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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits of the invention (e.g. “without expensive, machined connectors and without compromising the structural integrity of the composite rod”, “easily joinable to other components via off-the-shelf hardware”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “rode” in line 5, but should be amended to recite --rod--.
Claim 12 similarly recites “rode” in line 4.
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 2-4, 6-12, and 14-16 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the deformation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that no single "deformation" per se is established.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " the internal collar and external collar" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that the “first composite support element” and the “second composite support element” are not necessarily established to be of the plurality of composite support elements in claim 1, and thus they would not necessarily have the same features.
Claim 6 recites “An aircraft seat including a support structure, the support structure including composite support elements produced via a method comprising”. It is not clear whether the claim is attempting to recite a method or a product given the focus on the method of manufacture of the product. Claims 7-8 and 12 recite similar limitations. For examination purposes, in view of the preamble, the claim will be interpreted as a product and any method limitations will be interpreted as a product-by-process limitations (see MPEP 2113).
Further regarding claims 7-8 and 12, it is noted that claim 6 recites that the composite support elements are produced by the claimed method, while claims 7-8 and 12 recite the entire aircraft seat is produced by said method, which contradicts claim 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the composite rod" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the radial direction" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “machining a deformed portion of the external collar and internal collar to facilitate interconnection to external parts or structures”. The claim is thus trying to limit the structure of the product by reference to a non-positively recited feature (external parts or structures). It is unclear how the deformed portion of the external collar and internal collar must be “machined” (or shaped) “to facilitate interconnection to external parts or structures” given that the nature or structure of the external parts or structures is vague and unknown.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the deformation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that no single "deformation" per se is established.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " the internal collar and external collar" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that the “first composite support element” and the “second composite support element” are not necessarily established to be of the plurality of composite support elements in claim 1, and thus they would not necessarily have the same features.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of dependency on a claim specifically discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Portoles et al. (US 2017/0240284).
Claim 6: Portoles et al. discloses an aircraft seat (title, abstract) including a support structure (Fig. 3), the support structure including composite support elements (22) produced via a method comprising: inserting an internal collar (27 - paragraph 73 and Fig. 6) into an end of [a] composite rod (24 - paragraphs 38-41); and placing an external collar (24) over the end of the composite rod (Fig. 6).
Regarding the limitations “placing a clamp device around the end of the composite [rod] over the external collar; and deforming the internal collar, the external collar, and the end of the composite rod via applying unidirectional compressive load in the radial direction to the clamp device”, while Portoles implies deformation among the assembled parts (paragraphs 50-51), it is further noted that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 I. In this case, the limitation “deformed” describes a method of changing the state of an object more than a current state of the object. To say an object is “deformed” as a structural characteristic, without more, does not necessarily distinguish it, e.g. its shape, from the same object made by another method. Furthermore, the means for deforming, i.e. the clamp device, does not necessarily influence the scope of the final product.
Claim 8: Following from the above produced, it is noted that the limitation “produced via the method further comprising machining a deformed portion of the external collar and internal collar to facilitate interconnection to external parts or structures”, does not necessarily influence the structure of the final product as it is a product-by-process limitation and pertains to the method of arriving at the final product rather than to the structure thereof. Without further detail, it is unclear how the structure being “machined… to facilitate interconnection to external parts or structures” would be any different from the structure of Portoles.
Claim 9: The clamping device is not a positively recited part of the claimed invention and pertains to the apparatus for forming the product rather than the product itself. Therefore, whether or not the hypothetical clamping device “defines a deformation profile on surfaces proximal to the external collar” does not necessarily influence the final structure of the claimed product.
Claims 10-11: Whether the deformation profile defines a stepped profile or a variable radius curve does not necessarily influence the final structure of the claimed product, especially in view of the fact that the claims do not describe how the deformation profile interacts with the claimed product.
Claims 1-3, 5, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Portoles et al. or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Portoles et al. in view of Frank (U.S. Patent 4,006,524, cited in IDS).
Claims 1 and 13: Portoles et al. discloses a support structure (Fig. 3), specifically an aircraft seat (e.g. title, abstract) having the same, comprising: a plurality of composite support elements (22), each composite support element comprising: a composite rod (24 - paragraphs 38-41); and at least one metal joint disposed on an end of the composite rod, the metal joint (paragraphs 24, 45) comprising an internal collar (27 - paragraph 73 and Fig. 6) inserted in the end of the composite rod and an external collar (24, Id.) over the end of the composite rod, wherein: the external collar, the end of the composite rod, and the internal collar are deformed to interlock (implied at paragraphs 50-51 by exerting pressure to promote flow between the tube and sleeve, and/or integration shrink fitting).
While Portoles implies deformation among the assembled parts as cited above, it is further noted that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 I. In this case, the limitation “deformed to interlock”, and specifically “deformed”, describes a method of changing the state of an object more than a current state of the object. To say an object is “deformed” as a structural characteristic, without more, does not necessarily distinguish it, e.g. its shape, from the same object made by another method.
To any extent that the structure of Portoles is not considered to be sufficiently interlocked, Frank teaches a similar method of joining composite tubes (12 - column 2, lines 26-29) with a metal joint (11/16/22 - column 2, lines 19, 30, 41) comprising interlocking (e.g. via barbs 19 and radial indentation of 22, Fig. 1). 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 an interlocking structure as taught by Frank in order to have improved the securement between the parts.
Claims 2 and 14: Referring to Portoles, the deformation (interpreted as the final shape of the claimed product) comprises a sloped portion (the ends of the sleeves 24/27 are sloped in Fig. 6). The deformations formed by Frank also have numerous sloped or angled portions as evident in Fig. 1.
Claims 3 and 15: Referring to Portoles, a first composite support element (one of 22 in Fig. 3) is affixed to a second composite support element (another one of 22) via one or more connectors (10) connecting a deformed portion of the internal collar and external collar of the first support element to the internal collar and external collar of the second support element (Fig. 3).
Claims 5 and 17: The external collar comprises a curved portion (the exterior is curved by virtue of being cylindrical/tubular) and is configured to receive a second composite rod in the plurality of composite support elements in a second open end (without further detail in the claim, the rod could hypothetically receive a second composite rod in the plurality of composite support elements in a second open end).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portoles et al.
Claim 7: Following from the above, it is noted that the limitation “produced via the method further comprising: heating the end of the composite rod to a predetermined deformation temperature before deformation; and cooling the end of the composite rod after deformation” does not necessarily influence the structure of the final product as it is a product-by-process limitation and pertains to the method of arriving at the final product rather than to the structure thereof.
Portoles is silent to the resin component of the carbon composite tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used thermoplastic since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 15, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the class of resin used.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portoles et al. in view of Saada (U.S. PGPub 2018/0229846).
Portoles establishes multiple composite support elements and thereby a product which would result from inserting a second internal collar into an end of a second composite rod. Portoles does not teach what is effectively two such support elements assembled via a common external collar. However, Saada teaches an aircraft seat support structure (e.g. paragraph 2) connecting two composite rods (15, 17 - paragraph 42) via a common external collar (14, 16), wherein the external collar is configured to receive the composite rod in a first end and the second composite rod in a second end (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed such an assembly in order to have increased the effective length of the composite rod by assembling them end-to-end, for example.
It is further noted, similarly as discussed throughout above, that the limitation “produced via the method further comprising… placing the clamp device around the end of the second composite [rod] over the external collar; and deforming the second internal collar, the external collar, and the end of the second composite rod via applying unidirectional compressive load in the radial direction to the clamp device” is a product-by-process limitation and pertains to the method of arriving at the final product rather than to the structure thereof. Thus the structure of the product is not necessarily influenced by this limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Portoles and the other prior art of record generally fail to disclose or teach the claimed support structure wherein the internal collar of the first composite support element protrudes beyond the external collar of the first composite support element; the external collar of the second composite support element protrudes beyond the internal collar of the second composite support element; and the protruding portion of the internal collar of the first composite support element is configured for insertion into the protruding portion of the external collar of the second composite support element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE102017126580 discloses and assembly among a composite part 2 and a steel connecting part 3 comprising inner part 7 and outer part 6.
DE102017003024 discloses an assembly among a fiber-reinforced plastic composite pipe 3, a metal end element 2 comprising inner element 4 and an outer sleeve 5.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights