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 .
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 12-15 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 claim 12, the claim recites “the spar web of the Y-shaped stringer” at lines 8 and 9. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. At line 2, the claim makes clear that the double Y-shaped cross section spar comprises a spar web. However, there is nothing in the claim that describes or defines a spar web as part of “the Y-shaped stringer”. While it seems to follow from the specification that the stringer web (110) of the Y-shaped stringer becomes part of the spar web in the double Y-shaped spar, the stringer web is not itself “the spar web” set forth in the claim. Similarly, “ a second spar web” recited in connection with the “second Y-shaped stringer” is unclear for substantially the same reason. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Further, at lines 9 and 10, the claim recites “a second Y-shaped stringer”. It appears that this is referring back to “a second Y-shaped stringer” recited at line 7. However, this is not clear because the recitation does not positively refer back to the stringer of line 7. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Further still, the claim begins with “A method of claim 1”. This should be - - The method of claim 1 - - .
It is noted that claim 12 is understood by the examiner to recite further processing steps that are performed after the processing/method steps of claim 1 have been performed. In other words, all the method steps of claim 1 are required to produce “the Y-shaped stringer” at line 6 of claim 12 and the method steps of claim 12 begin after the method of claim 1 has been performed. It is further noted that the amendment to claim 12 in response to the section 112 rejection of the claim should make sure that this clarity is maintained. An amendment that changes the scope of claim 12 such that it does not positively require the method steps of claim 1 as part of its scope may be considered an independent and distinct invention subject to election by original presentation. For example, the claim should not be changed such that the Y-shaped stringer recited in claim 12 is merely a product by process limitation. Similarly, the method steps of claim 13 are understood to require all the method steps of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888).
Regarding claim 1, Saini et al. teach a method for manufacturing a stringer made of composite material (Abstract; Figures 2, 3, comprising placing the composite material on a first mold and a second mold (Figures 5, 7 and 8; (74) (84)); placing composite material on a third mold (Figures 5, 7 and 8 (70) (72) (78)); and closing the first, second and third mold to obtain a closed mold assembly containing the stringer preform (Figure 8).
Saini et al. teach that the stringer can be formed to have a variety of shapes, having a desired cross section (paragraphs [0043] and [0047]), but do not explicitly teach the stringer is a Y-shaped stringer (100) as claimed comprising a stringer web (110) having a cross-section with an I-shape, lower flanges (130a) and (130b), a first opened triangular-shaped cross-section structure (120) comprising first and second lower vertices (120a) and (120b) respectively joined to the lower flanges, and an upper vertex (120c) connected to a first edge of the stringer web, wherein an assembly of the first opened triangular-shaped cross-section structure and the stringer web form in cross section a Y-shape and having a shape such that mold curvatures as claimed are utilized to produce the angles (e.g. see Figures 1, 4 and 5 of the instant application with the angles designated α and β).
However, Miguez Charines et al. teach an analogous stringer wherein the stringer is a Y-shaped stringer comprising a stringer web having a cross-section with an I-shape, lower flanges, a first opened triangular-shaped cross-section structure comprising first and second lower vertices respectively joined to the lower flanges, and an upper vertex connected to a first edge of the stringer web, wherein an assembly of the first opened triangular-shaped cross-section structure and the stringer web form in cross section a Y-shape and having a shape such that the corresponding angle in the stringer has an angle within the claimed range (e.g. the claimed angle of the mold, as shown in Applicant’s Figure 5, produces the corresponding angle in the stringer in Figures 1 and 4) (paragraphs [0050]-[0052] Figure 2A; the obtuse angles theta and delta shown between (2) and (4) in Figure 2a correspond with the angle α of the instant application).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Miguez Charines et al. and to have formed a Y-shaped stringer having the claimed components and corresponding angles with the method of Saini et al., as suggested by Miguez Charines et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of forming a stringer having a known and suitable cross-sectional shape for desired composite stringer applications. Saini et al. suggest the method can be adapted to form composite structures having other shapes and Miguez Charines et al. disclose an analogous and applicable shape suited for formation by the method of Saini et al. Further, in order to form the corresponding angles in the molded Y-shaped stringer as suggested by Miguez Charines et al., one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the mold curvature in the first and second molds of Saini et al. would need to be set to values within the claimed range; otherwise, the molds would not form the required angles in the product.
Additionally, Saini et al. do not teach curing the preform in the closed mold assembly with an autoclave cycle to form the stringer. However, each of Turmeau et al. (paragraphs [0003], [0033]-[0036] and [0052]), Shimono et al. (Figure 3 and paragraph [0036]), Amaoka et al. (col. 5, lines 25-45) or Shimada et al. (Figures 9 and 10; col. 8, line 45-col. 9, line 45) teach analogous methods wherein the preform is cured with a closed assembly that is exposed to heat and pressure/autoclave cycle.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having combined the teaching of Saini et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have cured the preform in the closed mold assembly of Saini et al. with an autoclave cycle as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of providing a stringer that has been polymerized/cured/hardened/compacted that can maintain its shape and is ready for use (e.g. as a semi-finished/finished stringer that is no longer in the form of a prepreg/preform).
As to claim 6, Miguez Charines et al. teach the lower flanges are perpendicular to the stringer web (Figure 2a). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 7, Saini et al. teach a carbon fiber resin material as claimed (paragraphs [0042] and [0044]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2019/0061309).
As to claim 2, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach cutting the stringer. However, Kwon et al. teach an analogous method wherein the stringer is cut (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Kwon et al. and to have cut the stringer of Saini et al., as suggested by Kwon et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Kwon et al. of facilitating the further functionality of the composite stringer (paragraphs [0002]-[0009] and [0037]-]0040]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Pinillos Martinez et al. (US 2016/0318214).
As to claim 3, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach curing at the temperature as claimed. However, Pinillos Martinez et al. teach an analogous method wherein the stringer is cured at a temperature within the claimed range (paragraphs [0038] and [0039]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Pinillos Martinez et al. and to have cured the stringer of Saini et al. at a temperature as claimed, as suggested by Pinillos Martinez et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively curing the composite preform/prepreg to a desired state.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of any one of Perez Pastor et al. (US 2021/0069997), Cheng (US 2020/0353708), or Arevalo Rodriguez et al. (US 2012/0001023).
As to claim 4, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach including a rowing as claimed. However, each of Perez Pastor et al. (paragraph [0042]), Cheng (Figures 8A; 9A and 13), and Arevalo Rodriguez et al. (paragraph [0059]) teach analogous methods wherein a rowing is included with the composite structure.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. any one of the secondary references and to have including a rowing within the mold of Saini et al. such that it was included in the shaped stringer/composite, as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively providing an additional degree of reinforcement/support to the stringer/composite
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Shuck (US 8,904,847).
As to claim 5, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach forming the molds as claimed. However, Shuck teaches an analogous method wherein the mold is made by an additive printing process as claimed (Abstract; col. 3, lines 18-27; direct laser metal deposition or laminated object manufacturing).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Shuck and to have produced the molds of Saini et al. as claimed, as suggested by Shuck, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively producing molds through known techniques. Further, it is noted that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to produce a variety of structures, including molds as claimed, via additive printing processes/manufacturing techniques absent a showing of new or unexpected results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Balsa-Gonzalez et al. (US 11,427,297).
As to claim 8, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach integrating a vertical fin as claimed. However, Balsa-Gonzales et al. teach an analogous method wherein a vertical fin is incorporated as claimed (Figures 3 and 5)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Balsa-Gonzalez et al. and to have integrated a vertical fin as claimed in the method of forming the stringer of Saini et al., as suggested by Balsa-Gonzalez et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively reinforcing and strengthening the stringer for a desired application.
Claims 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Stawski et al. (US 2014/0341641).
As to claims 9 and 11-15, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach further processing the Y-shaped stringer into a double Y-shaped spar as claimed. However, Stawski et al. teach and suggest an analogous method wherein a double Y-shaped spar is formed/utilized (Figures 3A and 3E; paragraphs [0023]-[0027]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Stawski et al. and to have further processed the Y-shaped stringer of Saini et al. as claimed to form it into a double Y-shaped spar, as suggested by Stawski et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively forming a final composite structure/torsion box (e.g. wing, skin, fuselage) having reinforced structural elements attached at both upper and lower surfaces to the Y-shaped cross-sectional shape. Further, any particular method steps associated with attaching upper and lower surfaces to stringers/spars are understood to be reasonably suggested by the combination to one having ordinary skill in the art as routine expedients (also see the section 112b rejection above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saini et al. (US 2023/0182417) in view of Miguez Charines et al. (US 2015/0183503) and any one of Turmeau et al. (US 2019/0366598), Shimono et al. (US 2018/0257317), Amaoka et al. (US 6,237,873) or Shimada et al. (US 5,209,888), and further in view of Stawski et al. (US 2014/0341641), as applied to claims 9 and 11-15 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2020/0353708).
As to claim 10, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Saini et al. do not teach the composite laminate layers as claimed. However, Cheng teaches an analogous method wherein composite laminate layers as claimed are suggested (paragraphs [0112] and [0113]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Saini et al. and Cheng and to have utilized composite laminate layers as claimed in the method of forming the stringer of Saini et al., as suggested by Chen, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively forming a stringer having desired properties and to improve fabrication quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights