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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6 of claim 11, “being deployable net” should read ---being a deployable net---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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, 5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hainsworth (WO0076845A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, Hainsworth discloses a device for protecting a helicopter (10; Figure 1) provided with an on-board hoist (108; Figures 8-9) provided with a hoisting cable (110) against the consequences of an abrupt rupture of said cable (110), comprising: the hoist (108) being provided with an outlet port (center hole of 114) for the hoisting cable (110), wherein said device is formed by a shield (112, 114; when the cable (110) is cut or ruptured, the pylon structure 112,114 will protect the helicopter from backlash of the cable) positioned in a vicinity of the outlet port of the hoisting cable (110), said shield (112, 114) being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to a direction of said outlet port and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters (in proportion to the helicopter, the width of the pylon structure 112,114 is at least 20 centimeters comparing to the size of the winch and pylon structure that fits within the doors of the helicopter) with respect to said outlet port; wherein the hoist (108) is arranged to store wound hoisting cable (110), and further wherein the hoist (108) is motorized (page 6, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Hainsworth discloses wherein the shield (112, 114) is formed of open-worked grid, rigidly attached in the vicinity of the outlet port of the hoist (108) using a rigid rod (beams of the pylon structure 112,114).
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barbieri (US10479502B2).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, Barbieri discloses a device (50; Figures 1-3) for protecting a helicopter (1) provided with an on-board hoist (20) provided with a hoisting cable (40) against the consequences of an abrupt rupture of said cable (40), comprising: the hoist (20) being provided with an outlet port (OP; see Barbieri annotated Figure 2 below) for the hoisting cable (40), wherein said device is formed by a shield (SH and 85); when the cable (40) positioned in a vicinity of the outlet port (OP) of the hoisting cable (40), said shield (SH) being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to a direction of said outlet port (OP) and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters (in proportion to the helicopter, the width of the fairing structure 50 is at least 20 centimeters comparing to the size of the winch 20 and wing 10 of the helicopter) with respect to said outlet port (OP); wherein the hoist (20) is arranged to store wound hoisting cable (40), and further wherein the hoist (20) is motorized (motor 32).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
257
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Barbieri, Annotated Figure 2
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hainsworth.
Regarding claim 2, Hainsworth discloses wherein the shield (112,114) extends over a distance of at least 20 centimeters with respect to the outlet port for letting out the hoisting cable (110) outside of the hoist (108), but fails to teach wherein the shield extends over a distance in the range from 20 to 50 centimeters. 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 shield of Hainsworth to include the shield extending over a distance from 20 to 50 centimeters in order for the shield to properly fit within the helicopter doors and ensure that weight is reduced as much as possible, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discover the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri in view of Scannell (US20190061902A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, Barbieri discloses the above device, but fails to teach wherein the shield is formed of a metal sheet having a stiffness sufficient to absorb a shock inherent to the abrupt rise of the end of the cable in case of a rupture; or wherein the shield is formed of a plate made of rigid plastic material.
Scannell teaches a similar protection device and further teaches wherein the shield (204, 206, 214, 216; Figure 4) is formed of a metal sheet (¶0027-0029; fairing components may be of sheet metal) having a stiffness sufficient to absorb a shock inherent to the abrupt rise of an end of the cable (40 of Barbieri) in case of a rupture; or wherein the shield (204, 206, 214, 216) is formed of a plate made of rigid plastic material (¶0027-0029; fairing components may be of reinforced plastics). 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 protection device of Barbieri to include sheet metal material for the shield as taught by Scannell in order to increase the strength of the shield to endure greater impacts and stresses; or to include plastic material for the shield as taught by Scannell in order to reduce the weight of the shield while still providing impact resistant characteristics and provide longer life and corrosion resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in the last two paragraphs of page 7, in page 8, and the first 3 paragraphs of page 9, the applicant argued that the disclosures of Hainsworth and/or Barbieri fail to teach protecting the helicopter from any backlash or rupture of the cable and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters with respect to said outlet port.
The examiner construed that the disclosure of Hainsworth teaches a beam 114 that includes a guide funnel/hole that will keep the rope centered and keeps the rope from flailing around or rubbing other parts of the helicopter and further includes additional beams 112 that help extend the rope a distance away from the helicopter body and partially acts as a barrier between the rope and helicopter body. In proportion to the helicopter, the width of the pylon structure 112,114 is at least 20 centimeters comparing to the size of the winch and pylon structure that fits within the doors of the helicopter. The examiner further construed that the disclosure of Barbieri teaches a fairing 50 with bottom plates that provides protection to the winch and the rest of the helicopter body that includes a guide opening, door 85, and bottom plates that at least partially keeps the rope from flailing around or rubbing other parts of the helicopter. In proportion to the helicopter, the width of the bottom plates of the fairing structure 50 is at least 20 centimeters comparing to the size of the winch 20 and wing 10 of the helicopter. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such argument does not overcome the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 11 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the shield being deployable net and being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to a direction of said outlet port and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters with respect to said outlet port; wherein the shield in a normal operating mode is collapsed within the hoist and is deployable using pyrotechnics in response to a detection of the abrupt rupture of the hoisting cable, the detection being based on an instantaneous determination of a torque value exerted on the hoist.
Hainsworth and Barbieri teach a shield, but fail to teach wherein the shield being deployable net and being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to a direction of said outlet port and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters with respect to said outlet port; wherein the shield in a normal operating mode is collapsed within the hoist and is deployable using pyrotechnics in response to a detection of the abrupt rupture of the hoisting cable, the detection being based on an instantaneous determination of a torque value exerted on the hoist. Franchi (WO2021240405A1) is the closest prior art and further teaches a shield comprising a net that deploys parallel with respect to the outlet port of the hoist and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters with respect to said outlet port, but fails to teach wherein the shield being deployable net and being oriented substantially perpendicularly with respect to a direction of said outlet port and extending over a distance of at least 20 centimeters with respect to said outlet port; wherein the shield in a normal operating mode is collapsed within the hoist and is deployable using pyrotechnics in response to a detection of the abrupt rupture of the hoisting cable, the detection being based on an instantaneous determination of a torque value exerted on the hoist.
Claim 12 would be allowable because it is a dependent of claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654