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
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 17-20 have been added.
Amendments to the specification and the claims 1-16, filed on 24 June 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 June 2026, regarding the objections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims and specification.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 June 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims and specification.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 26 June 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicants argue that Munoz Royo fails to disclose --at least one elongate stiffening portion extending along the top of the reinforced rib--. That contrary to the limitation, Munoz Royo at most discloses the stiffening portion as being under the top of the reinforced rib, and is not extending along the top as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the applicants infer that "along the top" to incorrectly imply "on and along the top"; whereas in the present case, the claim as written only recite that the "stiffening portion" be "along the top of the reinforcing rib", but does not explicitly imply that it be "on and along the top of the reinforcing rib" as argued. Furthermore, "along" has been given the ordinary standard definition of being: (1) in a line matching the length or direction of; or (2) on (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
Applicants' also argue that the examiners separation of the folded web into two parts by the examiner is arbitrary and is not consistent with either the application as intended or the disclosure of Munoz Royo. The examiner concedes, as the statement was a typographical error, and was not intended to remain in the mailed office action dated 24 March 2026.
Therefore, in light of the applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the rejections maintained below are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 20 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).
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).
Regarding Claim 20: Munoz Royo teaches that the stiffening portion is an elongate rigid structure in the shape of a long thin rod (figures 8, 11 to 12, [0030], and [0036] of Munoz Royo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 with two neighboring stiffening ribs, 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 the two neighboring stiffening 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Munoz Royo et al. (US 2007/0039284 A1): Munoz Royo teaches --an open composite panel--, wherein Munoz Royo's open composite panel further comprises the structure --an open composite panel for an aircraft, the open composite panel comprising a panel (ref. #51) made of composite material, and at least one stringer (ref. #11, #21, and/or #31) made of a composite material (i.e., carbon fiber or fiberglass with thermosetting or thermoplastic resin); wherein 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, [0001], [0015], [0016], and [0029]-[0038] of Munoz Royo). However, Munoz Royo does not teach that --the stiffening portion is external to the sides of the rib-- {instant claim 17}, --the stiffening portion is attached by gluing to an outer surface of the top of the reinforced rib-- {instant claim 18}, or --the stiffening portion is composed of a composite material comprising an organic matrix which permeates the top of the reinforced rib-- {instant claim 19}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Munoz Royo with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Munoz Royo in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 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
Prosecution Insights