DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 25 June 2026.
Claims 3-6, 18, and 20 were previously canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 24-25 are newly presented.
Claims 1-2, 7-17, 19, and 21-25 are currently 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 .
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection for the claim(s) 1-2, 7-17, 19, and 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection below.
A new grounds for rejection is included in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "attachment assembly," first introduced in claim 1:
[0072] Attachment assembly 133 may include a first attachment location 137.First attachment location 137 includes fastener 160 which attaches nosecone body 131 to attachment ring 154.Fastener 160 may be a screw, a bolt, or the like. Where fastener 160 is a screw, attachment ring 154 may include a threaded nut to receive fastener 160. Similarly, where fastener is a bolt, attachment assembly 133 may include a nut radially inner to or integrated to attachment ring 154 to receive fastener 160.[0073] In the illustrated example, first attachment location 137 includes patch band 132.Patch band 132 may be formed at or attached to inner surface 136 of nosecone body 131 and may surround fastener 160.Patch band 132 may be positioned between nosecone body 131 and attachment ring 154.Patch band 132 configured to increase the load-spreading area of fastener 160 to nosecone body 131.Patch band 132 may include a tear-resistant fiber. [0074] One or more additional layers may optionally be positioned between nosecone body 131 and attachment ring 154. For example, additional layer 164 may be positioned radially inside of patch band 132.Additional layer 164 may include a stiff fiber, or a tough fiber, or both. Further layers (not illustrated), which may be positioned radially-inside or radially- outside of patch band 132, may optionally be included. (Or an equivalent thereof.)
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 17, 19, 21-22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholder et al (US 9879698), hereafter referred to as Burkholder, in view of Kling et al (US 20160152320), hereafter referred to as Kling.
Regarding Claim 1, Burkholder discloses the following:
A nosecone for a gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23), the nosecone comprising:
a nosecone body (110), the nosecone body (110) substantially symmetrical around a central axis, the nosecone body (110) including a side wall defining a diameter of the nosecone body (110) that increases from a forward side of the nosecone body (110) to an aft side of the nosecone body (110), and
an attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7), the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) configured to attach the nosecone body (110) to the gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23),
wherein the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) comprises a compression molded material (see Col. 5, lines 25-26);
the nosecone body or the attachment assembly comprises a tear- resistant fiber, (comprising carbon fiber, see for example Col. 2, lines 20-27; Col. 4, lines 45-50).
Burkholder does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the tear-resistant fiber comprises a poly(p-phenylene-2,6- benzobisoxazole)) (PBO) fiber,
and the tear-resistant fiber is integrated as a middle layer of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers disposed over the middle layer and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer,
However Kling teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make a compression molded material with fibers from the group comprising: carbon-fiber, graphite-fiber, ceramic, poly (p-pheny lene-2,6-benzo bisoxazole ), mullite, alumina, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron, boron nitride, boron carbide, glass, quartz, titanium diboride, yttria stabilized zirconium and combinations thereof (see [0005-07, 43-49, 63]); and
it is well known in the art to form a nosecone body that comprises tear-resistant fiber (see [0046]) integrated as a middle layer (66; FIG. 4) of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers (72; FIG. 4) disposed over the middle layer (66) and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer (74; FIG. 4; also see [0052]).
Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
the nosecone body (66 of Kling) comprises a tear-resistant fiber (Kling discloses a compression molded material comprising PBO, which is the same structure of the Instant Application, thus PBO tear resistance in as much as the Instant Application); and wherein the tear-resistant fiber comprises a poly(p-phenylene-2,6- benzobisoxazole)) (PBO) fiber (see for example [005-07, 63] of Kling), and
the tear-resistant fiber (PBO fiber material between two metal layers) is integrated as a middle layer (66; FIG. 4) of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers (72; FIG. 4) disposed over the middle layer (66) and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer (74; FIG. 4; also see [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon fiber composite material of the nosecone, as disclosed by Burkholder, with the PBO fibers and carbon fibers sandwiched between inner and outer metallic layers, as taught by Kling, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known composite material capable of performing in a nosecone assembly (see for example [0063] of Kling). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the composite material of Burkholder, with the composite material combining PBO fibers and carbon fibers, taught by Kling, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to provide a composite material for another means to provide a composite material, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In this instance Kling discloses it is well known in the art that compression molded materials comprising PBO fibers and composite materials comprising a combination of PBO fibers and carbon fibers are suitable materials for nosecone assemblies (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 2, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
Roach continues to teach the following:
wherein the tear-resistant fiber exhibits an elongation at break of from about 2.5% to about 3.5%, a breaking tenacity of at least about 40 grams/denier, a tensile strength of at least 5.0 gigapascals (GPa), and a tensile modulus of at least 160 GPa (Kling discloses PBO fibers, which is the same structure as the Instant Application, thus the PBO fibers combined with carbon fibers of Kling provide the above limitations in as much as the Instant Application).
Regarding Claim 7, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
Burkholder as modified continues to teach the following:
wherein the nosecone body (110) comprises a stiff fiber (PBO/carbon fiber of Kling).
Regarding Claim 8, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
Burkholder as modified continues to teach the following:
wherein the stiff fiber comprises at least one of a carbon fiber (PBO/carbon fiber of Kling).
Regarding Claim 9, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
Burkholder as modified continues to teach the following:
wherein the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) includes a first attachment location, and wherein the first attachment location includes a fastener (134).
Regarding Claim 10, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 9,
Burkholder as modified continues to teach the following:
the first attachment location includes at least one patch band (140) surrounding the fastener (134),
the patch band (140) comprises the tear-resistant fiber, and
the patch band (140) is configured to increase a load-spreading area of the fastener (134) to the nosecone body (110) (In as much as the Instant Application, since the same structure is present).
Regarding Claim 17, Burkholder teaches the following:
A gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23), the gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23) comprising:
a nosecone (110), the nosecone comprising:
a nosecone body (110), the nosecone body (110) substantially symmetrical around a central axis, the nosecone body (110) including a side wall defining a diameter of the nosecone body (110) that increases from a forward side of the nosecone body (110) to an aft side of the nosecone body (110), and
an attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7), the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) configured to attach the nosecone body (110) to the gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23),
wherein the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) comprises a compression molded material (see Col. 5, lines 25-26);
the nosecone body or the attachment assembly comprises a tear- resistant fiber, (comprising carbon fiber, see for example Col. 2, lines 20-27; Col. 4, lines 45-50).
Burkholder does not explicitly disclose the following:
the attachment assembly comprises a tear-resistant fiber, wherein the tear-resistant fiber comprises a poly(p-phenylene-2,6- benzobisoxazole)) (PBO) fiber.
However Kling teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make a compression molded material with fibers from the group comprising: carbon-fiber, graphite-fiber, ceramic, poly (p-pheny lene-2,6-benzo bisoxazole ), mullite, alumina, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron, boron nitride, boron carbide, glass, quartz, titanium diboride, yttria stabilized zirconium and combinations thereof (see [0005-07, 43-49, 63]), and
it is well known in the art to form a nosecone body that comprises tear-resistant fiber (see [0046]) integrated as a middle layer (66; FIG. 4) of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers (72; FIG. 4) disposed over the middle layer (66) and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer (74; FIG. 4; also see [0052]).
Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the nosecone body (110) or the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) comprises a tear-resistant fiber (Kling discloses a compression molded material comprising PBO, which is the same structure of the Instant Application, thus PBO tear resistance in as much as the Instant Application); and wherein the tear-resistant fiber comprises a poly(p-phenylene-2,6- benzobisoxazole)) (PBO) fiber (see for example [005-07, 63] of Kling), and
the tear-resistant fiber (PBO fiber material between two metal layers) is integrated as a middle layer (66; FIG. 4) of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers (72; FIG. 4) disposed over the middle layer (66) and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer (74; FIG. 4; also see [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the compression molded material of the attachment assembly and the composite material of the nosecone, as disclosed by Burkholder, with the compression molded material comprising PBO fibers and with the PBO fibers and carbon fibers sandwiched between inner and outer metallic layers, as taught by Kling, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known compression molded material and reinforcement (PBO and carbon) fiber material capable of performing in a nosecone assembly (see for example [0063] of Kling). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the compression molded material and the composite material of Burkholder, with the compression molded material comprising PBO fibers and composite material combining PBO fibers and carbon fibers, taught by Kling, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to provide a compression molded material and fiber reinforcement material for another means to provide a compression molded material and fiber reinforcement material, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In this instance Kling discloses it is well known in the art that compression molded materials comprising PBO fibers and a composite material combining PBO fibers and carbon fibers are suitable material for nosecone assemblies (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 19, Burkholder as modified by Roach teaches the following:
An airframe comprising:
a first gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23) of one or more gas turbine engines (see Col. 1, lines 19-23), the first gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23) comprising:
a nosecone for a gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23), the nosecone comprising:
a nosecone body (110), the nosecone body (110) substantially symmetrical around a central axis, the nosecone body (110) including a side wall defining a diameter of the nosecone body (110) that increases from a forward side of the nosecone body (110) to an aft side of the nosecone body (110), and
an attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7), the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) configured to attach the nosecone body (110) to the gas turbine engine (see Col. 1, lines 19-23),
wherein the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) comprises a compression molded material (see Col. 5, lines 25-26); the nosecone body or the attachment assembly comprises a tear- resistant fiber, (comprising carbon fiber, see for example Col. 2, lines 20-27; Col. 4, lines 45-50).
Burkholder does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the tear-resistant fiber comprises a poly(p-phenylene-2,6- benzobisoxazole)) (PBO) fiber;
the tear-resistant fiber is integrated as a middle layer of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers disposed over the middle layer and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer.
However Kling teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make a compression molded material with fibers from the group comprising: carbon-fiber, graphite-fiber, ceramic, poly (p-pheny lene-2,6-benzo bisoxazole ), mullite, alumina, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron, boron nitride, boron carbide, glass, quartz, titanium diboride, yttria stabilized zirconium and combinations thereof (see [0005-07, 43-49, 63]); and
it is well known in the art to form a nosecone body that comprises tear-resistant fiber (see [0046]) integrated as a middle layer (66; FIG. 4) of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers (72; FIG. 4) disposed over the middle layer (66) and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer (74; FIG. 4; also see [0052]).
Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
wherein at least one of the nosecone body (110) or the attachment assembly (140 in combination with 134; FIG. 3 and cup washer 332, FIG. 7) comprises a tear-resistant fiber (Kling discloses a compression molded material comprising PBO, which is the same structure of the Instant Application, thus PBO tear resistance in as much as the Instant Application); and wherein the tear-resistant fiber comprises a poly(p-phenylene-2,6- benzobisoxazole)) (PBO) fiber (see for example [005-07, 63] of Kling), and
the tear-resistant fiber (PBO fiber material between two metal layers) is integrated as a middle layer (66; FIG. 4) of the side wall and is protected from an external environment of the nosecone by one or more external layers (72; FIG. 4) disposed over the middle layer (66) and from an internal environment of the nosecone by one or more internal layers disposed under the middle layer (74; FIG. 4; also see [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the compression molded material of the attachment assembly, as disclosed by Burkholder, with the compression molded material comprising PBO fibers, as taught by Kling, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known compression molded material capable of performing in a nosecone assembly (see for example [0063] of Kling). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the compression molded material of Burkholder, with the compression molded material comprising PBO fibers combined with carbon fibers, taught by Kling, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to provide a compression molded material for another means to provide a compression molded material, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In this instance Kling discloses it is well known in the art that compression molded materials comprising PBO fibers are suitable material for nosecone assemblies (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 21, Burkholder as modified by Kling discloses the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
wherein the tear-resistant fiber (PBO of Kling as applied to 140 of Burkholder) is part of a pure fabric layer consisting of only the tear-resistant fibers (see [0005-07, 63] of Kling).
Regarding Claim 22, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 8,
Burkholder as modified by Kling in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the tear-resistant fiber (PBO of Kling as applied to 140 of Burkholder) is part of a pure fabric layer consisting of only the tear-resistant fibers (see [0005-07, 63] of Kling);
Burkholder as modified by Kling in claim 1 does not teach the following:
wherein the tear-resistant fiber is part of a commingled fabric layer having strands of the tear-resistant fiber and the stiff fiber.
However Kling discloses the following:
it is well known in the art to make a compression molded material with fibers from the group comprising: carbon-fiber, graphite-fiber, ceramic, poly (p-pheny lene-2,6-benzo bisoxazole ), mullite, alumina, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, boron, boron nitride, boron carbide, glass, quartz, titanium diboride, yttria stabilized zirconium and combinations thereof (see [0005-07, 43-49, 63]).
Burkholder as modified by Kling now teaches the following:
wherein the tear-resistant fiber (PBO/carbon fiber of Kling) is part of a commingled fabric layer having strands of the tear-resistant fiber (PBO) and the stiff fiber (carbon fiber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the compression molded material of the attachment assembly, as disclosed by Burkholder, with the compression molded material comprising PBO fibers combined with carbon fibers, as taught by Kling, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known compression molded material capable of performing in a nosecone assembly (see for example [0063] of Kling). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the compression molded material of Burkholder, with the compression molded material comprising PBO fibers combined with carbon fibers, taught by Kling, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to provide a compression molded material for another means to provide a compression molded material, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In this instance Kling discloses it is well known in the art that compression molded materials comprising PBO fibers combined with carbon fibers are a suitable material for nosecone assemblies (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 24, Burkholder as modified by Kling discloses the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
Kling continues to teach the following:
wherein the middle layer (66) of the side wall extends from the forward side of the nosecone body to the aft side of the nosecone body (as seen in FIG. 4).
Claims 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholder et al (US 9879698), hereafter referred to as Burkholder and Kling, as applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Romanowski et al (US 20160010459), hereafter referred to as Romanowski.
Regarding Claim 11, Burkholder as modified by Kling discloses the following:
The nosecone of claim 10,
Burkholder as modified by Kling does not explicitly disclose the following:
further comprising a plurality of airstream protrusions attached to or integral with the nosecone body.
However Romanowski teaches the following:
further comprising a plurality of airstream protrusions (20; FIG. 2) attached to or integral with the nosecone body (aft ring 16 may be connected to or integrally formed with the nosecone body 14; see [0050-51]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nosecone as disclosed by Burkholder, as modified by Kling, by adding airstream protrusions to the nosecone, as disclosed by Romanowski, with the reasonable expectation of successfully redirecting air around a blunt leading edge of the fan blade (see Romanowski, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 12, Burkholder as modified by Kling and Romanowski teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 11,
Romanowski continues to teach the following:
wherein a first airstream protrusion (20; FIG. 2) of the plurality of airstream protrusions (20; FIG. 2) is configured to be positioned upstream of a first fan blade (116) of a plurality of fan blades (116) of a fan (110), wherein the first airstream protrusion (20; FIG. 2) prepares an airstream (see [0050]) flowing over the nosecone body (110) for interaction with the first fan blade (116).
Regarding Claim 13, Burkholder as modified by Kling and Romanowski teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 12,
Romanowski continues to teach the following:
wherein the first attachment location (34, FIG. 4) is included in a plurality of attachment locations (34, FIG. 4), and wherein the first attachment location (34, FIG. 4) is collocated with the first airstream protrusion (20; FIG. 4) of plurality of airstream protrusions (20; FIG. 4)(as seen in FIG. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Burkholder as modified by Kling and Romanowski teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 13,
Romanowski continues to teach the following:
wherein the first airstream protrusion defines an aerodynamic shape, wherein a cross-section of the aerodynamic shape comprises at least one of quarter-circular (as seen in FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Burkholder as modified by Kling and Romanowski teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 14,
Burkholder continues to teach the following:
further comprising a washer (332; FIG. 7; Col. 6, lines 61-65), the washer configured to increase the load-spreading area of the fastener (134) to the nosecone body (110)(In as much as the Instant Application, since the same structure exists).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholder and Kling, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Roach et al (US 20160160863), hereafter referred to as Roach.
Regarding Claim 16, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 1,
Burkholder as modified continues does not teach the following:
further comprising at least one stiffening rib attached to or integral with the side wall of the nosecone body, the at least one stiffening rib configured to increase the impact resistance of the nosecone.
However Roach teaches the following:
further comprising at least one stiffening rib (441, 442; FIG. 136) attached to or integral with the side wall of the nosecone body (446; FIG. 136), the at least one stiffening rib configured to increase the impact resistance of the nosecone (see [0285]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nosecone as disclosed by Burkholder, as modified by Kling, by adding stiffening ribs to the nosecone, as further disclosed by Roach, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing reinforcement to carry and distribute impact loads (see Roach, [0285]).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholder and Kling, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Heeter et al (US 11078839), hereafter referred to as Heeter.
Regarding Claim 23, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 22,
Burkholder as modified does not to teach the following:
wherein the commingled fabric layer further comprises a tough fiber, and wherein the tough fiber comprises a polyamide fiber, a polyester fiber, or a polyester terephthalate fiber.
However Heeter teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to add a tough fibers comprising a polyamide fiber, a polyester fiber, or a polyester terephthalate fiber (see for example claim 6) to a matrix comprising a high reinforcement element such as carbon fiber to make a composite nosecone (see for example claim 6, Col. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PBO/carbon fiber combination as taught by Burkholder, as modified by Kling, by adding a polyamide fiber, a polyester fiber, or a polyester terephthalate fiber, as taught by Heeter, with the reasonable expectation of reducing brittleness and increasing toughness of the nosecone (see for example Heeter, Col. 8, lines 23-34).
Claim 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholder and Kling, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Ettin et al (US 20140335752), hereafter referred to as Ettin.
Regarding Claim 25, Burkholder as modified by Kling teaches the following:
The nosecone of claim 22,
Burkholder as modified does not to teach the following:
wherein the middle layer of the sidewall is a fabric layer that includes fibers that are braided, interwoven, or wound together.
However Ettin teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to make fiber reinforcements out of hybrid yarns comprising PBO and carbon fibers ([0073-75, 88-89]) that are braided to form three dimensional structures ([0094]), such as nosecones ([0098]);
Burkholder as modified by Kling and as modified by Ettin teaches the following:
wherein the middle layer (the material of 66 of Kling as substituted with the material of Ettin) of the sidewall is a fabric layer that includes fibers that are braided, interwoven, or wound together (see Ettin ([0074-75, 88-89, 94, 98]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the non-woven PBO fibers and carbon fibers sandwiched between inner and outer metallic layers, as taught by Kling, with the braided PBO and carbon fibers, as taught by Ettin, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known composite material with high strength and high tenacity ([0062] of Ettin) capable of performing in a nosecone assembly (see for example [0098] of Ettin). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the composite material of Kling, with the above described composite material of Ettin, yields the predictable result of substituting one means to provide a composite material for another means to provide a composite material, and this rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) In this instance Ettin discloses it is well known in the art that braided hybrid yarns comprising PBO fibers and carbon fiber are suitable materials for nosecone assemblies (see MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights