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 .
Claim 50 is 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.
“it” in claim 50 is recited. The limitations are not positively recited with the proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10,19,36,46-47, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Phillips 2070960
Phillips discloses the claimed invention as recited in the claims as shown below:
1. (Original) A dolly system Fig 1 for lifting an aircraft from underneath the aircraft, comprising:a dolly comprising: a steel frame 12 &12’ including a pair of side beams 13 &14 that are substantially parallel(This means that is does not have to be parallel) to each other and a platform 8 extending between the pair of beams defining a lower bed region, and a plurality of castors 22 attached to each of said pair of beams; the dolly system further comprising a pneumatic lifting system comprising an inflatable vertically erectable airbag stack 9, 9, 9, the erectable airbag stack comprising a plurality of joined and vertically stacked airbags, the airbag stack seated above or in the lower bed region, the stack of airbags comprising a plurality of airbags stacked one atop another, each of the plurality of airbags configured to transition from a compact deflated configuration to an inflated raised configuration.
9. (Original) The dolly system of claim 1, wherein each of the pair of beams 13 & 14 comprises a plurality of receiving brackets 16 for accepting an adjustable height rigid support structure, and the dolly further comprises an adjustable height rigid support structure.
10. (Original) The dolly system of claim 9, wherein the adjustable height rigid support structure further comprises a support platform 1 for the top of the rigid support structure.
36. (Original) A system for raising and towing a disabled aircraft stored together at an airport for rapid deployment during an emergency, the system comprising: a first aircraft dolly Fig.1 having a tow bar 29; vertically erectable airbag stack 9 on the first aircraft dolly; a compressor Col.1 lines 5-10 discloses compressed air and the presence of compressor; an air hose 32 for connecting between the compressor and the airbag stack 9; and an adjustable height rigid support structure attachable to the first aircraft dolly.
46. (Original) The kit of claim 41, further comprising a lifting plate 1 that seats on top of the airbag stack.
47. (Original) The kit of claim 41, further comprising an adjustable height rigid support structure 13 & 14 attachable to the one of the plurality of dollies, adjustable height rigid support structure that extends upwardly about the airbag stack.
50. (Original) The kit of claim 41, further comprising means Frame and sides and base and top of device in Fig.1 for stabilizing the airbag stack when it is in an inflated state supporting the aircraft.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips 2070960 in view of Knight et al 11161695.
Phillips teaches the claimed invention except for the workpiece being an aircraft.
Garman discloses teaches a method of lift an aircraft using an airbag system with wheels and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the Phillips device with workpieces such as aircraft as a matter selecting various workpieces as matter versatitlity which yields the predictable results. KSR
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips 2070960 in view of Garman 5669086.
Phillips discloses a kit for moving a disabled aircraft, the kit comprising:a plurality of dollies Fig.1 shows a dolly which can have more than one, each dolly having a U-shaped The profile of base 7 has an L shape when combine with a parallel L shape creates a U shape with a lower plate steel framework and a lowered bed platform supported by the U-shaped framework; a plurality of towbars Each jack having a tow bar 28; a pneumatic lifting system The system has a hose and air bags which means it is pneumatic comprising an air bag stack placeable plurality of stack able air bag 9 on one of the plurality of dollies, a compressor Col.1 lines 5-10 discloses compressed air and the presence of compressor; and connecting hose 32 .
Phillips does not disclose straps.
Garman discloses a lift having straps which support airbags and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Phillips device with straps 81 that would help support airbags which yields the predictable results of providing more support. KSR
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,8,11,37,39,42-43, and 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims are allowed because of the combination of limitations found in the claims and configuration and components that are required in the combination of limitations. The isolation of limitations would NOT portray accurately the patentability of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The 892 form discloses prior art being made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE D WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4499. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6;30-4;30.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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 D. WILSON
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
Ldw
/LEE D WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 October 27, 2025