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 of Group I – Claims 1-14 and 20 in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-14, 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 20 recites the limitation "the external surface" in lines 25 and lines 22 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claims to read: --the continuous external surface--.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victorazzo (US 2014/0186586 A1), in view of Serencsits et al. (US 2023/0219307 A1), in view of Lieven et al. (US 2014/0186559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Victorazzo a process for fabricating an integrated composite structural panel, see abstract, [0010] – (construed as a method for manufacturing a structural component in composite material). The process to include the use of uncured plies of laminated prepreg sheets along with precured reinforcements as stringers and ribs, see at least [0028] – (construed as a skin formed by a plurality of layers of composite material and reinforced with stiffening stringers and ribs fixed to the skin). The process having steps of:
laminating a plurality of fiber-reinforced resin-composite sheets onto a surface of a forming tool to form a base skin, see at least claims 1(a), 6, [0014] – (construed as laminating first layers of non-cured composite material onto a forming tool thus forming a sub-skin having a first surface in contact with the forming tool and a second surface opposite to the first surface);
disposing first stiffeners 12 – (construed as stringers) formed of pre-cured composite material on the base skin surface opposite the forming tool, see at least [0014] – [0015], Fig. 1 – (construed as b) arranging at least one stiffening stringer made of pre-cured composite material on the second surface of the sub-skin, along a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal direction of the structural component);
disposing second stiffeners 14 – (construed as ribs) formed of pre-cured composite material on the base skin surface opposite the forming tool, see at least [0014] – [0015], Fig. 1 – (construed as c) arranging at least one stiffening rib made of pre-cured composite material on the second surface of the sub-skin, along a transversal direction which is transversal to the longitudinal direction of the structural component;
the thus assembled preform may be subjected to curing conditions so as to simultaneously cure (co-cure) all previously uncured components, the first and second stiffeners being rigid, see at least [0014] – [0015] - (construed as d) applying pre-set temperature and pressure to the assembly defined by the sub-skin, by the at least one stringer and by the at least one rib, so as to cure the composite material and determine the rigid and integral fixing of the stringer and of the rib to the second surface of the sub-skin, thus obtaining a sub-panel made of cured composite material);
Victorazzo does not explicitly disclose repeating steps a) to d) to obtain a plurality of sub-panels. However, it is well-known in the art to form individual panels for joining to create the final part, as Victorazzo admits, see [0002] – [0003]. Thus, one would create any number of panels and looking for use thereof would appreciate:
Serencsits which discloses a composite fuselage fabrication. The process to include the use of a plurality of composite preforms 214 – (construed as sub-panels obtained from Victorazzo’s process). The fabrication process to include:
f) arranging composite preforms 802, 804 – (construed as the obtained sub-panels) onto a cure mandrel 206 – (construed as a central support, so as to at least partially surround the central support) and so that the slip sheet 806, 809 – (construed as the second surface of each sub-skin faces towards the central support and the first surface of each sub-skin faces outwards, see at least FIGS 8-9;
g) the composite preforms are spliced together at 902, 908 – (construed as joining together pairs of laterally adjacent sub-panels at the respective sub-skins, so as to define a pre-component having a continuous external surface defined by the set of the first surfaces of the sub-skins of the jointed sub-panels), see at least FIG 9. Serencsits discloses such techniques contribute to increasing the throughput of composite part manufacturing through the use of slip sheets for laying up composite preforms prior to attachment to cure mandrels. Further, the system can also reduce the capital costs through reducing the time that mandrels are tied up in fabricated composite parts. Further, the use of skin panels can also reduce costs associated with tooling and wear-and-tear, see [0180].
Lieven discloses manufacture of composite material fuselages for aircraft. The process to include forming a composite assembly on an outer surface 18 of a mandrel of pre-cured stringers 20 and ribs disposed on an inner skin 28, see at least FIGS. 1, 4, [0115], [0102]. And a step of:
h) disposing an outer skin 42 on the external surface of the composite assembly to thereby define a continuous external surface which encloses the composite assembly, see FIGS 5, 6 – (construed as laminating second layers of non-cured composite material on the external surface of the pre-component, so as to define a continuous external over-skin onto the pre-component, and so as to define the skin, the skin comprising the first layers and the second layers); and further
i) co-curing the assembly in an autoclave to strengthen the assembly, see at least [0121] – (construed as applying pre-set temperature and pressure to the assembly comprising the pre-component and the continuous external over-skin, so as to cure the composite material and determine the rigid and integral fixing of the second layers to the first layers). Liven discloses such steps form a structural function of allowing the assembly to withstand mechanical loads during flight, see [0120] – [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Victorazzo’s process for fabricating an integrated panel structures to include the claimed processing steps as detailed above and taught by Serencsits and Lieven to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claim 2, modified Victorazzo discloses it is known in the art that with fiber reinforced composite plastic as a composite material, carbon fibers lock in place with resin providing better strength to weight ratio than metals. Further, fiber reinforced composite plastic structures are lighter as compared to more traditional structures manufactured using aluminum, see Serencsits [0002]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Victorazzo’s process to further include the use of continuous fiber as claimed as modified Victorazzo discloses such a technique provides better strength to weight ratio than traditional materials.
Regarding claims 3-5, modified Victorazzo discloses the step a) of laminating first layers comprises laminating at most two layers of non-cured composite material, see at least Liven FIG 4., Victorazzo claim 6. And under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner, such lay out techniques include the claimed parallel and longitudinal orientations.
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Victorazzo discloses the use of vacuum bags in forming the sub-panels and composite structure, see at least Victorazzo [0028] – [0029], [0031], Serencsits claims 47, 49, [0094]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Victorazzo’s process to further include the use of a vacuum system and bag as claimed as modified Victorazzo discloses such a technique provides containment of resin flow during processing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victorazzo (US 2014/0186586 A1), in view of Serencsits et al. (US 2023/0219307 A1), in view of Lieven et al. (US 2014/0186559 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Victorazzo a process for fabricating an integrated composite structural panel, see abstract, [0010] – (construed as a method for manufacturing a structural component). The process having steps of:
laminating a plurality of fiber-reinforced resin-composite sheets onto a surface of a forming tool to form a base skin, see at least claims 1(a), 6, [0014] – (construed as laminating first layers of non-cured composite material onto a forming tool thus forming a sub-skin having a first surface in contact with the forming tool and a second surface opposite to the first surface);
disposing first stiffeners 12 – (construed as stringers) formed of pre-cured composite material on the base skin surface opposite the forming tool, see at least [0014] – [0015], Fig. 1 – (construed as b) arranging at least one stiffening stringer made of pre-cured composite material on the second surface of the sub-skin, along a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal direction of the structural component);
disposing second stiffeners 14 – (construed as ribs) formed of pre-cured composite material on the base skin surface opposite the forming tool, see at least [0014] – [0015], Fig. 1 – (construed as c) arranging at least one stiffening rib made of pre-cured composite material on the second surface of the sub-skin, along a transversal direction which is transversal to the longitudinal direction of the structural component;
the thus assembled preform may be subjected to curing conditions so as to simultaneously cure (co-cure) all previously uncured components, the first and second stiffeners being rigid, see at least [0014] – [0015] - (construed as d) applying pre-set temperature and pressure to the assembly defined by the sub-skin, by the at least one stringer and by the at least one rib, so as to cure the composite material and determine the rigid and integral fixing of the stringer and of the rib to the second surface of the sub-skin, thus obtaining a sub-panel made of cured composite material);
Victorazzo does not explicitly disclose repeating steps a) to d) to obtain a plurality of sub-panels. However, it is well-known in the art to form individual panels for joining to create the final part, as Victorazzo admits, see [0002] – [0003]. Thus, one would create any number of panels and looking for use thereof would appreciate:
Serencsits which discloses a composite fuselage fabrication. The process to include the use of a plurality of composite preforms 214 – (construed as sub-panels obtained from Victorazzo’s process). The fabrication process to include:
f) arranging composite preforms 802, 804 – (construed as the obtained sub-panels) onto a cure mandrel 206 – (construed as a central support, so as to at least partially surround the central support) and so that the slip sheet 806, 809 – (construed as the second surface of each sub-skin faces towards the central support and the first surface of each sub-skin faces outwards, see at least FIGS 8-9;
g) the composite preforms are spliced together at 902, 908 – (construed as joining together pairs of laterally adjacent sub-panels at the respective sub-skins, so as to define a pre-component having a continuous external surface defined by the set of the first surfaces of the sub-skins of the jointed sub-panels), see at least FIG 9. Serencsits discloses such techniques contribute to increasing the throughput of composite part manufacturing through the use of slip sheets for laying up composite preforms prior to attachment to cure mandrels. Further, the system can also reduce the capital costs through reducing the time that mandrels are tied up in fabricated composite parts. Further, the use of skin panels can also reduce costs associated with tooling and wear-and-tear, see [0180].
Lieven discloses manufacture of composite material fuselages for aircraft. The process to include forming a composite assembly on an outer surface 18 of a mandrel of pre-cured stringers 20 and ribs disposed on an inner skin 28, see at least FIGS. 1, 4, [0115], [0102]. And a step of:
h) disposing an outer skin 42 on the external surface of the composite assembly to thereby define a continuous external surface which encloses the composite assembly, see FIGS 5, 6 – (construed as laminating second layers of non-cured composite material on the external surface of the pre-component, so as to define a continuous external over-skin onto the pre-component, and so as to define the skin, the skin comprising the first layers and the second layers); and further
i) co-curing the assembly in an autoclave to strengthen the assembly, see at least [0121] – (construed as applying pre-set temperature and pressure to the assembly comprising the pre-component and the continuous external over-skin, so as to cure the composite material and determine the rigid and integral fixing of the second layers to the first layers). Liven discloses such steps form a structural function of allowing the assembly to withstand mechanical loads during flight, see [0120] – [0121].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Victorazzo’s process for fabricating an integrated panel structures to include the claimed processing steps as detailed above and taught by Serencsits and Lieven to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record:
Victorazzo (US 2014/0186586 A1) discloses a process for fabricating an integrated composite structural panel. The process to include the use of uncured plies of laminated prepreg sheets along with precured reinforcements as stringers and ribs.
Serencsits et al. (US 2023/0219307 A1) discloses a composite fuselage fabrication. The process includes the use of a plurality of composite preforms and arranging the composite preforms onto a cure mandrel.
Lieven et al. (US 2014/0186559 A1) discloses manufacture of composite material fuselages for aircraft. The process includes forming a composite assembly on an outer surface of a mandrel of pre-cured stringers and ribs disposed on an inner skin. And a step of disposing an outer skin on the external surface of the composite assembly.
However, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the structural limitations of the step a) of laminating first layers comprises forming lateral edges on said sub-skin, and wherein the step g) of joining comprises overlapping a lateral edge of a first sub-panel with a lateral edge of a second subpanel adjacent to the first sub-panel; and wherein the step a) of laminating first layers includes shaping, at a first one of said lateral edges, a receiving portion and shaping, at a second one of said lateral edges, a coupling portion, and wherein the step g) of joining includes: engaging the receiving portion of a first sub-panel with the coupling portion of a second sub-panel adjacent to the first sub-panel; and fixing the receiving portion and the coupling portion to one another; and in which the step g) of joining further includes fixing the receiving portion and the coupling portion to one another by interposing an adhesive layer between them; and further comprising the step of arranging the ribs of different sub-panels in respective positions adjacent to one another by means of the steps f) of arranging and g) of joining, to define a bulkhead of the structural component formed by the set of ribs, wherein the structural component is defined by a tank with at least two internal volumes separated by said bulkhead; and wherein step a) of laminating first layers is performed by means of a laminating device, and wherein the method further comprises the step of moving the forming tool towards the laminating device by an offset equal to the thickness of the set of second layers constituting the over-skin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights