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 .
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 02 June 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 17 have been written in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1-In line 11, upon further review, the limitation “stitching interconnecting” is awkward language. These two back-to-back words ending in “-ing” makes it difficult to ascertain what stitching and interconnecting are accomplishing in the claim. If the claim is indicating that there are stitches interconnecting the layers, a suggested way to say this is “a stitching interconnecting the layers.” This amendment would still align with the subsequent “stitching” limitations in claim 17, which are properly written as “the stitching.”
Claim 17-In line 11, upon further review, the limitation “stitching interconnecting” is awkward language. These two back-to-back words ending in “-ing” makes it difficult to ascertain what stitching and interconnecting are accomplishing in the claim. If the claim is indicating that there are stitches interconnecting the layers, a suggested way to say this is “a stitching interconnecting the layers.” This amendment would still align with the subsequent “stitching” limitations in claim 17, which are properly written as “the stitching.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Griess et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0047867 A1 (hereinafter called Griess), and further in view of Chess et al., U.S. Patent 4,992,317 A (hereinafter called Chess).
Regarding claim 1, Griess teaches an elongate aircraft structural component (See e.g., TITLE; element 102 in all respective figures; ¶ [0008]) for an aircraft (See e.g., FIG. 4; ¶ [0001]), the elongate aircraft structural component comprising:
a web (See e.g., element 120 in all corresponding figures; ¶ [0009]) and a flange (See e.g., element 122 in all corresponding figures; ¶ [0009]),
wherein the flange extends from the web (See e.g., ¶ [0009]) and comprises layers of composite material (See e.g., ¶ [0124]), a length in a direction of a length of the elongate aircraft structural component (See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 elements 122, 102), a width perpendicular to the length of the flange (See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 element 122 and detailed in ¶ [0141], FIGS. 6-8 elements 190, 192, 194), and a thickness smaller than, and perpendicular to, both the width and the length of the flange (See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 the thickness of element 122),
wherein the width of the flange varies along the length of the flange (See e.g., ¶s [0067], [0107]-[0108], & [0210]), whereby the flange comprises a wide flange region and a narrow flange region, the narrow flange region having a smaller width than the wide flange region (See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 elements 190, 192, 194; ¶s [0140]-[0142]), and
wherein the wide flange region comprises interconnecting the layers of composite material (See e.g., ¶ [0124]) along a path in a direction with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange (See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 element 108, which teaches a component parallel to the width of the flange, which is along a path in a direction with the wide flange region as set forth in the claim).
But Griess does not teach the wide flange region comprises stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material, the stitching lying at an angle from an axis parallel to the thickness of the flange such that the stitching extends along a path in a direction with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange.
However, Chess teaches the wide flange region comprises stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material, the stitching lying at an angle from an axis parallel to the thickness of the flange (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 112, 113) such that the stitching extends along a path in a direction (See FIGS. 1 & 3; e.g., column 2 line 61-column 3 line 9) with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 112, 113).
Accordingly, because the prior art of Griess and Chess teach that it was well-known to use layers of composite materials to form elongate aircraft structural components, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Griess and Chess before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the elongate aircraft structural component of Griess to incorporate the wide flange region comprises stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material, the stitching lying at an angle from an axis parallel to the thickness of the flange such that the stitching extends along a path in a direction with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange, as taught in the analogous art of Chess. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of provide considerable reinforcement, and the prevention of catastrophic failure.
Regarding claim 2, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the layers of composite material (Griess See e.g., ¶ [0124]) comprise layers of fiber composite material (Griess See e.g., ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the wide flange region (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 elements 122, 190, 192, 194; ¶s [0141], [0111], & [0067]) comprises a hole (Griess See e.g., FIG. 5 element 170; ¶ [0127]) for receiving a fastener (Griess See e.g., FIG. 5 element 172; ¶ [0127]) for fastening the flange to a skin section of the aircraft (Griess See e.g., ¶s [0003] & [0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the stitching (Chess See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 107-109, 112, 113) comprises a plurality of parallel stitchings interconnecting the layers of composite material (Chess See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 107-109).
Regarding claim 10, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the stitching comprises a plurality of intersecting stitchings (Chess FIG. 3 elements 107-109, 112, 113).
Regarding claim 11, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the direction of the path has equal components in a direction of the width of the flange and a direction of the thickness of the flange (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 elements 108 & 102, respectively).
Regarding claim 12, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the direction of the path has a component parallel to the length of the flange (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 element 108).
Regarding claim 13, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the elongate structural component is an aircraft stringer (Griess See e.g., element 102 in all respective figures; ¶s [0001], [0003], [0005], [0077], & [0079).
Regarding claim 14, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the narrow flange region (Griess See e.g., ¶s [0140]-[0142]) also comprises stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material (Chess See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 107-109, 112, 113).
Regarding claim 15, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches an aircraft structural assembly, comprising:
the elongate aircraft structural component according to claim 1 (Griess please refer to the rejection of the elongate aircraft structural component in claim 1 hereinabove); and
a skin section affixed to the flange of the elongate aircraft structural component (Griess See e.g., ¶s [0003] & [0127]).
Regarding claim 16, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches an aircraft (Griess See e.g., FIG. 4; ¶ [0001]) comprising: the aircraft structural assembly according to claim 15 (Griess please refer to the rejection of the aircraft structural assembly in claim 15 hereinabove).
Regarding claim 17, Griess teaches a method (See e.g., FIG. 19 block 2010) of fabricating an elongate aircraft structural component (See e.g., TITLE; element 102 in all respective figures; ¶ [0008]) for an aircraft (See e.g., FIG. 4; ¶ [0001]), the elongate aircraft structural component comprising:
providing a web (See e.g., element 120 in all corresponding figures; ¶ [0009]);
providing a flange (See e.g., element 122 in all corresponding figures; ¶ [0009]),
extending from the web (See e.g., ¶ [0009]) and comprising layers of composite material (See e.g., ¶ [0124]), a length in a direction of a length of the elongate aircraft structural component (See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 elements 122, 102), a width perpendicular to the length of the flange (See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 element 122 and detailed in ¶ [0141], FIGS. 6-8 elements 190, 192, 194), and a thickness smaller than, and perpendicular to, both the width and the length of the flange (See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 the thickness of element 122),
wherein the width of the flange varies along the length of the flange (See e.g., ¶s [0067], [0107]-[0108], & [0210]), whereby the flange comprises a wide flange region and a narrow flange region, the narrow flange region having a smaller width than the wide flange region (See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 elements 190, 192, 194; ¶s [0140]-[0142]), and
interconnecting the layers of composite material (See e.g., ¶ [0124]) in the wide flange region (See e.g., ¶ [0124]) along a path in a direction with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange (See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 element 108, which teaches a component parallel to the width of the flange, which is along a path in a direction with the wide flange region as set forth in the claim).
But Griess does not teach providing stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material in the wide flange region, the stitching lying at an angle from an axis parallel to the thickness of the flange such that the stitching extends along a path in a direction with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange.
However, Chess teaches providing stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material in the wide flange region, the stitching lying at an angle from an axis parallel to the thickness of the flange (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 112, 113) such that the stitching extends along a path in a direction (See FIGS. 1 & 3; e.g., column 2 line 61-column 3 line 9) with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange (See e.g., FIG. 3 elements 112, 113).
Accordingly, because the prior art of Griess and Chess teach that it was well-known to use layers of composite materials to form elongate aircraft structural components, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Griess and Chess before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Griess to incorporate providing stitching interconnecting the layers of composite material in the wide flange region, the stitching lying at an angle from an axis parallel to the thickness of the flange such that the stitching extends along a path in a direction with at least a component parallel to the width of the flange, as taught in the analogous art of Chess. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of provide considerable reinforcement, and the prevention of catastrophic failure.
Regarding claim 19, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 17 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the method comprises providing the wide flange region (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 elements 122, 190, 192, 194; ¶s [0141], [0111], & [0067]) with a hole (Griess See e.g., FIG. 5 element 170; ¶ [0127]) for receiving a fastener (Griess See e.g., FIG. 5 element 172; ¶ [0127]) for fastening the flange to a skin section of the aircraft (Griess See e.g., ¶s [0003] & [0127]).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Griess, and further in view of Chess, and further in view of LIU, CN-116462525-A, published 2023-07-21 (hereinafter called LIU).
Regarding claim 3, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 2 hereinabove, further teaches the layers of fiber composite material (Griess See e.g., ¶ [0124]).
But neither Griess nor Chess teach that the layers of fiber composite material comprise carbon fibers.
However, LIU teaches the layers of fiber composite material comprise carbon fibers (See e.g., Title; page 4 line 8 (NOTE: the line count includes the blank lines separating blocks of text)).
Regarding claim 4, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 2 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the layers of fiber composite material (Griess See e.g., ¶ [0124]) comprise unidirectional-fiber layers orientated along the length of the flange (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 element 122; ¶ [0124]).
But Griess is silent regarding the layers of fiber composite material comprise unidirectional-fiber layers, having continuous fibers orientated along the length of the flange, and chopped strand layers, having discontinuous fibers orientated in a plurality of directions within a plane of each respective chopped strand layer.
However, LIU teaches the layers of fiber composite material comprise unidirectional-fiber layers, having continuous fibers, and chopped strand layers, having discontinuous fibers orientated in a plurality of directions within a plane of each respective chopped strand layer (See e.g., FIG. 6; page 5 lines 27-29; page 8 lines 27-29).
Accordingly, because the prior art of Griess, Chess, and LIU teach that it was well-known to use layers of composite materials on various aircraft structures, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Griess, Chess, and LIU before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the elongate aircraft structural component of the combined invention of Griess and Chess to incorporate the layers of fiber composite material comprise unidirectional-fiber layers, having continuous fibers, and chopped strand layers, having discontinuous fibers orientated in a plurality of directions within a plane of each respective chopped strand layer, as taught in the analogous art of LIU, and having these continuous fibers oriented along the length of the flange, as required by the instant claim. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the bonding force between the layers and improving the toughness of the composite material, as suggested by LIU (See e.g., page 8, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 5, Griess, as modified by Chess and LIU in the rejection of claim 4 hereinabove, further teaches wherein at least 50% of the layers of composite material are the unidirectional-fiber layers (LIU See e.g., FIG. 6) in the flange (Griess See e.g., element 122 in all corresponding figures; ¶ [0009]).
Regarding claim 18, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 17 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the layers of fiber composite material (Griess See e.g., ¶ [0124) comprise unidirectional-fiber layers orientated along the length of the flange (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 6, 10, 14, 16 element 122; ¶ [0124]).
But Griess and Chess are silent regarding the layers of fiber composite material comprise unidirectional-fiber layers, having continuous fibers orientated along the length of the flange, and chopped strand layers, having discontinuous fibers orientated in a plurality of directions within a plane of each respective chopped strand layers.
However, LIU teaches the layers of composite material comprise unidirectional-fiber layers, having continuous fibers, and chopped strand layers, having discontinuous fibers orientated in a plurality of directions within a plane of each respective chopped strand layer (See e.g., FIG. 6; page 5 lines 27-29; page 8 lines 27-29).
Accordingly, because the prior art of Griess, Chess, and LIU teach that it was well-known to use layers of composite materials on various aircraft structures, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Griess, Chess, and LIU before him, before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the method of the combined invention of Griess and Chess to incorporate the layers of composite material comprise unidirectional-fiber layers, having continuous fibers, and chopped strand layers, having discontinuous fibers orientated in a plurality of directions within a plane of each respective chopped strand layer, as taught in the analogous art of LIU, and having these continuous fibers oriented along the length of the flange, as required by the instant claim. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the bonding force between the layers and improving the toughness of the composite material, as suggested by LIU (See e.g., page 8, lines 25-26).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Griess, and further in view of Chess, and further in view of Hallander et al., U.S. Patent 2017/0129207 A1 (hereinafter called Hallander).
Regarding claim 7, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 6 hereinabove, further teaches the hole (Griess See e.g., FIG. 5 element 170; ¶ [0127]).
But neither Griess nor Chess teaches the hole does not interrupt the stitching.
However, Hallander teaches the hole does not interrupt the stitching (See e.g., FIG. 13b elements W & 15; ¶s [0055], [0091], [0166], [0185]-[0186], [0251] & [0264], where the disclosure of composite material with stitched elements (i.e., 15 and 17), and elements 17 hold and keep the distance between elements 15, and the separations between elements 15 creating a window (W) through which a bolt hole will be drilled, teach the hole does not interrupt the stitching).
Accordingly, because the prior art of Griess, Chess, and Hallander teach that it was well-known to use and secure layers of composite materials on various aeronautical composite structures using various techniques, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Griess, Chess, and Hallander before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the elongate aircraft structural component of the combined invention of Griess, Chess, and Hallander to incorporate the hole does not interrupt the stitching, as taught in the analogous art of Hallander. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of optimizing the bolt bearing strength, which will also improve the strength within the pre-preg plies and also improve the bolt bearing-, open hole compression-, interlaminar shear-intralaminar tension- and pure tension strength, as suggested by Hallander (See e.g., ¶ [0264]).
Regarding claim 8, Griess, as modified by Chess and Hallander in the rejection of claim 6 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the stitching (Hallander See e.g., FIG. 13b elements 15) surrounds the hole (Hallander See e.g., FIG. 13b element W).
Regarding claim 20, Griess, as modified by Chess in the rejection of claim 19 hereinabove, further teaches the providing the wide flange region (Griess See e.g., FIGS. 5-8 elements 122, 190, 192, 194; ¶s [0141], [0111], & [0067]) with a hole (Griess See e.g., FIG. 5 element 170; ¶ [0127]).
But neither Griess nor Chess teaches providing the hole such that the hole does not interrupt the stitching.
However, Hallander teaches that providing the hole such that the hole does not interrupt the stitching (See e.g., FIG. 13b elements W & 15; ¶s [0055], [0091], [0166], [0185]-[0186], [0251] & [0264], where the disclosure of composite material with stitched elements (i.e., 15 and 17), and elements 17 hold and keep the distance between elements 15, and the separations between elements 15 creating a window (W) through which a bolt hole will be drilled, teach providing the hole such that the hole does not interrupt the stitching) was well-known.
Accordingly, because the prior art of Griess, Chess, and Hallander teach that it was well-known to use and secure layers of composite materials on various aeronautical composite structures using various techniques, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Griess, Chess, and Hallander before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combined invention of Griess and Chess to incorporate providing the hole such that the hole does not interrupt the stitching, as taught in the analogous art of Hallander. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of optimizing the bolt bearing strength, which will also improve the strength within the pre-preg plies and also improve the bolt bearing-, open hole compression-, interlaminar shear-intralaminar tension- and pure tension strength, as suggested by Hallander (See e.g., ¶ [0264]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
17 July 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights