each rib extends in a respective direction of extension (X), each stringer comprising a structural member (ref. #17, #27, and/or #37) extending along the top of the stringer, the structural member comprising high-modulus unidirectional fibers (figures 3, 5, 6, 8 to 11, and [0030]-[0038] of Munoz Royo). (In the instant case, the integrated reinforcement (ref. #17) and the end part (ref. #19) together are considered to constitute the claimed "elongate stiffening portion".)
Regarding Claim 2: Munoz Royo teaches that the reinforced ribs extend in at least two different directions of extension (X, Y), forming between them an angle of between 15° and 165° (e.g., 90°) and intersecting (figures 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10, [0015], and [0016] of Munoz Royo). (In the instant case, the "direction of extension (Y)" has been interpreted by the examiner to be a direction normal to the surface of the skin, along which the "elongate stiffening portion" extends between the top of the stiffening rib and the inner face of the composite skin (i.e., the height direction of the stiffening rib that is normal to the surface of the composite skin).)
Regarding Claim 4: Munoz Royo teaches that a cross-section of each stiffening portion, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of extension (X), has an rectangular shape (figures 9 to 10 of Munoz Royo).
Regarding Claim 9 and 10: Munoz Royo teaches an aircraft comprising the open composite panel ([0001] and [0016] of Munoz Royo).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz Royo et al. (US 2007/0039284 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dornier (GB 457,369 A).
Munoz Royo is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 5: Munoz Royo fails to disclose --the open composite panel comprises at least one attaching element covering one of the reinforced ribs, each attaching element having an elongate shape in the direction of extension (X) of the reinforced rib and a U-shaped cross-section, the attaching element being attached to the stiffening portion and to sides of the reinforced rib--.
Dornier disclose the walls and/or partitions of an aircraft comprising an intersecting arrangement of stiffening or strengthening member all on the inner side of the aircraft skin or covering, wherein said members are connected together at their points of intersection by means of cross connectors or cross straps (which are considered equivalent to the claimed "attaching element") the arms of said connectors or cross straps being so shaped as to fit the shapes of the intersecting stiffening or reinforcing members (figures 1 to 3, [Pg. 1: li. 9-16 and 57-69], and [Pg. 2: li. 16-32] of Dornier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the wall and/or partition of Dornier with the open composite panel disclosed by Munoz Royo in order to have --at least one attaching element covering one of the reinforced ribs, each attaching element having an elongate shape in the direction of extension (X) of the reinforced rib and a U-shaped cross-section, the attaching element being attached to the stiffening portion and to sides of the reinforced rib--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the wall and/or partition of Dornier with the open composite panel disclosed by Munoz Royo, from the stand-point of connecting together stiffening or strengthening members at their points of intersection ([Pg. 1: li. 59-64] of Dornier).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz Royo et al. (US 2007/0039284 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toi et al. (US 2002/0081415 A1).
Munoz Royo is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 5: Munoz Royo fails to disclose --the open composite panel comprises at least one attaching element covering one of the reinforced ribs, each attaching element having an elongate shape in the direction of extension (X) of the reinforced rib and a U-shaped cross-section, the attaching element being attached to the stiffening portion and to sides of the reinforced rib--.
Toi discloses a composite material-stiffened panel (ref. #1) comprising a skin (ref. #2), several stiffeners (ref. #3), a fiber-reinforced resin-composite material (ref. #4), and ribs (ref. #5), the stiffeners arranged in rows (figures 5, 8, 9, [0027], and [0029] of Toi). Toi further discloses that each stiffener has an approximately U-shaped section and is a fiber-reinforced resin-composite material ([0030] of Toi). Toi also discloses that the fiber-reinforced resin-composite material is disposed over the stiffeners, is a three-dimensional fabric, matches the shape of the stiffeners, and extends in the direction of the stiffeners (figures 5, 8, 9, [0032], and [0039]-[0041] of Toi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the fiber-reinforced resin-composite material of Toi with the open composite panel of Munoz Royo in order to have --at least one attaching element covering one of the reinforced ribs, each attaching element having an elongate shape in the direction of extension (X) of the reinforced rib and a U-shaped cross-section, the attaching element being attached to the stiffening portion and to sides of the reinforced rib--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fiber-reinforced resin-composite material of Toi with the open composite panel of Munoz Royo, from the stand-point of improving the joint strength of the stiffeners and the skin ([0051] of Toi).
Regarding Claim 6: Munoz Royo in view of Toi discloses that each attaching element comprises intersecting fibers ([0032] of Toi).
Regarding Claim 7: Munoz Royo in view of Toi discloses that at least one of the reinforced ribs extends along a lateral edge of the skin (figures 5 and 9 of Toi). (In the instant case, one of the two outer stiffeners (ref. #3) or one of the ribs (ref. #5) is in proximity to and extends along a side edge of the skin.)
Regarding Claim 8: Munoz Royo in view of Toi discloses that one of the reinforcing ribs extends along each lateral edge of the skin (figures 5 and 9 of Toi).
Claims 3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz Royo et al. (US 2007/0039284 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Metcalfe et al. (US 3,644,698 A).
Munoz Royo is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11: Munoz Royo fails to disclose that --for each reinforced rib, an area of a cross-section (S1) of the fibers of the stiffening portion, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of extension (X), is greater than or equal to 5% of an area of a cross-section (S0), in the plane perpendicular to said direction of extension (X), of fibers of the [composite] skin which extend substantially in said direction of extension (X) and which are located in a portion of the [composite] skin that is between two neighboring ribs of the reinforced rib-- {instant claims 3 and 11}.
Metcalfe discloses metallic and composite structures, such as a panel reinforced with ribs having tapered web, wherein a rib-stiffened panel (ref. #236) has a flat facesheet (ref. #238) reinforced with two ribs (ref. #240 and #242) having dimensions of: thickness of facesheet and rib caps of 0.160 inches, height of ribs 2.6 to 2.1 inches, width of rib caps 1 inch, thickness of ribs 0.125 inches, and spacing between ribs of 2.75 to 2.25 inches (figure 27, [Col. 2: li. 38-40], [Col. 5: li. 11-13], [Col. 7: li. 34-36], and [Col. 16: li. 1-15] of Metcalfe). Given the dimensions the panel ("skin") and the ribs as recited above, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated S1 to be about 0.160 in.2 [=(0.160 in.)(1 in.)], and could have calculated 5% of S0 to be about 0.037 in.2 [=(0.05)[((2.25 in.)+(0.125 in.)+(2.25 in.))(0.160 in.)]]; which anticipates the claimed range of --S1 is greater than or equal to 5% of S0--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the rib-stiffened panel dimensions of Metcalfe with the open composite panel of Munoz Royo in order to have --for each reinforced rib, an area of a cross-section (S1) of the fibers of the stiffening portion, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of extension (X), is greater than or equal to 5% of an area of a cross-section (S0), in the plane perpendicular to said direction of extension (X), of fibers of the [composite] skin which extend substantially in said direction of extension (X) and which are located in a portion of the [composite] skin that is between two neighboring ribs of the reinforced rib--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the rib-stiffened panel dimensions of Metcalfe with the open composite panel of Munoz Royo, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the composite panel. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). (In the instant case, the shape of the stiffening ribs disclosed by Munoz Royo have the same shape as those of Metcalfe, and that adjustment of the dimensions of the rib and skin would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it is assumed that the fibers of the composite skin (ref. #51) and the end part (ref. #19) of the stiffening ribs disclosed by Munoz Royo have the same alignment.)
Regarding Claim 12: Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe that a cross-section of each stiffening portion, in a plane perpendicular to the direction of extension (X), has an rectangular shape (figures 9 to 10 of Munoz Royo; figure 27 of Metcalfe).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz Royo et al. (US 2007/0039284 A1) in view of Metcalfe et al. (US 3,644,698 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Toi et al. (US 2002/0081415 A1).
Munoz Royo is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 13: Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe fails to disclose --the open composite panel comprises at least one attaching element covering one of the reinforced ribs, each attaching element having an elongate shape in the direction of extension (X) of the reinforced rib and a U-shaped cross-section, the attaching element being attached to the stiffening portion and to sides of the reinforced rib--.
Toi discloses a composite material-stiffened panel (ref. #1) comprising a skin (ref. #2), several stiffeners (ref. #3), a fiber-reinforced resin-composite material (ref. #4), and ribs (ref. #5), the stiffeners arranged in rows (figures 5, 8, 9, [0027], and [0029] of Toi). Toi further discloses that each stiffener has an approximately U-shaped section and is a fiber-reinforced resin-composite material ([0030] of Toi). Toi also discloses that the fiber-reinforced resin-composite material is disposed over the stiffeners, is a three-dimensional fabric, matches the shape of the stiffeners, and extends in the direction of the stiffeners (figures 5, 8, 9, [0032], and [0039]-[0041] of Toi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the fiber-reinforced resin-composite material of Toi with the open composite panel of Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe in order to have --at least one attaching element covering one of the reinforced ribs, each attaching element having an elongate shape in the direction of extension (X) of the reinforced rib and a U-shaped cross-section, the attaching element being attached to the stiffening portion and to sides of the reinforced rib--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fiber-reinforced resin-composite material of Toi with the open composite panel of Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe, from the stand-point of improving the joint strength of the stiffeners and the skin ([0051] of Toi).
Regarding Claim 14: Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe and Toi discloses that each attaching element comprises intersecting fibers ([0032] of Toi).
Regarding Claim 15: Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe and Toi discloses that at least one of the reinforced ribs extends along a lateral edge of the skin (figures 5 and 9 of Toi). (In the instant case, one of the two outer stiffeners (ref. #3) or one of the ribs (ref. #5) is in proximity to and extends along a side edge of the skin.)
Regarding Claim 16: Munoz Royo in view of Metcalfe and Toi discloses that one of the reinforcing ribs extends along each lateral edge of the skin (figures 5 and 9 of Toi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781