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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1: claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden exists for the examiner to examine both inventions. This is not found persuasive because the inventions lack the same special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art as detailed in the restriction requirement of 01/28/2026. Further, products are examined under different search classifications and procedures than methods. Therefore, a serious search and examination burden exists for the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-11 are hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS entered 10/06/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zilberman of record (US20140154458A1).
Zilberman discloses a manufacturing process to obtain a monoblock core comprising (ABS): fiber draping of the elements of the panel and of the stiffeners (P0046); assembling said elements of the stiffeners on the panel (P0046); curing of the assembly and obtaining of the monoblock core (P0046, P0069); wherein baking is carried out in an autoclave- type oven (P0063, claim 10) and in that the steps for obtaining the monoblock core are followed by the following steps for finalizing the stiffened structure from the monoblock core into a hybrid monoblock structure: machining of the monoblock core (trimming, P0070); manufacture of additional structural elements designed to consolidate the stiffened structure and support installation parts (protection elements, P0070); combination of the additional structural elements with the machined monoblock core (finishing, P0070).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Zilberman teaches some piles are trimmed (P0070) and therefore the discarded piles are inherently sacrificial which meets the limitation that the draping step superimposes structural fiber plies with sacrificial fiber plies and the sacrificial fiber plies are machined (trimming).
Regarding claim 4, Zilberman teaches wherein machining of the one-piece core comprises steps of trimming the panel and cutting at least one end of the stiffeners to predetermined dimensions (P0070).
Regarding claim 6, Zilberman teaches wherein the draping of the elements of the stiffeners is carried out directly according to a predetermined final geometry (“according to the contour of the mold, fig.14, step 964).
Regarding claim 7, Zilberman teaches wherein the additional structural elements are made of composite material and draped in fiber (P0070, “it is possible to add protection elements to specific sections of the composite structure. It is also possible to only cover the specific sections that require protection with the protection elements and then glue the protection elements to the main frame using the matrix within the prepreg material or adding a second matrix”).
Regarding claim 8, Zilberman teaches the additional structural elements and the one-piece core are fired simultaneously (P0065, cured simultaneously, P0063, curing can be conducted in an oven).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman of record (US20140154458A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zilberman is silent to wherein the draping step is automated. However, the court held that broadly providing no specific automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Zilberman discloses the claimed invention except for automating the draping step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to automate the draping step, since it have been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to automate the draping step in order to expedite the process.
Conclusion
Pertinent art not relied upon: Guittard (US 10105938).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights