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
Claims 18-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/27/2025.
Specification
The amendment filed 09/20/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: figure 3a and the related amendments to ¶41 of the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the webs of the angle members comprise slots that are spaced apart and the slots extend along one or more of the first web, the second web, the first foot, the second foot” does not have support in the specification as originally filed. Applicant is invited to traverse this rejection by showing any part of the disclosure as originally filed which would provide support for this claim scope.
Claims 12-17 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 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) 1-4, 6-13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) in view of Staal 188 (US 20220281188 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) discloses a replacement stringer comprising:
a plurality of angle members (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’), each of the angle members comprising:
a flange (Staal 657, figure 5, items 58, 60’, 58’’, and 50’’’) and a web (Staal 657, figure 5, items 60, 58’, 60’’, and 58’’) connected together along an elbow and positioned at an angle relative to one another (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, flanges and webs are at angles with respect to each other and join together at angles), the flange comprising a flange lateral side opposite from the elbow and the web comprising a web lateral side opposite from the elbow (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, flange and web extend outwards from an elbow);
wherein the flange lateral side is continuous without the slots (Staal 657, figure 5, items 58, 60’, 58’’, and 50’’’, flanges are continuous without slots);
wherein the replacement stringers are formed by a plurality of the angle members that are connected together (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’) and comprise:
feet (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, angle members form feet); and
a hat positioned between the feet and comprising a central flange, wherein the hat extends outward above the feet (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, angle members form hat structure);
wherein the central flange of the hat is formed by the flanges of multiple ones of the angle members in an overlapping configuration and is solid without slots (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, central flange formed by overlapping angle members and is solid without slots); and
fasteners that connect the angle members together (Staal 657, figure 5, item 52), except:
slots that extend inward from the web lateral side towards the elbow the slots positioned along the web and away from the flange; and
wherein the slots of the angle members are spaced away from the central flange.
Staal 188 (US 20220281188 A1) teaches slots that extend inward from the web lateral side towards the elbow the slots positioned along the web and away from the flange (Staal 188, figure 6, see callout below, slots extend inward towards the elbow); and
wherein the slots of the angle members are spaced away from the central flange (Staal 188, figure 6, see callout below, slots spaced away from the central flange).
Staal 657 and Staal 188 are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft stringer design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stringer of Staal 657 with the slots spaced apart from the central flange on the web of Staal 188 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to add flexibility and conformability to the structure (Staal 188, ¶22).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 1, wherein slots are positioned along just one or more of the feet and a pair of webs of the hat that extend between the feet and the central flange (per the modification by Staal 188, figure 6, slots extend between the feet and central flange; NOTE other slots are not taken from Staal 188).
Regarding claim 3, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 2, wherein the central flange and the pair of webs are constructed from multiple ones of the angle members in the overlapping configuration and each of the feet are constructed from one of the angle members (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, angle members form the central flange, webs, and feet).
Regarding claim 4, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 3, wherein the pair of feet comprise the flange of two of the angle members (Staal 657, figure 5, item 58 and 50’’’).
Regarding claim 6, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 1, wherein an upper surface and the lower surface of the angle members are aligned parallel to one another (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, angle members have parallel upper and lower surfaces).
Regarding claim 7, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the web of a first one of the angle members contacts against a lower surface of a second one of the webs of a second one of the angle members (Staal 657, figure 5, angle members contact each other with one laying on top of the other).
Regarding claim 8, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 1, wherein at least two of the angle members comprise the angle between the flange and the web being an obtuse angle (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, all angle members shown have an obtuse angle between the flange and web).
Regarding claim 9, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 1, wherein the angle members are positioned along a length of the replacement stringer with the slots of the angle members misaligned (Staal 188, figure 6, claim 3, slots misaligned along the length of the length and do not overlap).
Regarding claim 10, Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) discloses a replacement stringer comprising:
a body comprising:
a central flange (Staal 657, figure 5, central flange in the center of stringer);
a first web positioned on a first lateral side of the central flange (Staal 657, figure 5, first web to the left of central flange);
a second web positioned on a second lateral side of the central flange (Staal 657, figure 5, second web to the right of central flange);
a first foot positioned on the first lateral side of the first web (Staal 657, figure 5, first foot to the left of first web); and
a second foot positioned on the second lateral side of the first web (Staal 657, figure 5, second foot to the right of first web);
a length that extends between a first end and a second end (Staal 657, figure 5, stringer extends forward and backwards);
a width that extends between outer edges of the first foot and the second foot (Staal 657, figure 5, stringer extending between feet on each side);
wherein the body comprises a plurality of angle members arranged in an overlapping configuration along the length and the width (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’), the angle members comprising flanges (Staal 657, figure 5, items 58, 60’, 58’’, and 50’’’) and webs (Staal 657, figure 5, items 60, 58’, 60’’, and 58’’’) that are positioned at predetermined angles (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, flanges and webs are at angles with respect to each other and join together at angles); except:
wherein the webs of angle members comprise slots that are spaced apart along the length and the slots extend along one or more of the first web, the second web, the first foot, the second foot and are positioned away from the central flange.
Staal 188 (US 20220281188 A1) teaches a stringer wherein webs comprise slots that are spaced apart along the length and the slots extend along one or more of the first web, the second web, and are positioned away from the central flange (Staal 188, figures 6 and 7, item 245, see callout below slots spaced along webs between central flange and feet; slots are positioned away from the central flange).
Staal 657 and Staal 188 are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft stringer design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stringer of Staal 657 with the slots spaced apart from the central flange on the web of Staal 188 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to add flexibility and conformability to the structure Staal 188, ¶22).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 10,
further comprising fasteners that connect the plurality of angle members (Staal 657, figure 5, item 52).
Regarding claim 12, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 11, wherein the angle members overlap along just the central flange, the first web, and the second web (Staal 657, figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 10, wherein each of the angle members comprises an upper surface and a lower surface that are parallel (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, angle members have parallel upper and lower surfaces).
Regarding claim 15, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 14, wherein the slots extend completely across the webs (Staal 188, figure 6, slots extend across the entire web).
Regarding claim 16, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 14, wherein the slots are evenly spaced apart along a length of the angle members (Staal 188, figure 6, slots evenly spaced).
Regarding claim 17, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 10, wherein the slots of the angle members are misaligned along the length with the slots being in a non-overlapping configuration (Staal 188, figure 6, claim 3, slots misaligned along the length of the length and do not overlap).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) in view of Staal 188 (US 20220281188 A1) or in the alternative, over Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) in view of Staal 188 (US 20220281188 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marouze (US 20190210308 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 teaches the replacement stringer of claim 1, wherein the replacement stringer is connected to an interior side of a skin of an aircraft (Staal 657, col 7 lines 46-58).
Alternatively, Marouze (US 20190210308 A1) teaches a stringer connected to an interior side of a skin of an aircraft (Marouze, figure 1, item 12, stringers on the interior side of an aircraft skin).
Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 and Marouze are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft stringer design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stringer of Staal 657 as modified by Staal 188 to be connected to an interior skin of an aircraft as in Marouze with a reasonable expectation of success in order to use the stringer to prevent the skin from buckling.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) in view of Griess (US 20130089697 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Staal 657 (US 11400657 B2) discloses a replacement stringer comprising:
a body comprising:
a central flange (Staal 657, figure 5, central flange in the center of stringer);
a first web positioned on a first lateral side of the central flange (Staal 657, figure 5, first web to the left of central flange);
a second web positioned on a second lateral side of the central flange (Staal 657, figure 5, second web to the right of central flange);
a first foot positioned on the first lateral side of the first web (Staal 657, figure 5, first foot to the left of first web); and
a second foot positioned on the second lateral side of the first web (Staal 657, figure 5, second foot to the right of first web);
a length that extends between a first end and a second end (Staal 657, figure 5, stringer extends forward and backwards);
a width that extends between outer edges of the first foot and the second foot (Staal 657, figure 5, stringer extending between feet on each side);
wherein the body comprises a plurality of angle members arranged in an overlapping configuration along the length and the width (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’), the angle members comprising flanges (Staal 657, figure 5, items 58, 60’, 58’’, and 50’’’) and webs (Staal 657, figure 5, items 60, 58’, 60’’, and 58’’’) that are positioned at predetermined angles (Staal 657, figure 5, items 50, 50’, 50’’, and 50’’’, flanges and webs are at angles with respect to each other and join together at angles); except:
wherein the webs of angle members comprise slots that are spaced apart along the length and the slots extend along one or more of the first web, the second web, the first foot, the second foot and are positioned away from the central flange.
Griess (US 20130089697 A1) teaches an aircraft structure wherein webs comprise slots that are spaced apart along the length (Griess, figure 5, items 472 and 460, slots spaced apart lengthwise) and the slots extend along one or more of the first web, the second web, the first foot, the second foot (Griess, figure 5, items 472 and 460, slots extend along opposite webs which form opposite feet) and are positioned away from the central flange (Griess, figure 5, items 472 and 460, slots are positioned away from a central flange).
Staal 657 and Griess are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft structure design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the webs of Staal 657 with the slots of Griess with a reasonable expectation of success in order to add flexibility to the structure.
Regarding claim 14, Staal 657 as modified Griess teaches the replacement stringer of claim 10, wherein each of the angle members comprises the slots within just the webs (Griess, figure 5, item 472 and 460, slots just in webs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The amendments to the claims overcome the rejections to the claims
Upon reviewing the amended claims, it was determined that these amendments are still obvious over the prior art of record. Adjustments were made to the rejections to meet the amended claim scope.
Additionally, it appears that some of applicant’s amendments to the specification/drawings and to claim 10 introduce new matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng (US 10857751 B2) teaches two adjacent stringer sections
Arevalo (US 9771140 B2) teaches a stringer design made of a multi-pair construction
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
Prosecution Insights