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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application, claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants' election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged. (In that no arguments were presented, the election has been treated as without traverse.)
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 26 June 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 20 February 2026
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 5, 6, and 9-12 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.
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation "two adjacent plies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With Regards to Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fibre-reinforce polymer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "the fibre-reinforced polymer body".
With Regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fibre-reinforce polymer" in lines 1 to 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "the fibre-reinforced polymer body".
With Regards to Claim 9: Claim 9 recites the limitation --the monument is substantially formed from fibre-reinforced polymer-- in lines 1 to 2. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites --[a] monument for an aircraft, comprising: a fibre-reinforced polymer body-- in lines 1 to 2. The claim is rendered indefinite because it can have two conflicting interpretations: (1) that said "fibre-reinforced polymer" of claim 9 is different from said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" of claim 1 (which further renders the claim indefinite as the scope of "substantially" can be taken to mean all, resulting in the monument no longer comprising said fibre-reinforced polymer body"); or (2) that said "fibre-reinforced polymer" of claim 9 is the same as said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that latter interpretation applies, and that the limitation will be treated to read as "the monument is substantially formed from the fibre-reinforced polymer body".
With Regards to Claim 10: Claim 10 recites the limitation --the monument is formed from at least 70% fibre-reinforced polymer by volume, optionally at least 80% fibre-reinforced polymer by volume, optionally at least 90% fibre-reinforced polymer by volume, optionally 100% fibre-reinforced polymer by volume-- in lines 1 to 4. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites --[a] monument for an aircraft, comprising: a fibre-reinforced polymer body-- in lines 1 to 2. The claim is rendered indefinite because it can have several conflicting interpretations: (1) that each of said "fibre-reinforced polymer" of claim 10 is different from said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" of claim 1 (which further renders the claim indefinite as the scope of "substantially" can be taken to mean all, resulting in the monument no longer comprising said fibre-reinforced polymer body") and from each other; (2) that each of said "fibre-reinforced polymer" of claim 10 are the same and are all different from said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" of claim 1 (which further renders the claim indefinite as the scope of "substantially" can be taken to mean all, resulting in the monument no longer comprising said fibre-reinforced polymer body"); (2) that all of said "fibre-reinforced polymer" of claim 10 is the same as said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that latter interpretation applies, and that the limitation will be treated to read as "the monument is formed from at least 70% of the fibre-reinforced polymer body by volume
With Regards to Claim 10: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation "at least 70%", and the claim also recites "at least 80%", "at least 90%, "100%" which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With Regards to Claim 11: Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fibre-reinforce polymer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "the fibre-reinforced polymer body is a carbon fibre-reinforce polymer body".
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fibre-reinforce polymer" in lines 1 to 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner to treat the limitation to read as "the fibre-reinforced polymer body".
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
With Regards to Claim 10: Claim 10 recites --the monument is formed from [...] 100% fibre-reinforced polymer by volume-- in lines 1 to 4. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites --[a] monument form an aircraft, comprising: a fibre-reinforced polymer body--. In the case wherein said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" is considered to be different from said "fibre-reinforced polymer body" (as explained in the interpretation in numbered paragraph 9 above), the limitation would be rejected as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends (i.e., the monument would no longer comprise the "fibre-reinforced polymer body").
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fette et al. (US 2017/0349288 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Fette teaches an overhead storage compartment for an aircraft cabin comprising undirected long fiber reinforced plastic material and unidirectional continuous fiber reinforced plastic material, wherein reinforcement ribs (which are considered equivalent to the claimed "corrugations") are provided at a surface of the shell part and/or first end wall and/or second end wall, the reinforcement ribs are formed so as to selectively reinforce walls and shell parts ([0005], [0006], [0009], and [0018] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 2: Fette teaches that a portion of the fibre-reinforced polymer body comprises additional plies of fibre-reinforced polymer configured to reinforce the monument (figure 3, [0009], [0033]-[0035], [0038]-[0040] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 3: Fette teaches that the monument further comprises: at least one elongate reinforcement member (e.g., semi-finished reinforcement layers) configured to reinforce the monument; wherein the at least one elongate reinforcement member is at least partially embedded in the fibre-reinforced polymer body ([0040] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 4: Fette teaches that the at least one elongate reinforcement member is substantially planar (figures 1 to 2 and [0040] of Fette). (In the instant case, they would be planar in the walls of Fette.)
Regarding Claim 5: Fette teaches that the at least one elongate reinforcement member is located between two adjacent plies of the fibre-reinforced polymer (figure 3 and [0040] of Fette). (In the instant case, the semi-finished reinforcement layers can be positioned between any layers.)
Regarding Claim 6: Fette teaches that the at least one elongate reinforcement member is a blade (figure 3 and [0040] of Fette). (In the instant case, the a pre-impregnated semi-finished reinforcement layer (ref. #55) of Fette narrows from the middle to the outwardly extending ends, which is considered to meet the claimed "blade".)
Regarding Claim 7: Fette teaches that the fibres of the fibre-reinforced polymer are unidirectional fibres ([0033], [0034], and [0038] of Fette). Fette also teaches that an elongate axis of the at least one elongate reinforcement member is substantially parallel to the direction of the fibres of the fibre-reinforced polymer body (figure 3, [0033], [0034], and [0038] of Fette). (In the instant case, since the unidirectional fibers can be oriented in any direction and the layers can be at any angle with respect to one another, there would exist an instance where the elongate reinforcement member is parallel to the fibers.)
Regarding Claim 8: Fette teaches that the fibre-reinforced polymer body comprises a convex portion (i.e., the reinforcement ribs) (figures 2 to 3, [0018], and [0039] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 9: Fette teaches that the monument is substantially formed from fiber-reinforced polymer ([0031], [0033], [0034], and [0038] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 10: Fette teaches that the monument is formed from at least 70% fibre-reinforced polymer by volume (figures 1 to 3, [0031], [0033], [0034], and [0038] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 11: Fette teaches that the fibre-reinforced polymer is carbon fibre-reinforced polymer ([0007] of Fette).
Regarding Claim 12: Fette teaches that the fibers of the fibre-reinforced polymer are unidirectional fibers ([0033], [0034], and [0038] of Fette).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Young et al. (US 2020/0406576 A1) discloses a composite for aircraft comprising corrugation and being made of fiber reinforced polymer.
Bolukbasi et al. (US 2019/0300195 A1) discloses an aircraft panel comprising fiber reinforced polymer layers and having a corrugation.
Clark (US 2021/0253220 A1) discloses a fiber reinforced polymer structure for aircraft, the structure having corrugation features.
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