Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pratt et al. (US 4907733 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Pratt teaches an assembly comprising: a continuous structural element (Fig. 1A element 14) for aircraft; and, a fitting (Fig. 1A element 12), wherein the continuous structural element comprises an outer flange (Fig. 1A upper surface of element 14), an inner flange (Fig. 1A lower surface of element 14), and a web (Fig. 1A web between upper and lower surface of element 14) between the outer flange and the inner flange, the inner flange having at least one portion with a wavy shape such that a height of the web increases or decreases at the at least one portion of the inner flange (Fig. 1A shows curved web around element 12), wherein the fitting comprises at least one through hole (Fig. 1A element 20) and is configured to fit a portion of the web at the at least one portion of the inner flange with the wavy shape such that in an assembled state the fitting is joined to the portion of the web by connecting means so that the at least one through hole of the fitting is not covered by the web (Shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 4, Pratt teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the fitting comprises two sections (Shown in Fig. 1C).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al. (US 4907733 A) in view of Hall (US 1847559 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Pratt teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Pratt fails to explicitly teach the connecting means comprises a plurality of rivets which form a riveting pattern.
However, Hall teaches the connecting means comprises a plurality of rivets which form a riveting pattern (Fig. 3; “The sheet metal keel A, of truss construction, is stiffened along its lower outer edge by strips 1 riveted to its opposite sides, its central or web portion is stiffened by riveting to the opposite sides thereof flanged semi-tubular web members or U-sections 2” Page 1 lines 71-76).
Pratt and Hall are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fitting structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fitting of Pratt to be connected to the continuous structural element by a pattern of rivets as disclosed by Hall. Doing so would provide a secure connection between the fitting and the structural element while dispersing the load on the connection. Rivets are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Regarding Claim 3, Pratt and Hall teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Hall further discloses the riveting pattern comprises rivets proximate a part of the web having a reduced height (Shown in Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al. (US 4907733 A) in view of Hall (US 1847559 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Pratt teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Pratt fails to explicitly teach the continuous structural element is a frame.
However, Hall teaches the continuous structural element is a frame (Shown in Fig. 1).
Pratt and Hall are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fitting structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the continuous structural element of Pratt to be a frame as disclosed by Hall. Doing so would allow for a secure and reliable fitting for connecting different aircraft structures.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt et al. (US 4907733 A) in view of Hall (US 1847559 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Pratt teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Pratt fails to explicitly teach the continuous structural element is a beam.
However, Hall teaches the continuous structural element is a beam (Shown in Fig. 1).
Pratt and Hall are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fitting structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the continuous structural element of Pratt to be a beam disclosed by Hall. Doing so would allow for a secure and reliable fitting for connecting different aircraft structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644