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
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-24 are withdrawn.
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the thickness" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. The claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the position" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. The claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the distance (between)" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. The claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the spanwise order" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. The claim 13 is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the width" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the item is pointed out. The claim 15 is indefinite.
Claims 2-19 depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
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, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 12-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2021/0178707).
Regarding claims 1, 6, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, a composite manufacture assembly (ABSTRACT), comprising:
a pair of closed mould tools (e.g., items 120, 130 in Fig. 1 ([0025])) for pressing a composite laminate panel (item 110, Fig. 1 ([0024])) therebetween, the closed mould tools having opposing inner surfaces (as shown in Fig. 1 or 2A ([0028])) that define an inner cavity that decreases in height along a span of the inner cavity in accordance with a curved rational function ([0028], lines 1-7 (e.g., two flat portions plus one slope portion)), the decrease in height corresponding to a designed thickness of the composite panel (item 110, Fig. 2A);
the composite laminate panel comprising:
a stack of fibre-reinforced composite plies ([0025], lines 3-6);
a plurality of sets of ply drops (e.g., items 211-215, Fig. 2A ([0027])) spaced along a span (as shown in Fig, 2A) of the composite laminate panel at which a corresponding set of plies terminate such that the thickness of the composite laminate panel varies along the span in accordance with the position and thickness of the sets of ply drops, each set of ply drops comprising one or more ply drops (as shown in Fig. 2A or 2B);
each set of ply drops positioned along a respective span portion of the span of the panel, each respective span portion defining a portion of the span of the panel at which the designed thickness decreases in dependence on the thickness of the respective set of plies to be terminated (as shown in Fig. 2A or 2B); and
wherein the position of each set of ply drops along a respective span portion is between a mid-thickness position and a zero-thickness position of the designed thickness decrease (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2A, the ply 213 is considered to drop at a zero-thickness position of the designed thickness and the ply 211 is considered to drop around a mid-thickness position (or a quarter-thickness position) of the designed thickness which is overlapping between the mid-thickness position (the quarter-thickness position) and the zero-thickness position) (related to claim 6).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Wade et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, the distance between each of the sets of ply drops increases or decreases along the span of the composite laminate panel.
Regarding claim 4, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, the designed thickness decreases along the span portion by the thickness of the respective set of plies to be terminated at the respective span portion (as shown in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 8, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, the curved rational function includes two flat portions plus one slope portion ([0028], lines 1-7). At least, the curved rational function can be considered as a polynomial function.
Regarding claim 9, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, each set of ply drops comprises a single ply drop.
Regarding claim 12, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, the composite laminate panel (item 110, Fig. 1 or 2A) has an upper composite ply (e.g., item 211 in Fig. 2A) and a lower composite ply (e.g., item 215 in Fig. 2A), and wherein each ply drop is a termination of a composite ply located between the upper and lower composite plies (as shown in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 13, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, the plies to be terminated have a stacking sequence in the through-thickness direction of the panel, and a spanwise order in which the plies are terminated is different to the stacking sequence (as shown in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 14, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the composite laminate panel has curvature in two orthogonal directions such that the height of the inner cavity decreases in height along a width of the inner cavity (as shown in Fig. 3 (for building a 3-dimensional part/panel)).
Regarding claim 15, Wade discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the height along a width of the inner cavity decreases in accordance with a curved rational function (i.e., the first composite part 310 and the second composite part 320 are integrated into a 3-dimensional part).
Regarding claims 17, 18, 19, Wade discloses, an apparatus including a caul plate for co-curing a skin panel and stiffing member ([0008]) for improving aircraft performance ([0005]) including providing a smooth, aerodynamic surface on the finished (aircraft) part ([0002], [0003]) (relate to claims 17, 18).
However, Wade does not specify for an aircraft wingtip or winglet.
It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Intended use has been continuously held not to be germane to determining the patentability of the apparatus, In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include applying the assembly tooling to make part of an aircraft wingtip or winglet thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the specific structures of the aircraft being made (related to claims 17, 18, 19).
Claims 2, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2021/0178707) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lu (US 2017/0100918).
Regarding claim 2, Wade does not explicitly disclose the decrease in height between ends of the span of the inner cavity has an overall slope of 0.5% or less.
In the same field of endeavor, laminated panels, Lu discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, in certain embodiment. The wedge angle of the tapered zone can be at least 0.10 (degree) ([0094], lines 9-10) (overlapping the claimed range of 0.5% (i.e., an equivalence to 0.29 degree) or less).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lu overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Wade to have the composite panel as Lu teaches that it is known to have the decrease in height between ends of the span of the inner cavity has an overall slope of 0.5% or less. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 11, Wade does not explicitly disclose the ply drops within each set of ply drops define a slope of 2.5 % or more.
Lu discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 6, 7, the wedge angle of the tapered zone can be at least about 0.10 ([0094], lines 9-10) (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3, the average/constant angle ƟC)). As illustrated in Figs. 6, 7, the local/second wedge angle ƟC2 is the biggest.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lu overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Wade to have the composite panel as Lu teaches that it is known to have the ply drops within each set of ply drops define a slope of 2.5 % (i.e., the equivalence to 1.43 degree) or more. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 16, Wade does not explicitly disclose that the composite laminate panel has a ratio of span-to-thickness and width-to-thickness of at least 100:1.
Lu discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 9, all that is determinative is that the combined thickness of the panels be 4.0 mm or less ([0106], lines 17-18). Lu discloses that, in certain embodiments, the width of each constant angel tapered zone can be no more than 150 cm ([0103], lines 1-5). As illustrated in Fig. 9, the panel for a testing has a span about 30.5 cm.
Thus, Lu discloses that, the composite laminate panel has a ratio of span-to-thickness and width-to-thickness of at least 100:1.
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Lu overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Wade to have the composite panel as Lu teaches that it is known to have the composite laminate panel has a ratio of span-to-thickness and width-to-thickness of at least 100:1. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2021/0178707) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Stiesdal (US 8,647,545).
Regarding claim 5, Wade does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of sets of ply drops comprises at least five sets of ply drops.
In the same field of endeavor, composite component, Stiesdal discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 2D, the five sets of ply drop of stacked layers of roving-bundles.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Wade to have the composite panel as Stiesdal teaches that it is known to have the five sets of ply drop of stacked layers of roving-bundles. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 7, Wade does not explicitly disclose that the curved rational function is a conic function.
Stiesdal discloses that, it is also possible to cut the roving-bundles in a way, that an ending shows a conical shape (col. 5, lines 38-39).
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Wade to have the composite panel as Stiesdal teaches that it is known to have the curved rational function is a conic function. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2021/0178707) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hartdegen (WO 2012/062825, English translation provided).
Regarding claim 10, Wade does not disclose that, each set of ply drops comprises a plurality of ply drops.
In the same field of endeavor, fiber-reinforced molded parts, Hartdegen discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, once the fiber fabric stack 3 is placed on the support table 4 and the mold tray 5 is in position, multiple drops for each ply in the fiber fabric stack are created/formed.
It would have been obvious to use the apparatus of Wade to have the composite panel as Hartdegen teaches that it is known to have multiple drops for each ply in the fiber fabric stack are created/formed. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar device is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights