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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on April 29, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of both groups would not present a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the method claims require “bonding”. The elements of the method claim may be joined by adhesives rather than a chemical bond. Such a method is disclosed in US 6,479,124 Porte et al in column 4, lines 1-5, where an adhesive or cement may be used to join the layers.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,479,124 Porte et al.
Regarding claim 1, Porte teaches a metal to composite joint (column 2, lines 22-32) for a platform (column 3, lines 19-21) comprising:
two metal structural components 3 forming a portion of a first surface (top surface) and a portion of a second surface (bottom surface) of the metal to composite joint (figure 1); and
a dividing set of composite plies 2 between the two metal structural components (figure 1).
Porte does not explicitly teach the escape path. However, as Porte satisfies all of the previous limitations, Porte’s materials and structure are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and structure. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Porte’s composite plies would also provide an escape path for volatiles between the two metal structural components. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Furthermore, please note that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Porte appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claim 2, Porte teaches that the dividing set of composite plies is adhered to the two metal structural components (column 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Porte teaches a third metal structural component (side edge) between the two metal structural components, wherein the dividing set of composite plies is adhered to one of the two metal structural components and the third metal structural component (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Porte teaches a first set of composite plies (top plies 2) comprising faying surfaces (top surfaces) with a first metal structural component of the two metal structural components (figure 1); and a second set of composite plies (bottom plies 2) comprising faying surfaces (bottom surfaces) with a second metal structural component of the two metal structural components (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Porte teaches that the first set of composite plies is complementary to the first metal structural component, and wherein the second set of composite plies is complementary to the second metal structural component (figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Porte teaches that the two metal structural components are symmetric about a center of the metal to composite joint through the thickness (figure 1, symmetric on the left side of the offset).
Regarding claim 7, Porte teaches that the dividing set of composite plies extends between the first set of composite plies and the second set of composite plies (figure 1, center plies).
Regarding claim 8, Porte teaches that the first set of composite plies forms a lapped joint with a stepped face of the first metal structural component (figure 1, at the offset where the offset forms the step).
Regarding claim 9, Porte teaches that the second set of composite plies forms a lapped joint with a stepped face of the second metal structural component (figure 1, at the offset where the offset forms the step).
Regarding claim 10, Porte teaches a structural adhesive (cement) covering faying surfaces of the two metal structural components with the first set of composite plies and the second set of composite plies (column 4, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 11, Porte teaches that the two metal structural components comprise titanium (column 3, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 13, Porte teaches that the two metal structural components comprise: a first metal structural component comprising a stepped face (offset) and a planar face (flat portion); and a second metal structural component comprising a stepped face (offset) and a planar face (flat portion), wherein the planar faces of the first metal structural component and the second metal structural component form surfaces of the platform (figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Porte teaches that the two metal structural components comprise: a first metal structural component comprising a stepped face (offset) and a planar face (flat portion); and a second metal structural component comprising a stepped face (offset) and a planar face (flat portion), wherein the dividing set of composite plies is bonded to the planar faces of the first metal structural component and the second metal structural component (figure 1, middle plies bonded via the top and bottom plies).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3 006 189 Georgeson et al.
Regarding claim 15, Georgeson teaches a metal to composite joint (paragraph 0005) for a platform (paragraph 0048) comprising:
a first metal structural component 37 (paragraph 0014) comprising a stepped face (edges) and a planar face (top/bottom surfaces, figure 4);
a first set of composite plies 35 (paragraph 0014) comprising faying surfaces (edges) complementary to the stepped face of the first metal structural component (figure 4);
a second metal structural component 37 (paragraph 0014) comprising a stepped face (edge) and a planar face (top/bottom surfaces, figure 4);
a second set of composite plies 35 (paragraph 0014) comprising faying surfaces (edges) complementary to the stepped face of the second metal structural component (figure 4); and
a dividing set of composite plies (middle plies, 35) between the first metal structural component and the second metal structural component (figure 4).
Georgeson does not explicitly teach the escape path. However, as Georgeson satisfies all of the previous limitations, Georgeson’s materials and structure are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and structure. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Georgeson’s composite plies would also provide an escape path for volatiles between the two metal structural components. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Furthermore, please note that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention, the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to Applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2112, Section V. In this case, Georgeson appears to form the same product with the same structure as that of the instant invention. Applicant may provide evidence proving a difference between the products.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Georgeson teaches that the dividing set of composite plies extends between and is adhered to the planar faces and stepped faces of the first metal structural component and the second metal structural component (figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Georgeson teaches that the first metal structural component and the second metal structural component comprise titanium (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 19, Georgeson teaches that the platform is a wing of an aircraft (paragraph 0050).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,479,124 Porte et al in view of EP 3 006 189 Georgeson et al.
Regarding claim 12, Porte teaches that the platform is portion of an aircraft (column 3, lines 19-22). Porte does not explicitly teach a wing. Georgeson teaches a structure with a composite to metal joint, where the structure may be the wing of an aircraft (paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the wing application of Georgeson as the use for the structure of Porte because a wing may need to reinforce against potential damage from impact (paragraphs 0050-0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights