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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
The objection of claim 12 is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation of “flexible folding zone” is improper as “zone” is not a nonce placeholder. The examiner disagrees, a generic zone itself has no actual structure associated with it. The applicant further argues that corresponding structure is provided in the specification; this does not impact the determination of whether a 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation is proper or not. The applicant’s arguments with regard to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections related to this term are discussed below.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-15. Claims 1 and 12 now recite that the first composite layer and the second composite layer form a substantially two-dimensional, homogenous structure based on paragraph [0023] of the instant application. The two transverse parts and folding zone are part of the first composite layer. This layer is not two-dimensionally homogenous as described in the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection below. Combining the first composite layer and second composite layer does not make this a 2-dimensional homogenous structure either. 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are presented below based on the indefiniteness of “substantially” and homogenous.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn based upon the amendments.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-15 related to the “flexible folding zone” lacking corresponding structure in the specification. As described above, the 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation is found to be proper. The applicant provides no description of what makes the “flexible folding zone” have the function of being flexible and allows the folding to occur. There is no differentiation of the description of (131)/(132) compared to (133). The claimed function therefore lacks corresponding structure.
The applicant argues the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections related to a homogenous structure. 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are presented below but are different due to the amendments by applicant.
The applicant argues with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claim 2, that a person of ordinary readily understands what a “buckling coefficient” is. The examiner maintains the same reasons for why that is not true. The applicant in both their disclosure and their arguments has not provided how a “buckling coefficient” is determined or calculated. Furthermore, the applicant does not address the examiner’s rationale for indefiniteness related to MPEP 2173.05(b) II. Based on the amendment, the examiner’s rationale related to the first elasticity parameter being different from the second elasticity parameter is no longer a source of indefiniteness.
The 35 U.S.C 112(d) rejection of claims 11 and 13 is withdrawn based upon the amendments.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claim 1 and 12 concluding Van Pelt does not disclose the continuous extension of the first and second composite layer with respect to each other as the hinge of Van Pelt alleges has a separate exposed hinge portion. It is unclear how the applicant finds Van Pelt’s first and second composite layers separated by a hinge while their own disclosure has a continuous extension of the first and second composite layers, see the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. Additionally, the claims have been remapped to the disclosure of Van Pelt.
The applicant argues with regard to the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claims 1 and 12 that the air gap in Van Pelt is incompatible with the claimed integrated homogenous laminate structure. It is unclear what this term even means. See the 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above. Applicant’s own disclosure appears to be incompatible with the claimed integrated homogenous laminate structure as described in the 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b). The art closest to the disclosed invention is applied for purposes of compact prosecution although the meaning of the claims cannot be fully determined.
The applicant further argues with regard to the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claims 1 and 12 that Van Pelt does not teach the passively reversibly foldable. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection regarding “passively reversibly foldable”. The examiner disagrees that Van Pelt’s structure is limited to manual foldability.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 14 and 15 the applicant argues that Hemmelgam does not disclose various features of claim 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Van Pelt with Hemmelgarm as the structures serve different purposes. The applicant alleges that Van Pelt’s structure is simply for maintenance access which is incorrect; (104) is an aerodynamic control structure that happens to have a flap (108) for maintenance, see Van Pelt [0013] and [0014].
Changes to the rejections are necessitated by amendment. The rejections are therefore final.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: flexible folding zone in claims 1 and 12.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following limitation “wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer extend... forming a substantially two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate structure” is used in claims 1 and 12. Paragraphs [0023] and [0032] discuss the concept of the alleged homogenous structure. The examiner finds that the applicant’s two-dimensional homogenous structure formed by the at least two transverse parts and the folding zone does not form a two-dimensional homogenous structure. Figure 3A shows the two transverse parts (131/132) and the folding zone (133). This structure is not homogenous in two dimensions. While details of the flexible folding zone (133) are not present in the disclosure (see 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection below), its behavior appears in the figures to be different than that of the transverse parts. Therefore, the examiner finds that first composite layer which comprises both the transverse parts and the flexible folding zone is a 2-dimensional homogenous structure. Combining the first composite layer with a second composite layer does not remedy the heterogenous nature of the first composite layer. Claims dependent from claims 1 and 12 are also rejected based on their dependency.
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 1-9 and 11-15 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.
The following limitation “wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer extend continuously with respect to each other through the multi-layer composite body forming a substantially two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate structure” is used in claims 1 and 12. The term “substantially” in the claim limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted that the applicant argues for a much broader context of the word in the arguments related to the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections. The examiner disagrees and finds that substantially homogenous layers would have no distinctive features along the homogenous plane.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate” in claims 1 and 12 is used by the claim to refer to something that is “heterogenous” in two dimensions while the accepted meaning is “the same” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Additionally, it is unclear if the term “two-dimensional” applies to the laminate structure as an adjective, as it is typical a thin sheet or if the term applies to “homogenous” as it previously did.
Also, it is unclear what it means for the first composite layer and second composite layer to extend continuously with respect to each other throughout the multi-layer composite body. Paragraph [0023] recites that the two layers, “may extend in a continuous manner with respect to each other and thereby may form the multi-layer composite structure 102 as a substantially two-dimensional, homogenous structure, also referred to as a ‘laminate’”. How are the two-layers being compared with reference to the “with respect to each other”.
Claims 1 and 12 contain the claim limitation “flexible folding zone” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes the flexible folding zone in paragraphs [0032] and [0033]. The disclosure is devoid of any details that causes (133) in the drawings to perform the claimed functions of being flexible and folding. Therefore, there is no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination any zone or region which allows for any folding may be considered a flexible folding zone.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally the flexible folding zone is claimed as having the functional limitation property of forming a passively reversibly foldable structure”.
The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied (presumably in testing or in use). The forces are related to testing done on the component or during use which are related to a method of using or testing, but not to the product itself. The claim is therefore referencing forces that are variable and render the claim indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. It is unclear if the product even has to be able to perform in the claimed manner if such loads are never applied, see MPEP 2111.01 II. This is further made indefinite by the functional language aspect of the claim which fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(g).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “two-dimensional homogenous structure” in used in claims 1 and 12. As described in the 35 U.S.C 112(a) above, this disclosure does not support this concept under its accepted meaning. It is therefore unclear as to what the applicant means by this term as it is not clearly defined by the applicant. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as homogenous in one dimension.
Claim 2 and 12 recites, “wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient”. The examiner finds that buckling coefficient has no universal definition. Buckling coefficients do appear in equations that are used to describe buckling behavior but are related to geometric and loading / boundary conditions rather than solely to geometric and material properties. As the loading / boundary conditions are properties that are variable and are not intrinsic to the layers of the composite body itself, the buckling coefficient is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. No equation or description is provided by the applicant of what the value of the buckling coefficient is defined as either. Claims dependent from claims 2 or 12 are also rejected for their dependency.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer remain in respective substantially non- deflected states with a first increase in the common external mechanical force until respective predetermined critical elastic buckling loads are reached, wherein a first predetermined yield point for the first composite layer is different from a second predetermined yield point for the second composite layer”. The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied (presumably in testing or in use). The forces are related to testing done on the component or during use which are related to a method of using or testing, but not to the product itself. The claim is therefore referencing forces that are variable and render the claim indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. It is unclear if the product even has to be able to perform in the claimed manner if such loads are never applied, see MPEP 2111.01 II. This is further made indefinite by the functional language aspect of the claim which fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 6-9 depend from claim 5 and further recite additional limitations related to functional behavior of the product in certain conditions and are rejected due to same reasons as claim 5 and their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Pelt et al. (U.S Pre-Grant 20180370613) hereinafter Van Pelt.
Regarding claim 1, Van Pelt discloses:
A multi-layer composite body {Figures 2A-C (200)} comprising:
a first composite layer having a first elasticity parameter {Figure 2A-C, first composite layer (202), (212), (220), (204), (214), and (222); these layers are carbon reinforced polymer fabric pre-preg layers as well as Kevlar; together they have a first modulus of elasticity; [0017]}; and
a second composite layer mechanically coupled with the first composite layer {Figure 2A-C, second composite layer (206) and (216) is mechanical coupled with the first composite layer by bonding; [0018]},
the second composite layer having a second elasticity parameter different from the first elasticity parameter {Figures 2A-C; the first composite layer includes (220)/(222) which is made of Kevlar which has a different modulus of elasticity than the purely carbon reinforced polymer of (206) and (216); [0017]},
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer extend continuously with respect to each other throughout the multi-layer composite body, forming a substantially two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate structure {Figures 2A-C, ((202), (212), (220), (204), (214), and (222) extends continuously with respect to (206) and (216) and vice versa. The two layers form a substantially two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate structure, see 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above}
wherein the first composite layer comprises at least two transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone (220)/(222); see 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}
the at least two transverse parts and the folding zone forming a passively reversibly foldable structure {Figures 2A-C; the structure can be folded and returned to its original unbent state; [0020]. The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 2, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient {Figure 2A-C, the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity, see description in the rejection of claim 1. The second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity that is different than the first, see description in the rejection of claim 1. [0017]. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above regarding the buckling coefficients. For purposes of examination, since the modulus of elasticity are different in the art and the buckling coefficient is indefinite for the reasons discussed earlier, even only one value of the two elasticity parameters being different satisfies the requirement}
wherein at least one of: the first modulus of elasticity, and the first buckling coefficient differs from the corresponding second modulus of elasticity or second buckling coefficient, respectively {the first modulus of elasticity is different from the second modulus elasticity as explained above}.
Regarding claim 3, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer respond to a common external mechanical force simultaneously applied to the first composite layer and the second composite layer, across the multi-layer composite body, in a different manner caused by the difference between the first parameter and the second elasticity parameter. {As described in the rejection of claim 1, the first composite layer is formed of two different materials with different modulus of elasticity than the of single material used for (206) and (216) which form the second layer. The different materials will mean external forces will cause the layers to respond / behave differently. This limitation is also assumed to based on MPEP 2112.01 I, as the structure is of Van Pelt is substantially identical to the claimed structure and the limitation is a property / function}.
Regarding claim 4, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the common external mechanical force comprises a stretching force and a bucking load {The rationales of the rejection of claim 3 apply equally in the scenario of a stretching force and a buckling load}.
Regarding claim 5, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer remain in respective substantially non- deflected states with a first increase in the common external mechanical force until respective predetermined critical elastic buckling loads are reached {The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01},
wherein a first predetermined yield point for the first composite layer is different from a second predetermined yield point for the second composite layer {Figure 2A-C, first composite layer (202), (212), (220), (204), (214), and (222); these layers are carbon reinforced polymer fabric pre-preg layers as well as Kevlar; together they have a first yield point that is different than the yield point of just (206) and (216) which is just carbon reinforced polymer fabric pre-preg layers; [0017]}.
Regarding claim 6, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer deform with a second increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points {The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 7, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer deform linearly under the second increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points {The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 8, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the at least two transverse parts of the first composite layer and the second composite layer bend about the folding zone under the second increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points, forming a passively reversible folded structure {The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 9, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer regain respective undeformed states when the common external mechanical force is withdrawn {The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 11, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the at least two transverse parts consist of exactly two transverse parts {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts. (204) and (214) do not have to be interpreted as transverse parts}
Regarding claim 12, Van Pelt further discloses:
A multi-layer composite body {Figures 2A-C (200)} comprising:
a first composite layer having a first elasticity parameter {Figure 2A-C, first composite layer (202), (212), (220), (204), (214), and (222); these layers are carbon reinforced polymer fabric pre-preg layers as well as Kevlar; together they have a first modulus of elasticity; [0017]}; and
a second composite layer mechanically coupled with the first composite layer {Figure 2A-C, second composite layer (206) and (216) is mechanical coupled with the first composite layer by bonding; [0018]},
the second composite layer having a second elasticity parameter different from the first elasticity parameter {Figures 2A-C; the first composite layer includes (220)/(222) which is made of Kevlar which has a different modulus of elasticity than the purely carbon reinforced polymer of (206) and (216); [0017]},
the second composite laver having an unbalanced fiber architecture relative to the first composite layer {Figures 2A-C, the second layer of (206) and (216) is unbalanced to the first layer of (202), (212), (220), (204), (214), and (222) as the first layer includes (220) and (222) which are formed of different materials; [0017]}
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer extend continuously with respect to each other throughout the multi-layer composite body, forming a substantially two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate structure {Figures 2A-C, ((202), (212), (220), (204), (214), and (222) extends continuously with respect to (206) and (216) and vice versa. The two layers form a substantially two-dimensional single integrated homogenous laminate structure, see 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above}
wherein the first composite layer comprises at least two transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone (220)/(222); see 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}
the at least two transverse parts and the folding zone forming a passively reversibly foldable structure {Figures 2A-C; the structure can be folded and returned to its original unbent state; [0020]. The claim is product claim that includes functional behavior when certain forces are applied. The structure of Van Pelt is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01}.
wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient {Figure 2A-C, the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity, see description in the rejection of claim 1. The second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity that is different than the first, see description in the rejection of claim 1. [0017]. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above regarding the buckling coefficients. For purposes of examination, since the modulus of elasticity are different in the art and the buckling coefficient is indefinite for the reasons discussed earlier, even only one value of the two elasticity parameters being different satisfies the requirement}
wherein at least one of: the first modulus of elasticity, and the first buckling coefficient differs from the corresponding second modulus of elasticity or second buckling coefficient, respectively {the first modulus of elasticity is different from the second modulus elasticity as explained above}.
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer respond to a common external mechanical force in a different manner. {As described in the rejection of claim 1, the first composite layer is formed of two different materials with different modulus of elasticity than the of single material used for (206) and (216) which form the second layer. The different materials will mean external forces will cause the layers to respond / behave differently. This limitation is also assumed to based on MPEP 2112.01 I, as the structure is of Van Pelt is substantially identical to the claimed structure and the limitation is a property / function}.
Regarding claim 13, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the at least two transverse parts consist of exactly two transverse parts {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts. (204) and (214) do not have to be interpreted as transverse parts}
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Pelt et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180370613) hereinafter Van Pelt in view of Hemmelgam et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110084174) hereinafter Hemmelgam.
Regarding claim 14, Van Pelt discloses the multi-layer composite body of claim 1 but does not disclose:
A wind turbine blade comprises the multi-layer composite body of claim 1.
Hemmelgam pertains to wind turbine blades made from fiber reinforced polymer composites. Hemmelgam teaches:
A wind turbine blade with a composite body designed to buckle {Figure 7 (220) is a composite body of a wind turbine blade shown in Figure 1 by (20); [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multi-layer composite body of Van Pelt that discloses claim 1 in the wind turbine blade and therefore also a wind turbine comprising those blades of Hemmelgam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so Hemmelgam has a composite body designed to buckle and Van Pelt has a multi-layer composite body that is a hinge which is designed to rotate/bend/buckle and is recognized for use in aerodynamic surfaces {Van Pelt [0012]; Hemmelgam [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}.
Regarding claim 15, Van Pelt discloses the multi-layer composite body of claim 1 but does not disclose:
A wind turbine comprising one or more turbine blades, the one or more wind turbine blades comprising the multi-layer composite body of claim 1.
Hemmelgam pertains to wind turbine blades made from fiber reinforced polymer composites. Hemmelgam teaches:
A wind turbine blade with a composite body designed to buckle {Figure 7 (220) is a composite body of a wind turbine blade shown in Figure 1 by (20); [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multi-layer composite body of Van Pelt that discloses claim 1 in the wind turbine blade and therefore also a wind turbine comprising those blades of Hemmelgam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so Hemmelgam has a composite body designed to buckle and Van Pelt has a multi-layer composite body that is a hinge which is designed to rotate/bend/buckle and is recognized for use in aerodynamic surfaces {Van Pelt [0012]; Hemmelgam [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights