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 invention I in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden exists between invention I-III. This is not found persuasive because the differences between the claims require different structures/steps to be met, in turn requiring separate searches for each invention. At least additional classification searching of B64C1/12 and text searching for composite structural skins including titanium ends would be required in the case of invention I, classification searching of B29C66/7428 and text searching for methods of forming a composite structure including bonding titanium with composite skins would be required in the case of invention II, or classification searching of B64F5/40 and text searching for methods of accessing internal volumes of a structure by removing fasteners in a composite panel to remove said panel would be required in the case of invention III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third composite plies compris[ing] two plies” of claims 10 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “more than one titanium structural component forming one of the first titanium end or the second titanium end” appears to is indefinite in light of the earlier limitation “wherein each titanium end comprises, respectively: a first titanium structure … [and] a second titanium structure” in claim 1 (note claim 9 depends on claim 1). Here claim 1 requires two titanium structural components in each titanium end but claim 9 adds a new requirement that there are more than one titanium components forming each end. Claim 1 appears narrower than claim 9 based on the plain reading of this claim and is thus indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “more than one titanium structural component forming a titanium end” appears to is indefinite in light of the earlier limitation “wherein each titanium end comprises, respectively: a first titanium structure … [and] a second titanium structure” in claim 11 (note claim 17 depends on claim 11). Here claim 11 requires two titanium structural components in each titanium end but claim 17 adds a new requirement that there are more than one titanium components forming each end. Claim 11 appears narrower than claim 17 based on the plain reading of this claim and is thus indefinite.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2) in view of Georgeson (US 9522512 B2) and Naritomi (US 20100151200 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Griess (US 8993084 B2) discloses a composite structure comprising:
a structural support (Griess, figures 22-24, item 118); and
a structural skin (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120) that comprises a composite panel comprising a first titanium (Griess. col 5 lines 29-33) end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 24), and a composite skin (Griess, figures 22-24, item 22) that is joined to and extends from the first titanium end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 26), wherein each titanium end comprises respectively:
a first titanium structure that is stepped and covered at least partially by first composite structure of the composite panel (Griess, figures 22-24, items 24 and 120, upper section of end cap is stepped and at least partially covered by upper part of the composite skin);
a second titanium structure that is stepped and covered at least partially by second composite structure of the composite panel (Griess, figures 22-24, items 24 and 120, lower section of end cap is stepped and at least partially covered by lower part of the composite skin); except:
a second titanium end;
wherein the composite skin is joined to the second titanium end and extends between the first titanium end and the second titanium end; and
wherein each titanium end further comprises respectively:
the first titanium structure that is covered at least partially by first composite plies of the composite panel;
the second titanium structure that is covered at least partially by second composite plies of the composite panel; and
third composite plies of the composite panel that extend, from the composite panel, between the first titanium structure and the second titanium structure to an end of the first titanium structure and to an end of the second titanium structure, wherein the third composite plies comprise a pathway configured for volatiles to escape from the composite panel.
Georgeson (US 9522512 B2) teaches a first titanium (Georgeson, col 5 lines 47-50) structure (Georgeson, figure 4, item 43, see callout below, first upper titanium section) that is covered at least partially by first composite plies (Georgeson, figure 4, item 37, see callout below, first composite plies) of the composite panel;
the second titanium (Georgeson, col 5 lines 47-50) structure (Georgeson, figure 4, item 43, see callout below, first upper titanium section) that is covered at least partially by second composite plies (Georgeson, figure 4, item 37, see callout below, first composite plies) of the composite panel.
Griess and Georgeson are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of titanium and composite structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite panel of Griess with the composite plies covering upper and lower titanium sections separated by composite piles between the first and second structures of Georgeson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the interface between the composite panel and the titanium sections and to protect the interface between the titanium sections and the composite panel from foreign debris after constructions .
PNG
media_image1.png
312
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Naritomi (US 20100151200 A1) teaches a first titanium structure (Naritomi, fig 3, item 22, upper titanium sheet);
a second titanium structure (Naritomi, fig 3, item 22, lower titanium sheet); and
third composite plies of the composite panel (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite panel made of composite piles) that extend, from the composite panel, between the first titanium structure and the second titanium structure to an end of the first titanium structure and to an end of the second titanium structure (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite piles extend between the upper and lower titanium sheets), wherein the third composite plies comprise a pathway configured for volatiles to escape from the composite panel (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite piles form a path where volatiles can escape the panel).
Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of titanium and composite structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the titanium ends of Griess as modified by Georgeson with the first and second titanium structures separated by composite piles between the first and second structures of Naritomi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce weight and protect the composite material from damage (Naritomi, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to mirror the first titanium end joined to the composite skin at the opposite end of the composite skin in order to reduce vibrations of the panel and secure the skin in place, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the structural skin comprises a wing skin of an aircraft (Griess, figures 22-24, items 106 and 108).
Regarding claim 3, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the composite panel further comprises a first stepped lap joint (Griess, figures 1-3, item 27; col 6 lines 18-19) between the first titanium end and the composite skin (Griess, figures 1-3, item 25) and a second stepped lap joint between the second titanium end and the composite skin (structure mirrored per obviousness as noted in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 1, except:
further comprising:
a titanium splice plates between the structural support and the composite panel.
Georgeson (US 9522512 B2) also teaches titanium (Georgeson, ¶80) splice plates (Georgeson, figure 12b, items 1216 and 1222) between the structural support (Georgeson, figure 12b, item 1264) and the panel (Georgeson, figure 12b, item 1212).
Griess as modified by Georgeson (as previously applied) and Naritomi and Georgeson are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of composite aircraft structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the join between the structural support and composite panel of Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi with the splice plate of Georgeson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reinforce the joint and/or fill space between the structural support and splice plate.
Regarding claim 5, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 4, wherein the composite panel is removably fastened to a titanium splice plate (Georgeson, figure 12b, item 1230; fasteners; fasteners make this removable).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application make the composite panel removably fastened to the splice plate in order to access the internal structure of wings or replace/repair the composite panel, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 6, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 1 further comprising:
fasteners (Griess, figures 1 and 22-24, items 32 and 124, fasteners and slots therefor) extending through the first titanium end and the second titanium end of the composite panel to connect composite panel to the structural support (Griess, figures 22-24, item 124, fasteners and slots extend through metal portion connecting with structure).
Regarding claim 8, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the composite panel is an access panel (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120, panel can be used as an access panel) removably connected to provide internal access to the composite structure (Griess, figures 1 and 22-24, items 32 and 124, fasteners and slots therefor; fasteners make this removable).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the composite panel/access panel removable in order allow access the internal structure of wings, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 9, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the composite panel comprises more than one titanium structural component forming one of the first titanium end or the second titanium end (indefinite; Griess, figure 3, item 37).
Regarding claim 10, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 8,
wherein the third composite plies comprises two plies (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite panel made of composite piles).
Regarding claim 11, Griess (US 8993084 B2) discloses a composite structure comprising:
a composite panel fastened to a structural support at titanium ends (), the composite panel comprising:
a titanium (Griess. col 5 lines 29-33) end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 24),
wherein [a] of the titanium end comprises, respectively:
a first titanium structure that is stepped (Griess, figures 22-24, items 24 and 120, upper section of end cap is stepped and at least partially covered by upper part of the composite skin);
a second titanium structure that is stepped (Griess, figures 22-24, items 24 and 120, lower section of end cap is stepped and at least partially covered by lower part of the composite skin); and
a composite skin joined to and extending from the titanium end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120), except:
wherein the composite panel comprises composite plies;
the titanium end including plural titanium ends;
wherein each of the titanium ends further comprises:
the first titanium structure which is covered at least partially by first composite plies of the composite panel;
the second titanium structure which is covered at least partially by second composite plies of the composite panel
wherein the covered at least partially by first composite plies of the composite pane;
third composite plies of the composite panel that extend, from the composite panel, between the first titanium structure and the second titanium structure to an end of the first titanium structure and to an end of the second titanium structure, wherein the third composite plies comprise a pathway configured for volatiles to escape from the composite panel.
Georgeson (US 9522512 B2) teaches a first titanium (Georgeson, col 5 lines 47-50) structure (Georgeson, figure 4, item 43, see callout below, first upper titanium section) that is covered at least partially by first composite plies (Georgeson, figure 4, item 37, see callout below, first composite plies) of the composite panel;
the second titanium (Georgeson, col 5 lines 47-50) structure (Georgeson, figure 4, item 43, see callout below, first upper titanium section) that is covered at least partially by second composite plies (Georgeson, figure 4, item 37, see callout below, first composite plies) of the composite panel.
Griess and Georgeson are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of titanium and composite structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite panel of Griess with the composite plies covering upper and lower titanium sections separated by composite piles between the first and second structures of Georgeson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the interface between the composite panel and the titanium sections and to protect the interface between the titanium sections and the composite panel from foreign debris after constructions .
PNG
media_image1.png
312
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Naritomi (US 20100151200 A1) teaches a first titanium structure (Naritomi, fig 3, item 22, upper titanium sheet);
a second titanium structure (Naritomi, fig 3, item 22, lower titanium sheet); and
third composite plies of the composite panel (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite panel made of composite piles) that extend, from the composite panel, between the first titanium structure and the second titanium structure to an end of the first titanium structure and to an end of the second titanium structure (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite piles extend between the upper and lower titanium sheets), wherein the third composite plies comprise a pathway configured for volatiles to escape from the composite panel (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite piles form a path where volatiles can escape the panel).
Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of titanium and composite structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the titanium ends of Griess as modified by Georgeson with the first and second titanium structures separated by composite piles between the first and second structures of Naritomi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce weight and protect the composite material from damage (Naritomi, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to mirror the first titanium end joined to the composite skin at the opposite end of the composite skin in order to reduce vibrations of the panel and secure the skin in place, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 12, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel further comprises a first stepped lap joint between a first titanium end of the titanium ends and the composite skin (Griess, figures 1-3, item 27; col 6 lines 18-19) and a second stepped lap joint between a second titanium end of the titanium ends and the composite skin (Griess, mirrored).
Regarding claim 13, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel is one of a plurality of composite panels (Griess, col 9 line 47-col 10 line 9), and wherein the plurality of composite panels comprises a wing skin of an aircraft (Griess, col 10 line 10-35).
Regarding claim 16, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel is an access panel removably (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120, panel can be used as an access panel) connected to provide internal access to the composite structure (Griess, panel can provide access to the composite itself or to an attached structure when removed).
Regarding claim 17, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel comprises more than one titanium structural component forming a titanium end (indefinite; Naritomi, fig 3, item 22, upper and lower titanium sheets).
Regarding claim 18, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 17, wherein the third composite plies comprises two plies (Naritomi, fig 3, item 21, composite panel made of composite piles).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2) in view of Georgeson (US 9522512 B2) and Naritomi (US 20100151200 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (CA 2829899 C).
Regarding claim 14, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel is one of a plurality of composite panels (Griess, figure 22, item 120, composite panels on opposite sides of the structure; mirrored on other side of aircraft per claim 11) except: further comprising:
titanium splice plates joining the plurality of composite panels.
Lin (CA 2829899 C) teaches titanium (Lin, page 4, lines 14-15) splice plates (Lin, figure 1, item 15) joining the plurality of composite panels (Lin, figure 1, items 40 and 50).
Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi and Lin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft metal-composite joints. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the join between metal ends and overall aircraft structural attachments of Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi with the titanium splice plate between composite panels of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reinforce the joint.
Regarding claim 15, Griess as modified by Georgeson and Naritomi teaches the composite structure of claim 14, wherein each composite panel of the plurality of composite panels (Lin, figure 1, items 40 and 50) is removably fastened (Lin, figure 1, item 80) to a titanium splice plate of the titanium splice plates (Lin, figure 1, item 15).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the composite panel removably fastened to the titanium splice plate in order allow access the internal structure of wings and replace the splice plates or composite panels, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of applicant’s reply, filed 08/06/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roebroeks (CN 101500797 A) teaches a composite panel comprising more than one metal structural component (figures 1-2, items 2, 3, and 12) and wherein a dividing set of composite plies (figures 1-2, items 4, 5, and 11) extends between the more than one metal structural component to provide an escape path for volatiles
Lambing (US 5160771 A) teaches a joint between two laminate sheets; the sheets have metal layers joined with a polymer layer
Porte (US 6479124 B1) teaches a composite panel with a metallic cloth
Westre (US 7115323 B2) teaches a laminate structure with titanium foil layers and polymer layers
Stephan (US 7875333 B2) teaches a stepped joint attaching aluminum sheets to a composite sheet structure
Griess (US 8652606 B2) teaches a joint (fig 28 item 26) between metal sheets (fig 28 item 24) and composite sheets (fig 28 item 35); metal can be titanium; joints are ‘multi step lap joints” ¶18
Hamada (US 8795804 B2) teaches a stepped lap joint between a metal and fiber reinforced resin; mentions TI alloy (¶30); multiple layers of the joint are shown, and the metal parts are welded together
Diep (US 8960606 B2) teaches a titanium splice plate
Nonaka (US 10094405 B2) teaches a composite with upper and lower plates attached (may be metal plates)
Larsson (WO 2014116151 A1) teaches a laminate joint between a composite sheet section and a metal sheet section; where the metal sheet section includes a fastener (fig 3c)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
