This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18496422.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 recites, “ another plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion, wherein the plurality of threads has a first threads per inch and the another plurality of threads has a second threads per inch, the second threads per inch being greater than the first threads per inch. However, the specification states, “The plurality of threads has a first threads per inch and the another plurality of threads has a second threads per inch. The second threads per inch is greater than the first threads per inch” therefore claim 11 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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) 1-3, 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Johnson 2013/0160586. The applicant is reminded that the within claims 1-10, the actuator assembly and rotatable screw are not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the actuator assembly and rotatable screw. The applicant is reminded that the within claims 12-20, aircraft engine door is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the aircraft engine door.
Johnson discloses claim:
1. A nut (200) for use in an actuator assembly having a rotatable screw, the nut comprising: an outer nut portion (210); an inner nut portion (220) removably coupled to the outer nut portion (210), the inner nut portion (220) being rotatably couplable to the rotatable screw (12) ; and at least one anti-rotation pin (locating pin not shown which is inserted into radial opening 211, see par. [0037]) positionable between the outer nut portion (210) and the inner nut portion (220) to restrict rotation of the inner nut portion relative to the outer nut portion.
2. The nut of claim 1, wherein the nut (200) is fixedly mounted within the actuator assembly such that the rotatable screw (12) is movable relative to the nut.
3. The nut of claim 1, wherein the nut (200) is translatable along an axis relative to the rotatable screw (12).
10. The nut of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of threads (221) arranged at an inner surface (221) of the inner nut portion (220), the plurality of threads being couplable to the rotatable screw (12).
12. An actuator assembly for controlling movement of an aircraft engine door comprising: a screw (12) rotatable about an axis; a nut (200) rotatably engaged with the screw, the nut (200) further comprising: an outer nut portion (210); and an inner nut portion (220) removably coupled to the outer nut portion, the inner nut portion being rotatably fixed to the outer nut portion.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the nut further comprises at least one anti-rotation pin (locating pin not shown which is inserted into radial opening 211, see par. [0037]) positioned between the outer nut portion (210) and the inner nut portion (220) to restrict rotation of the inner nut portion relative to the outer nut portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 5-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson 2013/0160586.
Johnson discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for wherein the outer nut portion and the inner nut portion are formed different materials; wherein the inner nut portion is formed from a polymer; and wherein the outer nut portion is formed from a metal.
Johnson teaches that it is known within paragraph 0035 that the parts within the apparatus maybe made of various suitable materials such as metals and polymers therefore Johnson inherently teaches claims:
5. The nut of claim 1, wherein the outer nut portion and the inner nut portion are formed different materials.
6. The nut of claim 5, wherein the inner nut portion is formed from a polymer.
7. The nut of claim 5, wherein the outer nut portion is formed from a metal.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the outer nut portion and the inner nut portion are formed different materials
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the inner nut portion is formed from a polymer.
16. The system of claim 14, wherein the outer nut portion is formed from a metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Johnson to have wherein the outer nut portion and the inner nut portion are formed different materials; wherein the inner nut portion is formed from a polymer; and wherein the outer nut portion is formed from a metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson 2013/0160586 in view of Yiwu CN112923035.
Johnson discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for a first plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion and a second plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the outer nut portion; wherein the first plurality of threads and the second plurality of threads are microthreads; further comprising another plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion, wherein the plurality of threads has a first threads per inch and the another plurality of threads has a second threads per inch, the second threads per inch being greater than the first threads per inch; and further comprising a plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the inner nut portion, the plurality of threads being couplable the screw.
Yiwu teaches that it is known to have claims:
8. The nut of claim 1, further comprising a first plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion (2) and a second plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the outer nut portion (1).
9. The nut of claim 8, wherein the first plurality of threads and the second plurality of threads are microthreads (see figure below).
11. The nut of claim 10, further comprising another plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion (outer threads of 2), wherein the plurality of threads (inner threads of 2) has a first threads (inner threads of 2) per inch and the another plurality of threads has a second threads per inch, the second threads (outer threads of 2) per inch being greater than the first threads (inner threads of 2) per inch.
17. The system of claim 12, further comprising a plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the inner nut portion (2), the plurality of threads being couplable the screw.
18. The system of claim 12, further comprising a first plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion (2) and a second plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the outer nut portion (1).
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the first plurality of threads (outer threads of 2) and the second plurality of threads (inner threads of 1) are microthreads.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Johnson to have a first plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion and a second plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the outer nut portion; wherein the first plurality of threads and the second plurality of threads are microthreads; further comprising another plurality of threads arranged at an outer surface of the inner nut portion, wherein the plurality of threads has a first threads per inch and the another plurality of threads has a second threads per inch, the second threads per inch being greater than the first threads per inch; and further comprising a plurality of threads arranged at an inner surface of the inner nut portion, the plurality of threads being couplable the screw as taught by Yiwu for the purpose of controlling movement of the inner and outer members to allow for adjustments of the parts for incremental positioning for stability and firm attachment and/or being removably connected.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson 2013/160586 in view of Pandian 2023/0078972.
Johnson discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the cowl door and outer nut portion has a flange arranged at an exterior surface.
Pandian teaches it is known to have claims:
20. The system of claim 14, wherein the nut is coupled to a cowl door (102), the actuator assembly being operable to move the aircraft engine door between an open position and a closed position.
4. The nut of claim 1, wherein the outer nut portion has a flange (1221) arranged at an exterior surface thereof, the flange being connectable to a component to be moved by the actuator assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Johnson to have included wherein the nut is coupled to a cowl door, the actuator assembly being operable to move the aircraft engine door between an open position and a closed position and wherein the outer nut portion has a flange arranged at an exterior surface thereof, the flange being connectable to a component to be moved by the actuator assembly as taught by Pandian for the purpose of providing a better mechanical actuator assembly preventing failure and instability when positioning the engine door and a flange acts as an attachment means for the nut.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art discloses conventional nut members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631