Detailed Action
The communications received 03/13/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 .
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(s) 21-25, 28-35, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (US 2010/0243795) hereinafter MCD in view of Page et al (US 2002/0145075) hereinafter PAG.
As for claim 21, MCD teaches a blended wing body aircraft [Abstract] which is produced via molding (as it has mold lines) [0019], the aircraft in BWB form is particularly aerodynamic [0004].
MCD fails to teach the mold to produce each panel/segment.
BUR teaches a modular molding system for manufacturing an aerodynamic product (windmill blade) [Abstract], the system comprising:
at least a common tooling component [Fig. 1 #200; 0033], comprising at least one or more of:
a first component in a first shape [Fig. 1 #70]; and
a second component in a second shape (the one about to be added) [Fig. 1 #70]; and
wherein connecting the at least a common tooling components to the at least a modular tooling (as multiple tooling components are connected together) component forms a blade [Abstract; 0033],
wherein at least a tooling interface component [Fig. 1 #76 and 76A-B; 0033] is used to connect the at least a common tooling component at a predetermined position and orientation relative to the at least a modular tooling component (so that they are flush in their connection) [Fig. 1 #76 and 76A-B; 0033; 0035]. BUR additionally suggests that numerous additional modifications and variations can be made [0036] and in particular that the assembly can be made with low cost and is highly customizable [0004-5].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the molding system of BUR to produce the blended wing aircraft of MCD in order to produce the aircraft in a manner that is low cost while still allowing for customizable molding. As both BUR and MCD pertain to the creation of aerodynamic products (wind turbine blades and aircraft) they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the production method of BUR to form the aircraft of MCD. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to modify and combine the modular mold system of MCD to form the aircraft of BUR which the Examiner understands would mean that there would be multiple tooling components
It is understood that each of the segments of MCD would be molded with a respective tooling component that would be connected together and therefore there would be a common tooling component formed of one set of components with shapes corresponding to some parts of the plane and a common modular tooling component formed of another set of shapes corresponding to another part of the plane which would then be connected to each other to form the overall molding body.
As for claim 22, MCD/BUR teach claim 21, and BUR further teaches wherein the at least a tooling interface component comprises a fixture component [Fig. 3 #76B], wherein the fixture component is configured to:
maintain a fixed position for the at least a common tooling component to the at least a modular tooling component (by providing a fixed anchor point) [Fig. 3 #76B]; and
align the at least a common tooling component to the at least a modular tooling component (as it has a gap into which another component slides into) [Fig. 3 #76B].
As for claim 23, MCD/BUR teach claim 21, and MCD further teaches that a nose is formed, a wing is formed, and a body is formed (pointed nose, wings, and body) [0004].
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have has the first shape correspond to the nose, the second shape comprise a wing, and a third shape comprise a main body, as this would have been a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form using the first, second, and third shapes with the expectation of successfully forming the requisite components of the aircraft.
As for 24, MCD/BUR teaches claim 21, and the connection of the at least a common tooling component at a predetermined position and orientation relative to the at least a modular tooling component comprises providing a predetermined sweep angle to the second shape is a matter of forming the connecting part of the body with the wing of the aircraft of the aircraft.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the body with the at least a modular tooling component and the wing with either of the other tooling components as this would have amounted to a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilizing the modular tooling component with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
As for claim 25, MCD/BUR teach claim 24, wherein the predetermined sweep angle comprises a variable sweep angle, wherein the variable sweep angle is adjustable based on operational parameters is understood to be the part of achieving a sweep angle required for the wing which would be achieved by the flexible support plates [BUR: 0033].
As for claim 28, MCD/BUR teach claim 21, wherein the at least a modular component comprises one or more of a plurality of configurations (via flexible support plates) [BUR: 0033]. It is understood that the at least a modular component would include multiple sizes to accommodate the shape of various parts of the aircraft.
As for claim 29, MCD/BUR teach claim 21, and wherein the at least a modular tooling component comprises one or more of at least a fuselage component and a collar component is a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilize the modular tooling component.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the body including the nose and the collar with the at least a modular tooling component as this would have amounted to a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilizing the modular tooling component with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
As for claim 30, MCD/BUR teach claim 21, wherein the at least a modular tooling component and the second component meet along a leading edge of the aircraft is a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilize the modular tooling component and the second component.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the modular tooling component and second component meet along a leading edge of the aircraft with the at least a modular tooling component as this would have amounted to a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilizing the modular tooling component and the second component with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
As for claim 31, MCD teaches a blended wing body aircraft [Abstract] which is produced via molding (as it has mold lines) [0019], the aircraft in BWB form is particularly aerodynamic [0004].
BUR teaches a modular molding system for manufacturing an aerodynamic product (windmill blade) [Abstract], the system comprising:
at least a common tooling component [Fig. 1 #200; 0033], comprising at least one or more of:
a first component in a first shape [Fig. 1 #70]; and
a second component in a second shape (the one about to be added) [Fig. 1 #70]; and
wherein connecting the at least a common tooling components to the at least a modular tooling (as multiple tooling components are connected together) component forms a blade [Abstract; 0033],
wherein at least a tooling interface component [Fig. 1 #76 and 76A-B; 0033] is used to connect the at least a common tooling component at a predetermined position and orientation relative to the at least a modular tooling component (so that they are flush in their connection) [Fig. 1 #76 and 76A-B; 0033; 0035]. BUR additionally suggests that numerous additional modifications and variations can be made [0036] and in particular that the assembly can be made with low cost and is highly customizable [0004-5].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the molding system of BUR to produce the blended wing aircraft of MCD in order to produce the aircraft in a manner that is low cost while still allowing for customizable molding. As both BUR and MCD pertain to the creation of aerodynamic products (wind turbine blades and aircraft) they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the production method of BUR to form the aircraft of MCD. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to modify and combine the modular mold system of MCD to form the aircraft of BUR which the Examiner understands would mean that there would be multiple tooling components
It is understood that each of the segments of MCD would be molded with a respective tooling component that would be connected together and therefore there would be a common tooling component formed of one set of components with shapes corresponding to some parts of the plane and a common modular tooling component formed of another set of shapes corresponding to another part of the plane which would then be connected to each other to form the overall molding body.
The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth shapes and what aspect of the aircraft they form is a selection of which shapes to form with corresponding molds.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth shapes such that they meet along the claimed edges as this would have amounted to a selection of which segments of the aircraft to form utilizing which molds with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
As for claim 32, MCD/BUR teach claim 31, and BUR further teaches wherein the at least a tooling interface component comprises a fixture component [Fig. 3 #76B], wherein the fixture component is configured to: maintain a fixed position for the at least a common tooling component to the at least a modular tooling component (via providing a slot) [Fig. 3 #76B]; and align the at least a common tooling component to the at least a modular tooling component (via providing a slot for the connecting piece to enter) [Fig. 3 #76A-B].
As for claim 33, MCD/BUR teach claim 31, and MCD teaches that the aircraft has a nose (pointed nose), a wing, a tail, a main body and a BWB [0004; 0009; 0023].
The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth shapes and what aspect of the aircraft they form is a selection of which shapes to form with corresponding molds.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth shapes such that they comprise the wing, tail, main body, and BWB as this would have amounted to a selection of which segments of the aircraft to form utilizing which molds with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
As for claim 34, MCD/BUR teach claim 31, wherein connecting the at least a common tooling component at a predetermined position and orientation relative to the at least a module tooling component provides a predetermined sweep angle to the second shape as this section would be understood to have the wing and body connection which would require a predetermined sweep angle to be formed.
As for 35, MCD/BUR teach claim 34, wherein the predetermined sweep angle comprises a variable sweep angle, wherein the variable sweep angle is adjustable based on operational parameters as the wing and body connection is understood to be adjusted based on operational parameters (i.e. the desired drag) [MCD: 0015].
As for claim 38, MCD/BUR claim 31, wherein the at least a modular component comprises one or more of a plurality of configurations (via flexible support plates) [BUR: 0033]. It is understood that the at least a modular component would include multiple sizes to accommodate the shape of various parts of the aircraft.
As for claim 39, MCD/BUR teach claim 31, and wherein the at least a modular tooling component comprises one or more of at least a fuselage component and a collar component is a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilize the modular tooling component.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the body including the nose and the collar with the at least a modular tooling component as this would have amounted to a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilizing the modular tooling component with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
As for claim 40, MCD/BUR teach claim 31, wherein the at least a modular tooling component and the second component meet along a leading edge of the aircraft is a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilize the modular tooling component and the second component.
In accordance with the MPEP, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the modular tooling component and second component meet along a leading edge of the aircraft with the at least a modular tooling component as this would have amounted to a selection of which shapes of the aircraft to form utilizing the modular tooling component and the second component with an expectation of successfully forming the aircraft.
Claim(s) 26-27 and 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCD/PAG as applied to claims 21 and 31 and further in view of Nitsch et al (US 2002/0051829) hereinafter NIT.
As for claims 26 and 36, MCD/BUR teach claims 21 and 31 but do not teach that at least a common tooling component is created through an injection molding process, in particular is silent to exactly how the tooling component would be created.
NIT teaches that parts of molds can be created via injection-moulding [0019; 0041].
In accordance with the MPEP, Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the injection molding method of NIT with the teachings of MCD/BUR in order to produce the mold of MCD/BUR as this would have amounted to a combination of a mold element and a means by which is its made in order to predictably provide said element.
As for claims 27 and 37, MCD/BUR teach claim 21, but fails to teach an automated latching system in the tooling interface.
NIT teaches that when joining together two parts of a mold that one simple manner of employs an automatic joining via snap-in latch connections [0041; claim 5].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have obvious to have joined together the two mold parts of MCD/BUR as taught by NIT as this would allow for simple automatic engagement of the tooling elements. As both MCD/BUR and NIT pertain to molding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12162189 hereinafter ‘189. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As for claim 21, see claims 1 and 11 of ‘189.
As for claim 22, see claims 10 and 20 of ‘189
As for claim 23, see claims 1 and 11 of ‘189
As for claim 24, see claims 1 and 11 of ‘189
As for claim 25, it is understood that the sweep angle is adjustable based on operational parameters as the modular tooling component is the part that provides a predetermined sweep angle.
As for claim 28, see claim 5-7 and 13-17 of ‘189
As for claim 29, see claims 3-7 and 13-17 of ‘189.
As for claim 30, see claim 11 of ‘189, the edge understood to be leading edges where the shaping components are joined and meet.
As for claim 31, see claims 11, and 13-17 of ‘189.
As for claim 32, see claim 20 of ‘189
As for claim 33, see claim 11, 13-14, and 16 of ‘189
As for claim 34, see claim 11 of ‘189
As for claim 35, it is understood that the sweep angle is adjustable based on operational parameters as the modular tooling component is the part that provides a predetermined sweep angle.
Claims 26-27 and 36-37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of ‘189 in view of Nitsch et al (US 2002/0051829) hereinafter NIT.
As for claims 26 and 36, ‘189 teach claims 21 and 31 but do not teach that at least a common tooling component is created through an injection molding process, in particular is silent to exactly how the tooling component would be created.
NIT teaches that parts of molds can be created via injection-moulding [0019; 0041].
In accordance with the MPEP, Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the injection molding method of NIT with the teachings of ‘189 in order to produce the mold of ‘189 as this would have amounted to a combination of a mold element and a means by which is its made in order to predictably provide said element.
As for claims 27 and 37, ‘189 teach claim 21, but fails to teach an automated latching system in the tooling interface.
NIT teaches that when joining together two parts of a mold that one simple manner of employs an automatic joining via snap-in latch connections [0041; claim 5].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have obvious to have joined together the two mold parts of ‘189 as taught by NIT as this would allow for simple automatic engagement of the tooling elements. As both ‘189 and NIT pertain to molding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Claims 21-23, 28-29, 31-33, and 38-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11541576 hereinafter ‘576. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As for claim 21, see claim 1 of ‘576.
As for claim 22, see claim 6 (jig is a fixture) of ‘576
As for claim 23, see claims 3, and 7-8 of ‘576
As for claim 28, see claims 3, 7-10 of ‘576
As for claim 29, see claim 3 of ‘576.
As for claim 31, see claims 1-3, and 7-10 of ‘576.
As for claim 32, see claim 6 (jig is a fixture) of ‘576
As for claim 33, see claims 1, 3, and 7-8 (it is understood the molding of the shape of the BWB includes a BWB and a tail section) of ‘576
As for claim 38, see claims 1, 3, and 7-8 of ‘576
As for claim 39, see claim 3 of ‘576
As for claim 40, see claims 1, 3, and 8=7-8 of ‘576
Claims 26-27 and 36-37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of ‘576 in view of Nitsch et al (US 2002/0051829) hereinafter NIT.
As for claims 26 and 36, ‘576 teach claims 21 and 31 but do not teach that at least a common tooling component is created through an injection molding process, in particular is silent to exactly how the tooling component would be created.
NIT teaches that parts of molds can be created via injection-moulding [0019; 0041].
In accordance with the MPEP, Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(A)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the injection molding method of NIT with the teachings of ‘576 in order to produce the mold of ‘576 as this would have amounted to a combination of a mold element and a means by which is its made in order to predictably provide said element.
As for claims 27 and 37, ‘576 teach claim 21 and an alignment jig [see claim 6], but fails to teach an automated latching system in the tooling interface.
NIT teaches that when joining together two parts of a mold that one simple manner of employs an automatic joining via snap-in latch connections [0041; claim 5].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have obvious to have joined together the two mold parts of ‘576 as taught by NIT as this would allow for simple automatic engagement of the tooling elements. As both ‘576 and NIT pertain to molding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/ELISA H VERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1748