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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 9/15/2026. Claims 1-6 have been amended. Claim 7 is added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection utilizing Vichniakov et al. (US 10,661,507).
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 1-7 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.
As previously requested, Applicant should use consistent terminology throughout the claims, including using the same adjectives initially recites.
Claim 1 recites “a respective patch element” and then refers to “each patch element.” Examiner assume these are the same but should use consistent language and not drop and add adjectives. The same is true for “respective cut side edge.”
The preamble of Claim 1 recites “at least one stiffening stringer” and then refers back to “the stringer.” This should state “the at least one stiffening stringer.” Whatever term Applicant chooses to define such a term should remain consistent throughout the claims for clarity.
Likewise, it is unclear how “a respective flange” is related to the previously introduced “at least one flange.” Examiner assumes they are the same. Applicant must use the same terminology or else redefine the previously term, .e.g “ the least one flange comprises a respective flange.” Regardless, the exact term introduced, including adjective, must be carried through the claim for clarity.
In Claim 3, “two lateral flanges” has no connection to the at least one flange previously recited even though it would appear to further define this. Applicant must specify the at least one flange comprises two lateral flanges.
In Claim 3 the closed-profile cavity is formed in step c) whereas in Claim 4, the closed-profile cavity is filled before step c), i.e. before it exists. This does not make sense.
In Claim 7, “the pressure applied outside said assembly during step d) has no antecedent basis since no such pressure is applied in step d), just pressure and temperature generally to the assembly without a designated location, i.e. outside, being specified.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Vichniakov et al. (US 10,661,507) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Ross et al. (US 2016/0176500).
Regarding Claims 1, Vichniakov et al. teaches forming composite skin [14] and a composite stiffener [12], such as a stringer (See Fig. 1 and col 6, lines 45-58, wherein the stringer [12] has a raised portion protruding from a flange in a T-shape), and teaches the composites are made from multiple plies, i.e. layers, and formed on some sort of tool (See col. 7, lines 1-19, teaching layers of prepreg form each of skin [14] and stringer [12], and they on some surface, i.e. a tool; note it is implicit or at least would have been obvious the composite skin is or may stacked on a tool in known methods, such as is standard in composite skin manufacture, see, for example, instant PgPub 2025/0083398, page 1, paragraphs [0006]-[0012], indicating multiple composite layers formed arranged on a tool are standard for forming composite skin and stringer, and instant PgPub, page 1, paragraphs [0021]-[0023], wherein inner mold line methods wherein both the stringer and skin on arranged on the same tool is taught as being known in the prior art), and then joined via heat and pressure (See col. 1, lines 42-47, wherein curing and joining occurs under heat and pressure).
Vichniakov et al. further teaches laminating patch elements [22’],[24’] opposite to the side of the skin [14] and covering the edge of the flange by folding the patch elements over said tapered edge and onto both the skin [14] as a second portion and on the top of the string flange as a third portion to form said patch elements [22’],[24’] into an integral part of the structure upon curing (See Fig. 2 and col. 7, lines 20-56).
Further, described above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use IML tooling to form the stringer/skin alignment in Vichniakov et al. Vichniakov et al. describes placing the patch elements [22’],[24’] over machined edges and applying the skin [14] either after (See Fig. 2) or before (See Fig. 5) the patch elements. When performing IML molding to form such a structure as in Vichniakov et al. the overhang portion patch elements [22’],[24’] in Figs. 2 or 5 will be situated as claimed with the flange wrapped portion opposite the skin [14] a third portion between the stringer an IML mold and the opposing portion on the skin in Fig. 2 being between tool and skin or between skin and stringer in Fig. 6 during IML curing. Note IML curing can use an autoclave and simply uses an appropriately shaped cavity for the stringer instead of supporting from the skin side.
Vichniakov et al. teaches the flange edges of the stiffener/stringer may be formed via machining (See col. 7, lines 16-19), but doesn’t specifically teach a slanted directional cut on the edge as claimed. However, similar stringer machined in a slanted direction that extends toward the skin is known to reduce bond line stress (See page 3, paragraph [0039] and page 3, paragraph [0050] and Figs. 1 and 3A-C, clearly showing the tapered/slanted flange ends; Examiner submits machining may be considered a form of cutting and further not cutting to shape the ends of the flange is indicated as a known process, see instant PgPub, page 2, paragraphs [0030]-[0031], wherein trimming/cutting is taught a known method of forming the flange ends, thus at least rendering obvious trimming/cutting as a method for forming the tapered ends in Ross et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious during the machine to cut the edge in a tapered slant as claimed. Doing so would have predictably reduced stress at the bond line between the stringer and skin in Vichniakov et al.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 7, Vichniakov et al. teaches T-shapes as described above. Further, other stringer shapes are well-known. Ross et al. teaches T and J profiles (See Fig. 3B and Fig. 3C) and two flanges with a closed cavity (See Fig. 3A), which is known to be formed using expandable inserts to which pressure is applied to expand the bladder and to equal the outside pressure during curing/autoclaving as admitted in the background (See instant PgPub pages 1-2, paragraph [0022]-[0026]). These various stringer designs all would have been obvious in Vichniakov et al. to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention as well-known alternative designs for stringers.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vichniakov et al., Ross et al. and AAPA as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Miranda et al. (US 2019/0030842).
Regarding Claim 6, Vichniakov et al., Ross et al. and AAPA teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Vichniakov et al., Ross et al. and AAPA fail to specifically teach heating the expandable insert/bladder. However, heating such bladders during curing is well-known to facilitate even heating of both the internal of the system during autoclaving (See, for example, Miranda et al., page 1, paragraph [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply heat to the expandable insert. Doing so would have predictably enabled heating of both the internal and external portions of the system, thus ensuring more even heating.
Conclusion
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights