DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to a system for constructing composite structures, classified in B29C 66/2274.
II. Claims 9-20, drawn to a method for constructing composite structures, classified in B29C 65/54.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the system (apparatus) as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as without any steps of cutting.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Hani Abdel-Sayed, Rutan & Tucker LLP on December 15, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Duncanson (US 5,357,758).
Regarding Claim 1, Duncanson anticipates a system for constructing composite structures (Col. 1 ll. 4-7), comprising:
two or more composite panels that are flat (Fig. 1(a) (b) abs, Col. 3 ll. 21-23 tow panels – 10, 11 joined together in coplanar end to end);
interlocking edge features (Figs. 1(a) (b) Col. 3 ll. 33-37 nibs – 15 projecting into the interior of the recess – 13 each tongue – 12 provided with a nib or protrusion – 16 projecting from its edge surface) for joining the two or more composite panels (Figs. 1(a), (b) Col. 3 ll. 48-50 interlocking panels can be assembled dry and fictionally retained together); and
an adhesive for permanently affixing the interlocking edge features (Figs. 1(a) (b) Col. 3 ll. 50-51 an adhesive applied in the gap – 18 after assembly of the structure).
Regarding Claim 2, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the interlocking edge features are cut by way of at least a 4-axis computer controlled cutting machine (Col. 2 ll. 55-64 water jet cutter or N.C. (numerical control) router is inherently 4-axis, computer controlled to ensure repetitive precision cutting).
Regarding Claim 3, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the interlocking edge features have a shape that is configured such that the assembled two or more composite panels have a degree of freedom in only one plane of motion that allows the interlocking edge features to be meshed together (Figs. 4(a), (b), (c) Col. 4 ll 22-41 where the tongues – 36 frictionally engage within the slots – 35 whereby the panels – 33, 34 can be retained together when assembled dry).
Regarding Claim 4, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the interlocking edge features are configured to mesh at an angle relative to a plane of either one of the two or more composite panels (Figs. 2(a) -(c) Col.3 ll. 56-58 nibs – 15, 16 extend the whole thickness of the panels – 10, 11 and are at right angles thereto).
Regarding Claim 5, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 4 and further anticipates that the angle ranges between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees (Figs. 2(a) (b) Col. 2 ll. 3-10 nibs extend at right angles to the plane of the panel or project outward from their walls the depth corresponding to the width of the gap formed between the tongued and recessed edges).
Regarding Claim 6, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 5 and further anticipates that the angle ranges between greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees (Figs. 7(a) (b) Col. 5 ll. 18-29 the planks – 56, 57 adjacent planks required to take up varying angles; can pivot relative to one another about center-line – 61 to achieve the desired angle therebetween).
Regarding Claim 7, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the interlocking edge features are configured to mesh such that the two or more composite panels are disposed at an angle with respect to one another (Figs. 7(a) (b), 8 Col. 5 ll. 30-36 each panel – 65 having formed along three edges thereof a plurality of projection tabs – 66 between which are formed recesses – 67).
Regarding Claim 8, Duncanson anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the interlocking edge features are configured to provide an edge joint that is disposed at a compound angle (Figs. 7(a) (b) Col. 5 ll. 18-21 adjacent planks are required to take up varying angles, can pivot relative to one another about a center-line – 61 to achieve the desired angle therebetween).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748