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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200223560 A1), in view of Charnock et al. (US 5216799 A) and further in view of Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Walker teaches a wing sub-assembly for an aircraft wing, the wing sub-assembly comprising a structural component (Fig. 4 element 100) and an internally-threaded nut (Fig. 4 element 414), wherein: the structural component comprises a first flange forming a first seating surface (Fig. 4 components engaging skin panel 402) positioned to engage a lower skin (Fig. 4 element 402) of the aircraft wing, and a second flange forming second seating surface (Fig. 4 components engaging skin panel 404) positioned to engage an upper skin (Fig. 4 element 404) of the aircraft wing; the structural component has a bolt aperture (Fig. 4 aperture for bolt element 408) which extends along an aperture axis and passes through one of said first and second seating surfaces (Shown in Fig. 4); and the structural component has a nut retention structure configured to hold the nut in alignment with the aperture but permit limited lateral movement of the nut relative to the aperture axis (Fig. 4 cavity 410), wherein the nut retention structure comprises a cavity in which the nut is held (Fig. 4 cavity 410) and a cover for the cavity (Fig. 4 element 416).
Walker fails to explicitly teach at least part of the cavity is integral to the structural component, the cover secured to the nut retention structure with at least one fastener.
However, Charnock teaches at least part of the cavity is integral to the structural component (Fig. 1 single-piece structural element 1).
Walker and Charnock are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft skin panel connections. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity in which the nut is held of Walker to be integral with the structural component as disclosed by Charnock. Doing so would simplify the manufacturing of the aircraft wing as there would be less connections required. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement an integral structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Walker and Charnock fail to explicitly teach the cover secured to the nut retention structure with at least one fastener.
However, Kamila teaches the cover secured to the nut retention structure with at least one fastener (Fig. 10 element 500).
Walker, Charnock and Kamila are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft connection structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Walker to be secured with fasteners as disclosed by Kamilla. Doing so would allow for a secure connection between the cover and the cavity structures.
Regarding Claim 2, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses the structural component is a rib (Fig. 4 element 100) or a spar.
Regarding Claim 3, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses the nut retention structure is configured to permit lateral movement of the nut in a plane which is generally normal to the aperture axis (Fig. 4 cavity 410).
Regarding Claim 6, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses the cavity has an entrance configured for insertion of the nut into the cavity therethrough, and the cover closes the entrance (“As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the cavity 410 is configured to receive an example barrel nut 414 via the access opening 412” Par. [0049] lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 7, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Walker further discloses the cover has a sealing member which seals the entrance (“As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, the seal 416 of the first metallic fitting 108 is configured to close and/or fill the access opening 412 of the cavity 410 once the barrel nut 414 has been positioned within the cavity 410 of the first metallic fitting 108” Par. [0050] lines 3-7).
Regarding Claim 9, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses the nut retention structure is configured to permit the nut less freedom of movement in a direction parallel to the aperture axis than in a direction normal to the aperture axis (Shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses the nut has a threaded hole with a minor diameter and the aperture has a minimum diameter, the minimum diameter of the aperture being larger than the minor diameter of the threaded hole of the nut (“The coupling of the assembled composite rib 100 to the upper skin panel 402 of the aircraft wing 300 via the first metallic fitting 108 is provided in part by a threaded engagement between the first bolt 408 and the barrel nut 414” Par. [0063] lines 6-9).
Regarding Claim 13, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses an aircraft wing (“FIG. 3 is a perspective view of the example composite rib of FIGS. 1 and 2 in an assembled state and coupled to example spars of an example aircraft wing 300” Par. [0021] lines 4-7) comprising: a sub-assembly according to claim 1; a lower skin (Fig. 4 element 402) engaged by the first seating surface; an upper skin (Fig. 4 element 404) engaged by the second seating surface; and a bolt (Fig. 4 element 408) having a shank which extends from a head end, through an opening in one of said upper and lower skins and through said aperture(Shown in Fig. 4), to a distal end which is threadedly engaged with the nut (Fig. 4 element 414).
Regarding Claim 14, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Walker further discloses an intermediate layer positioned between a seating surface through which the aperture passes, and a corresponding skin (Fig. 4 element between the cavity wall and the skin 402).
Regarding Claim 16, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker further discloses an aircraft comprising an aircraft wing sub-assembly according to claim 1 (“FIG. 3 is a perspective view of the example composite rib of FIGS. 1 and 2 in an assembled state and coupled to example spars of an example aircraft wing 300” Par. [0021] lines 4-7).
Regarding Claim 18, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Walker further discloses an aircraft comprising an aircraft wing according to claim 13 (“FIG. 3 is a perspective view of the example composite rib of FIGS. 1 and 2 in an assembled state and coupled to example spars of an example aircraft wing 300” Par. [0021] lines 4-7).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200223560 A1) in view of Charnock et al. (US 5216799 A), in view of Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1) and further in view of Wilkerson (EP 3287362 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker, Charnock and Kamila fail to explicitly teach the nut retention structure has an anti-rotation configuration which limits rotation of the nut about the aperture axis.
However, Wilkerson teaches the nut retention structure has an anti-rotation configuration which limits rotation of the nut about the aperture axis (Fig. 5; the shape of nut 206 in relation to the shape of the cavity would act as anti-rotation).
Walker, Charnock, Kamila and Wilkerson are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft skin panel connections. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection structure of Walker in view of Charnock to implement the anti-rotation as disclosed by Wilkerson. Doing so would provide redundancy to the connections and would better ensure the nut does not rotate and release from the bolt.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200223560 A1) in view of Charnock et al. (US 5216799 A), in view of Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1) and further in view of Brakes (GB 2586034 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Walker, Charnock and Kamila fail to explicitly teach the nut has a flared mouth which faces towards the aperture.
However, Brakes teaches the nut has a flared mouth which faces towards the aperture (Fig. 1c element 4).
Walker, Charnock, Kamila and Brakes are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft connection structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nut of Walker to have the flared mouth as disclosed by Brakes. Doing so would make aligning the bolt and the nut easier during connection as the flared opening would help with alignment.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200223560 A1) in view of Charnock et al. (US 5216799 A) and further in view of Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Walker teaches an aircraft wing component comprising a skin support and fastener with a female thread, wherein: the skin support has a first flange with a first surface (Fig. 4 components engaging skin panel 402) for supporting a first wing skin and a second flange with a second surface (Fig. 4 components engaging skin panel 404) for supporting a second wing skin, the first and second surfaces facing in generally opposite directions (Shown in Fig. 4); the skin support has a hole which passes through the first surface (Fig. 4 aperture for bolt element 408) or the second surface; the skin support comprises a cavity in which a nut for the fastener is held (Fig. 4 cavity 410), a cover for the cavity (Fig. 4 element 416), and the fastener is mounted to the skin support using mounting configurations which retain the fastener while allowing the fastener to move sideways relative to the hole (Fig. 4 cavity 410).
Walker fails to explicitly teach at least part of the cavity integral to the skin support, and the cover secured to the skin support with at least one fastener.
However, Charnock teaches at least part of the cavity integral to the skin support (Fig. 1 single-piece structural element 1).
Walker and Charnock are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft skin panel connections. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity in which the nut is held of Walker to be integral with the structural component as disclosed by Charnock. Doing so would simplify the manufacturing of the aircraft wing as there would be less connections required. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement an integral structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Walker and Charnock fail to explicitly teach the cover secured to the skin support with at least one fastener.
However, Kamila teaches the cover secured to the skin support with at least one fastener (Fig. 10 element 500).
Walker, Charnock and Kamila are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft connection structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Walker to be secured with fasteners as disclosed by Kamilla. Doing so would allow for a secure connection between the cover and the cavity structures.
Regarding Claim 17, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Walker further discloses an aircraft comprising an aircraft wing component according to claim 12 (“FIG. 3 is a perspective view of the example composite rib of FIGS. 1 and 2 in an assembled state and coupled to example spars of an example aircraft wing 300” Par. [0021] lines 4-7).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200223560 A1) in view of Charnock et al. (US 5216799 A), in view of Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1) and further in view of Kamino et al. (CN 101855132 A).
Regarding Claim 15, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 14.
Walker, Charnock and Kamila fail to explicitly teach the intermediate layer is a sealing gasket.
However, Kamino teaches the intermediate layer is a sealing gasket (Fig. 13 element 21).
Walker, Charnock, Kamila and Kamino are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft wing skin connections. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection structure of Walker in view of Charnock with the intermediate gasket as disclosed by Kamino. Doing so would reduce the risk of the connection causing a spark in the wing as the connection could be near a fuel tank.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 20200223560 A1) in view of Charnock et al. (US 5216799 A) and further in view of Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Walker teaches a method of manufacturing an aircraft wing, the method comprising: (a) providing a structural component (Fig. 4 element 100) which comprises a first flange forming a first seating surface (Fig. 4 components engaging skin panel 402), a second flange forming a second seating surface (Fig. 4 components engaging skin panel 404), and a bolt aperture (Fig. 4 aperture for bolt element 408)which extends along an aperture axis and passes through one of said first and second seating surfaces (Shown in Fig. 4); (b) mounting an internally-threaded nut (Fig. 4 element 414) to the structural component using a nut retention structure, the nut retention structure comprising a cavity (Fig. 4 cavity 410) which holds the nut in alignment with the aperture but permitting limited lateral movement of the nut relative to the aperture axis (Mounting shown in Fig. 4 with cavity 410); and (c) positioning a lower wing skin in abutment with the first seating surface and securing the lower wing skin to the structural component, before, during or after (Fig. 4 skin 402) (d) positioning an upper wing skin in abutment with the second seating surface and securing the upper wing skin to the structural component (Fig. 4 element 404), wherein step (c) or step (d) includes inserting a bolt through an opening in that skin, through said aperture and into the nut, threadedly engaging the bolt with the nut and then tightening the bolt (Fig. 4 bolt 408).
Walker fails to explicitly teach at least part of the cavity integral to the structural component, and securing a cover over the cavity with at least one fastener passing through the cover into the structural component.
However, Charnock teaches at least part of the cavity integral to the structural component (Fig. 1 single-piece structural element 1).
Walker and Charnock are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft skin panel connections. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity in which the nut is held of Walker to be integral with the structural component as disclosed by Charnock. Doing so would simplify the manufacturing of the aircraft wing as there would be less connections required. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement an integral structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Walker and Charnock fail to explicitly teach and securing a cover over the cavity with at least one fastener passing through the cover into the structural component.
However, Kamila teaches and securing a cover over the cavity with at least one fastener passing through the cover into the structural component (Fig. 10 element 500).
Walker, Charnock and Kamila are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft connection structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Walker to be secured with fasteners as disclosed by Kamilla. Doing so would allow for a secure connection between the cover and the cavity structures.
Regarding Claim 20, Walker, Charnock and Kamila teach the limitations set forth in Claim 19.
Walker further discloses moving the nut laterally relative to the aperture axis by inserting the bolt into the nut (Fig. 4 element 414).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments made to claim(s) 1, 12 and 19 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection using the reference cited as Kamila et al. (US 20200039630 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644