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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 10 has been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-9 and 11-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loftus Jr. et al. (U.S. 2015/0284077), Applicant has argued Loftus “does not disclose, teach or suggest ‘the at least one safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop is configured solely for attachment of a user safety device during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground’” because “dampers 284 and associated connection points (inboard end of pitch shaft cover 264 and lead-lag link 238) are configured for use during operation of the rotorcraft” (see Remarks filed 6/30/26, Pages 5-8 (argument of pages 5-8 appear to have been inadvertently duplicated again on pages 7-8)). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The instant specification has not given a special definition to “solely” nor given any indication as to how “solely” is to be interpreted (beyond support shown in the drawings), and therefore under BRI the plain meaning of the word must be relied upon (MPEP 2173.01 I). Webster’s Dictionary defines “solely” as “without another” (“solely.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2026. Web 8 July 2026). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 284 of Loftus is shown through Figs. 4-8 and per description in Para 29 as being cable of having a user safety device attached thereto during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 284 is also capable of being the only element with a user safety device attached to it during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground, and as such fits the Webster’s definition of “solely” (without another). Therefore, under BRI, Loftus anticipates the limitation in question and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues claims 2-9 and 11-12 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 1 (see Remarks filed 6/30/26, Pages 5-8).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loftus Jr. et al. (U.S. 2015/0284077).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Loftus discloses a safety apparatus (202, fuselage - Para 23; 208, rotor hub system - Para 23 (elements 202 and 208 are collectively a type of safety apparatus for element 200 as shown in Figs. 3-8)) for a rotorcraft (200, aircraft - Para 23 (a type of rotorcraft as shown in Fig. 3 and as described in Para 23)) to provide fall protection during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground (see Figs. 3 and 5 (elements 202 and 208 are shown with structure capable of performing the claimed function of providing fall protection during maintenance of element 200 while on the ground)) comprising:
at least one safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284, pair of dampers - Para 29 (a type of safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop as shown in Figs. 3-8 (see especially Figs. 7 and 8) and as described in Para 29 - "...Dampers 284 are configured to stabilize...")), wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is permanent, semi-permanent, or detachable (see Fig. 8):
wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is attached or attachable to the rotorcraft (200)(see Figs. 3-8 and Paras 23-24 and 29),
wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is attached in an area or surface at a top of the rotorcraft (Modified Fig. 3 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of area or surface at a top of element 200; see Para 23 - "... Rotor craft 200 also includes a rotor hub system 208, extending upwards from forward section 204 of fuselage 202...")) between a windshield of the rotorcraft (Modified Fig. 3 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of windshield of element 200)) and a tail boom (206, tail section - Para 23) of the rotorcraft (200)(see Modified Fig. 3 above and Paras 23-24 and 29);
wherein the area or surface (Modified Fig. 3 above - A) is at a rotor system (208, rotor hub system - Para 23), rotor blades, an engine, an engine cowling, an engine firewall, or a shaft that extends from the top (Modified Fig. 3 above - A) of the rotorcraft (200)(see Modified Fig. 3 above, Figs. 3-8, and Paras 23-24 and 2); and
wherein the at least one safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is configured solely for attachment of a user safety device during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground (see Figs. 4-5 and Figs. 7-8 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 284 is shown/described with structure capable of having a user safety device attached thereto while on the ground, and that it is capable of being the only such element with the user safety device connected thereto while on the ground, and thereby being configured to be solely (i.e. without another) for attachment of the user safety device during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground (i.e. element 284 is shown with structure configured such that it could be the only element with a safety device connected to it during maintenance of the rotorcraft on the ground))), wherein the user safety device is a line, belt, harness, fall limiter, sling seat, bosun chair, chest harness, fall prevention device, fall prevention system, fall restraint device, or personal fall arrest system (see Figs. 4-5 and Figs. 7-8 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 284 is shown with structure capable of having a user safety device (which is a line, belt, harness, fall limiter, sling seat, bosun chair, chest harness, fall prevention device, fall prevention system, fall restraint device, or personal fall arrest system) attached thereto)).
Re claim 2:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (Loftus; 202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the safety strap (284 (a type of strap as shown in Figs. 4-5 and 7-8)) is positioned on a side or the top (see Modified Fig. 3 above at A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of top of element 200 is shown at element A; see Para 23 - "... Rotor craft 200 also includes a rotor hub system 208, extending upwards from forward section 204 of fuselage 202...")) of the rotorcraft (200) and provides an anchor point for the user safety device (see Figs. 4-8 at element 284 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of anchor point capable of being for a user safety device is shown at element 284)).
Re claim 3:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 2 (as described above), wherein the anchor point (see Figs. 4-8 at element 284) comprises the hook, the loop, a ring, a D-ring, a lanyard, a tie off (see Figs. 4-8 at element 284 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of tie off is shown at element 284)), or a carabiner.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 4:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the at least one safety bar (284 (a type of one or more safety bars as shown in Figs. 4-5 and 7-8)) is connected to one or more sides (Modified Fig. 3 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of one or more sides of element 200 is shown at element C)) of the rotorcraft (200) at hard points (Modified Fig. 7 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of hard points within or outside of element 200)) that are within or outside a body (202) of the rotorcraft (200)(see Figs. 3-8), wherein the at least one safety bar (284) has at least one of vertical, horizontal, or diagonal orientation (Modified Fig. 7 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of vertical, horizontal, or diagonal orientation to the ground is shown at element B)) to the ground (see Figs. 3-8) and provides an anchor point for the user safety device (see Figs. 4-8 at element 284 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of anchor point capable of being for a user safety device is shown at element 284)).
Re claim 5:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the safety bar, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is positioned on a grip (282, lead-lag link - Para 29 (a type of grip as shown between Figs. 3-8 and as described in Para 29)) or a flapping stop of a main rotor (see Fig. 3 at element 208 (a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of main rotor is shown at element 208)) of the rotorcraft (200)(see Figs. 3-8 and Para 29).
Re claim 6:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above) wherein the safety bar, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is positioned in, on, within, or about a firewall (Modified Fig. 3 above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of firewall is shown at element D; element D corresponds to the indicated portion of element 202 which is a fuselage per para 23))(see Figs. 3-8 and Para 29).
Re claim 7:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is attached from a rotor (see Figs. 3-5 at element 208 (a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of rotor is shown at element 208))(see Figs. 4-8).
Re claim 9:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (Loftus; 202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is attached to a yoke (222, center body - Para 24 (a type of yoke as shown in Figs. 4-8)) of the rotorcraft (200)(see Figs. 4-8 and Paras 24 and 29).
Re claim 12:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the user safety device is disconnected from the rotorcraft (200) after performing the maintenance on the rotorcraft (200)(see Figs. 3-5 and Figs. 7-8 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 284 is shown with structure capable of having a user safety device (which is capable of being disconnected from the rotorcraft after performing maintenance on the rotorcraft) attached thereto)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loftus Jr. et al. (U.S. 2015/0284077), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bofill et al. (U.S. 2015/0291288).
PNG
media_image3.png
577
837
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above).
Loftus further discloses wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (284) is attached to one or more hard points (Modified Fig. 7 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of hard points within or outside of element 200))(see Modified Fig. 7 above and Figs. 4-8).
Loftus fails to disclose the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop is attached to one or more hard points on an engine.
Bofill teaches wherein a safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (Modified Fig. 2 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of safety bar, strap, fastener, hook, or loop is identified at element A)) is attached to one or more hard points (22, gearbox - Para 27 (a type of hardpoint as shown in Fig. 1 and as described in Paras 26-27)) on an engine (20, engine - Para 26)(see Figs. 1-2 and Para 26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of Loftus after that of Bofill (thereby attaching the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of Loftus to one or more hard points of an engine in the way taught by Bofill) for the advantage of being able to drive the rotor by an engine (Bofill; Para 26).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loftus Jr. et al. (U.S. 2015/0284077), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burdet (U.S. 2006/0032703).
Re claim 11:
Loftus discloses the safety apparatus (202, 208) of claim 1 (as described above).
Loftus fails to disclose wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop is attached to a user via the safety device under austere environmental conditions.
Burdet teaches a safety apparatus (Figs. 1A-1C (see Para 18)) comprising a safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (29, strap - Para 21)(see Fig. 2 and Paras 27-28), wherein the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop (29) is attached to a user (see Fig. 3 and Para 27 - “…the technician…”) via a safety device (11, safety harness - Para 18; 13, lanyard - Para 18; 15, anchor assembly - Para 18) under austere environmental conditions (see Fig. 3, Paras 1-2 (“…while working at height…”), and Para 27 (“…The technician can now safely perform work…”)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the safety device of Burdet could have been included in the safety apparatus of Loftus because the safety device of Burdet is connected to an aircraft (Burdet; see Figs. 2-3 and Paras 25-27) and the safety apparatus of Loftus is connected to a type of aircraft (Loftus; see Fig. 3 and Para 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the user of Burdet could have been attached via the safety device of Burdet to the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of Loftus because the user of Burdet is attached to the safety device of Burdet by a safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of an aircraft (see Figs. 2 and 3 and Paras 25-27) and the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of Loftus (Loftus; 284) is on an aircraft (Loftus; 200)(Loftus see Figs. 3-4); and further because Burdet teaches that “the fall restraint device could be mounted to any other suitable feature of the aircraft 35” and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of Loftus as a type of suitable feature of an aircraft as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Loftus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the user safety device of Burdet in the safety apparatus of Loftus (thereby attaching a user via a safety device under austere environmental conditions to the safety bar, safety strap, safety fastener, safety hook, or safety loop of Loftus in the way taught by Burdet) for the advantage of allowing a technician to safely perform work (Burdet; Para 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
8/28/26
Prosecution Insights