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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 and 22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 17 July 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 17 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden because “the examiner will likely be searching a single class/subclass in reference to any elected one of the claims. This is not found persuasive.
Applicant’s sole substantive argument is that the amendments allegedly eliminate the serious search burden because both inventions would now be searched in essentially the same class/subclass. Applicant’s arguments do not seriously address the first prong, specifically that the inventions remain distinct. The original restriction was based on two independent findings: the inventions are distinct because they have materially different designs, modes of operation, functions or effects; and examination would impose a serious search burden because different classifications and different search strategies are required.
Applicant’s amended claims remain independent and distinct. Invention I, claims 1-7, 9-12 and 21, is directed to a repair doubler including a pliable, deformable doubler plate that is shaped to conform to the airfoil during installation. Invention II, claims 14-20 and 22, is directed to a repair doubler including a doubler plate already having a contour substantially complementary to the leading edge, together with a specific interface tape arrangement.
Although applicant amended claim 14 to recite “repair doubler” instead of “apparatus” and removed the semi-monocoque limitation from the independent claim, the amendments do not eliminate the distinct invention previously identified. Invention I still requires a doubler plate that is pliable, deformable and deformed to obtain a contour and Invention II requires a doubler plate already possessing a contour complementary to a wing, an interface tape arrangement an no requirement that the plate be pliable or deformable.
The applicant further asserts the amendments eliminate the search burden, the examiner disagrees. Examination of the elected and nonelected inventions would still require separate searches directed to materially different claimed subject matter. The elected claims require a deformable, pliable doubler configured to be formed to the airfoil, whereas the nonelected claims are directed to a pre-contoured repair doubler having a complementary contour and a different interface sealing arrangement. These materially different structural require different search strategies and different combinations of search queries directed to different aspects of the prior art. Therefore, examination of both inventions would still impose a serious search and examination burden.
Newly added claim 21 depends from elected claim 1 and is therefore directed to the elected invention. Newley added claim 22 depends from nonelected claim 14 and is therefore directed to the nonelected invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anning (US 2004/0118978 A1).
Claim 1:
Anning discloses a repair doubler to repair a wing (abstract), the repair doubler comprising: a doubler plate (32, 36) formed of a pliable material, the doubler plate (32, 36) deformable to have at least a partial contour of an airfoil (10); and a seal (34) to couple the doubler plate (32, 36) to the airfoil (10) (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 2:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 1, wherein the doubler plate includes a first sheet of material (32) and a second sheet (36) of material joined with the first sheet of material (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 3:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 2, wherein terminating ends of the first sheet of material (32) and the second sheet of material (36) are joined to form the doubler plate (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 4:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 1, wherein the doubler plate (32, 36) is to wrap around a leading edge of the airfoil (10) (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 5:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 4, wherein the doubler plate (32, 36) has a first portion structured to couple to an upper skin of the airfoil, a second portion structured to couple to a lower skin of the airfoil, and a third portion structured to wrap around the leading edge of the airfoil (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 7:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 1, wherein the doubler plate (32, 36) forms a portion of an outer surface of the airfoil (10) (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 9:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 1, further comprising adhesive (34) on a rear surface of the doubler plate (32, 36) along at least a portion of a perimeter of the doubler plate, the adhesive (34 to couple the doubler plate and the airfoil (10) (figs. 1-3, ¶¶22-26).
Claim 21:
Anning discloses the repair doubler as defined in claim 1 as set forth above. The limitation “the wing is a semi-monocoque wing” merely further defines the article upon which the claimed repair doubler is intended to be used and does not positively recite the wing as a structural component of the claimed repair doubler. The claimed repair doubler is not structurally distinguished based upon whether the wing upon which it is intended to be used is a semi-monocoque wing. Therefore, the limitation does not patentably distinguish the repair doubler of claim 21 from that disclosed by Anning.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cross et al. (US 4,895,491).
Claim 6:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 1, and Anning fails to disclose the doubler plate has a thickness of approximately between 0.040 inches and 0.080 inches. Cross discloses a fan blade protection system (abstract) and further teaches that thickness of an airfoil protective structure is a design parameter selected according to desired functional characteristics, including formability, resistance to deformation, protection of the underlying airfoil, and aerodynamic considerations. Cross further demonstrates a known relationship between thickness and deformation (see fig. 6), thereby evidencing that thickness was recognized in the art as a result-effective variable. Cross further discloses an airfoil protective layer with a thickness approximating 0.045 inches, a thickness falling within the claimed range.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “…a thickness of approximately between 0.040 inches and 0.080 inches…” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of providing desired functional characteristics including formability, resistance to deformation, protection of the underlying airfoil and aerodynamic considerations (Cross, c3, ll.56-63; c3, l. 64 – c4, l. 7; and c4, ll. 1-8). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the thickness of the doubler plate to be approximately between 0.040 inches to 0.080 inches since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP §§ 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed thickness range of approximately between 0.040 inches and 0.080 inches because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §§ 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hume (WO 2009/158711 A2).
Claim 10:
Anning discloses the repair doubler of claim 1, and Anning fails to disclose the seal is a pressure-sensitive tape. Hume discloses pressure sensitive tape for sealing and repairing items (p2, ll. 12-14). 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 repair doubler of Anning by providing the seal with pressure sensitive tape as taught by Hume, in order to provide a known and convenient means for adhering and sealing the doubler plate to the surface being repaired. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Such a modification would use a known pressure-sensitive tape for its known purpose of adhesively securing and sealing contacting components, with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a repair doubler comprising: a first sheet metal configured to bend about a first portion of a leading edge of a wing adjacent a damaged portion of the leading edge; a second sheet metal configured to bend about a second portion of the leading edge of the wing adjacent the damaged portion of the leading edge, the second portion different than the first portion, the first sheet metal and the second sheet metal having joining abutting ends to form a doubler plate; an adhesive provided to at least one of a rear side of the doubler plate or a skin of the wing, the adhesive to couple the doubler plate and the wing; and tape to be provided over at least a portion of the doubler plate and the skin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al. (US 2021/0061491 A1) discloses a doubler plate for repairing an wing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights