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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 5, 2026, has been entered.
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 wing which comprises cloths forming both spars and ribs must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note that figs. 1 and 3a-3d show a wing which comprises cloths forming first and second spars 3, 4, and a single trailing edge rib 10 which is disclosed as “a structural rib not made of cloth, but e.g. made of aluminium” (Specification page 6, lines 22-23) and is arranged on an exterior face and not in the splits between cores.
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 8 and 13 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 claims 8 and 13: these claims recite further limitations to “the reinforcing elements”, however the reinforcing elements are introduced in claim 5 while claim 8 depends directly from claim 1 and claim 13 depends from claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 6,234,423 B1 to Hirahara et al.
Regarding claim 1:
Hirahara teaches an aircraft with a wing (c. 1, ℓ. 6-12: composite airfoil structures used in an aircraft wing, see also c. 9, ℓ. 31-37: wing airfoil structure; figs. 16-18: airfoil 10, which has the same construction as the airfoil 10 shown in figs. 1-5, see c. 7, ℓ. 20-31), wherein the wing comprises:
- a core (foam cores 20, 21, 22) made of foam (c. 4, ℓ. 60–c. 5, ℓ. 19),
- a skin (figs. 16-17: 51 or 52; figs. 1-3: 11 or 12) defining an outer surface of the wing (c. 4, ℓ. 50-59),
- cloths (18) forming spars and ribs (figs. 16-17: 54, 55A-55B; c. 4, ℓ. 60–c. 5, ℓ. 32: ribs 14/54 and elongate projections 15/55 are formed by composite prepregs 18, which are considered as cloths within the context of the disclosure of the present invention1; since the elongate projections are bonded to the length and height of the web of the spar, granting the adhesive strength of an I-beam, see c. 5, ℓ. 23-32, and the individual skins and spars are bonded “to thereby form a single structure”, see c. 6, ℓ. 12-34, c. 8, ℓ. 29-36, the elongate projections 55A, 55B, formed by composite prepregs 18, are considered to form, with respective spars 53A, 53B, front and rear spars each as a single structure),
wherein the core comprises splits separating the core in different parts (figs. 4-5: foam cores 20, 21, 22), and
wherein the cloths forming spars and ribs are arranged in the splits (figs. 4-5, 16-17: the composite layers 18 which form ribs 14/54 and projections 15/55 are arranged between foam cores 20, 21 and 22; see also c. 5, ℓ. 42-57).
Regarding claim 4:
Hirahara teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the cloths and/or the skin are made of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (c. 4, ℓ. 60–c. 5, ℓ. 6; c. 5, ℓ. 42-57: composite prepreg 18 may be carbon-fiber reinforced plastic).
Regarding claim 17:
Hirahara teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the cloths build spar webs (fig. 4: the composite layers 18 on the left side are shown to build a web).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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(s) 1, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,256,715 B2 to Ballard et al. in view of US 2003/0192990 A1 to Simpson et al.
Regarding claim 1:
Ballard teaches an aircraft (UAV 170) with a wing (100 in fig. 1; figs. 5A-6: wing 500/600), wherein the wing, comprises:
- a core made of foam (as shown in fig. 5A, 6: c. 8, ℓ. 16-44: wing 500/600 has a foam core; see also c. 7, ℓ. 43-63, figs. 3-4),
- a skin defining an outer surface of the wing (c. 5, ℓ. 17-19: foam core wing with fiberglass epoxy skin; c. 10, ℓ. 6-17: after assembly, the wing is wrapped in a fiberglass cloth and cured),
- cloths forming a spar, strut and ribs (figs. 5A-5B: ribs 534, spar 532 and a strut 536 extending over the span of the center wing, see fig. 5B; c. 8, ℓ. 3-15: spar 532, ribs 534 and strut 536 each include layers of a carbon fiber/aromatic polyamide cloth),
wherein the core comprises splits -separating the core in different parts (as shown in figs. 6-8; see also fig. 4), and
wherein the cloths forming spars and ribs are arranged in the splits (as shown in figs. 6-8; see also fig. 4).
Simpson teaches an aircraft wing structure (100; ¶ 0028-0029: the teachings apply to both a full tip-to-tip wing span and various wing structures) comprising:
a leading edge and a trailing edge (¶ 0065, fig. 1: leading and trailing edges 136, 138);
a skin (flying surface 112) defining an outer surface of the wing (¶ 0064),
cloths (¶ 0063) forming spars (116) and ribs (¶ 0031: ribs not shown),
wherein the cloths forming spars and ribs are arranged in splits separating a core into different parts (fig. 3: cores split into segments by spars 116; ¶ 0061: ribs formed similarly to spars; see also ¶ 0030-0031).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the wing of the aircraft of Ballard with multiple spars, using the teachings of Simpson, for the purpose of strengthening the wing in order to receive flight loads (Simpson ¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 4:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the cloths and/or the skin are made of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Ballard c. 8, ℓ. 3-15: spar 532, ribs 534 and strut 536 each include layers of a carbon fiber/aromatic polyamide cloth).
Regarding claim 5:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the core comprises recesses on its outer side and wherein the wing comprises reinforcing elements arranged in the recesses (as modified; Simpson fig. 2: spar caps 212 arranged in recesses in the core).
Regarding claim 6:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 5, wherein the reinforcing elements are elements selected from the group consisting of: spar cap, interface bracket, hinge ribs (as modified; Simpson ¶ 0050, 0093-0094, fig. 2: spar caps 212; see also ¶ 0095).
Regarding claim 7:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 5, wherein the reinforcing elements are made of a material from the group consisting of: aluminium, titanium, plastic, forged carbon (as modified; Simpson ¶ 0058: the composite materials forming the spars and spar caps is comprised of filament bands pre-impregnated with a resin, which is a fiber-reinforced plastic).
Regarding claim 8:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing elements are wrapped by the cloths (Ballard c. 9, ℓ. 1-24: threaded brass inserts 742 embedded along the bottom of the wing, which would be wrapped by composite cloths at least when the assembled wing is wrapped after assembly, c. 10, ℓ. 6-17; see also Simpson ¶ 0032: Simpson discloses stiffeners 118, which are wrapped by composite cloths).
Regarding claim 10:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a method for manufacturing an aircraft according to claim 1 as claimed.
Simpson teaches a method for manufacturing an aircraft comprising the following steps for manufacturing a wing:
- the lower skin defining the outer surface of the wing is laid in a mould (mould formed by clamshell frames 312 and 316; ¶ 0085: “the composite material for the lower flying surface 128 is placed on the lower clamshell frame 316”);
-the core is placed in the mould to support the skins (¶ 0092: “Once the composite material for the flying surfaces 112 is positioned, the spars 116 may be formed with the pressurizable forms 320” ¶ 0094: “the pressurizable forms 320 may be laid out on the lower clamshell frame 316”);
- the upper skin defining the outer surface of the wing is laid in the mould (¶ 0096: “Once the pressurizable forms 320 and the attached composite material are laid out on the composite material of the lower flying surface 128, the composite material for the upper flying surface 124 may be placed on top”);
- closing the mould (¶ 0096: “The upper clamshell frame 312 may then be placed upon the lower clamshell frame 316, enclosing the composite material and pressurizable forms 320”) and curing the profile (¶ 0100: “The composite material is then cured”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teachings of Simpson to manufacture the wing of the aircraft of Ballard for the purpose of co-curing the structural members of the wing (Simpson ¶ 0033), and as a known process for producing a composite aircraft wing.
Regarding claim 11:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, further comprising the following step:
- the cloths are wrapped around the core or parts of the core (as modified; Simpson ¶ 0093, 0095).
Regarding claim 12:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, furthering comprising the following step:
- arranging the cloths in splits of the core before closing the mould (as modified; Simpson ¶ 0092-0096: the mold is closed after the spars are formed).
Regarding claim 13:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, comprising the following steps:
- wrapping the reinforcing elements with the cloths before closing the mould (as modified; Simpson ¶ 0096: the forms 320 are laid out before closing the clamshell frames).
Regarding claim 14:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, comprising the following steps:
- the core is oversized before placing the core in the mould (as modified; Simpson ¶ 0077: non-pressurizable cores may bias to shape the composite material
the foam cores shrink during curing; the core is oversized with respect to the cured state, or alternatively, oversized with respect to being easily removed).
Regarding claim 15:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, wherein structural inserts made from carbon, plastic or metal are located within the mould (as modified by Simpson, spar caps 212 may be provided individually, which would comprise carbon fiber reinforced plastic, see Simpson ¶ 0095).
Regarding claim 17:
Ballard, as modified, provides the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the cloths build spar webs (as shown in Ballard figs. 5A-6; see also Simpson fig. 2: webbing 216).
Regarding claim 18:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, wherein the cloths are fixed to the core to prevent movements of the cloths during curing (Simpson ¶ 0086: the composite material is adhered to the cores 320; as modified, the composite material is adhered to the split segments of the core).
Regarding claim 19:
Ballard, as modified, provides the method according to claim 10, wherein the cloths are fixed by an adhesive to prevent movements of the cloths during curing (Simpson ¶ 0086: the composite material is adhered to the cores 320; as modified, the composite material is fixed by an adhesive to the split segments of the core).
Regarding claim 20:
Ballard teaches an aircraft (UAV 170) with a wing (100 in fig. 1; figs. 5A-6: wing 500/600), wherein the wing, comprises:
a core made of foam (as shown in fig. 5A, 6: c. 8, ℓ. 16-44: wing 500/600 has a foam core; see also c. 7, ℓ. 43-63, figs. 3-4);
a leading edge and a trailing edge (as shown in figs. 5A, 6; see also figs. 1A-4 and 7-8);
a skin defining an outer surface of the wing (c. 5, ℓ. 17-19: foam core wing with fiberglass epoxy skin; c. 10, ℓ. 6-17: after assembly, the wing is wrapped in a fiberglass cloth and cured);
cloths forming a spar, strut and ribs (figs. 5A-5B: ribs 534, spar 532 and a strut 536 extending over the span of the center wing, see fig. 5B; c. 8, ℓ. 3-15: spar 532, ribs 534 and strut 536 each include layers of a carbon fiber/aromatic polyamide cloth),
wherein the core extends from the leading edge to the trailing edge (as shown in figs. 6-8; see also figs 3-4 and 6-8),
wherein the core comprises splits separating the core in different parts and wherein the cloths forming spars and ribs are arranged in the splits (as shown in figs. 6-8; see also fig. 4).
Ballard teaches a strut (536) aft of the spar (532) and connecting the ribs (534), adding strength to the structure (c. 8, ℓ. 22-34). Ballard also teaches a foam core which extends from the leading edge to the trailing edge (as shown in fig. 6, but also visible in fig. 5A). As a load-bearing spanwise member parallel to the spar the strut may be considered as a spar, however the foam core is not shown to extend from the leading edge to the trailing edge in the same span of the wing having the strut.
Simpson teaches an aircraft wing structure (100; ¶ 0028-0029: the teachings apply to both a full tip-to-tip wing span and various wing structures) comprising:
a leading edge and a trailing edge (¶ 0065, fig. 1: leading and trailing edges 136, 138);
a skin (flying surface 112) defining an outer surface of the wing (¶ 0064),
cloths (¶ 0063) forming spars (116) and ribs (¶ 0031: ribs not shown),
wherein the cloths forming spars and ribs are arranged in splits separating a core into different parts (fig. 3: cores split into segments by spars 116; ¶ 0061: ribs formed similarly to spars; see also ¶ 0030-0031).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the wing of the aircraft of Ballard with multiple spars, using the teachings of Simpson, for the purpose of strengthening the wing in order to receive flight loads (Simpson ¶ 0030).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 5:00 MT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 See page 3, lines 3-11 of the Specification
Prosecution Insights