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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 27 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0039], pg. 10, line 2, --is—should be inserted before “removably”;
[0041], line 9, “busing” should be replaced with –bushing--;
[0042], line 1, “washer 304” should be replaced with –washer 306--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 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. Specifically, the dependence at the end of claim 15 brings in a second introduction of “a rotor shaft” with respect to the “the rotor shaft” recited in claim 1, in other words, it is unclear whether reference is being made to the rotor shaft of claim 1 and/or claim 15.
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, 2, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiser (US20110315474).
1: An aircraft maintenance fall protection system (Figs. 1 and 2F) comprising: an anchor (24) couplable to a rotor shaft of an aircraft (intended use), the anchor including: a flyable fitting (34) configured to be coupled to the rotor shaft during flight ([0020]: “Although various implementations are described for post anchor extensions configured to be inserted into the floor of a building, the post anchor extensions may also be inserted in or connected to any receptacle in or component of any secure structure where fall protection is needed”); and an extension fitting assembly (18, 38) removably couplable to the flyable fitting (Fig. 2F, 74, 76), the extension fitting assembly to support a tether for a maintenance operator (Fig. 1, 14, and [0018]: “Workers in the fall hazard areas may wear a body harness that is attached to one end of a lifeline, the other end of which is moveably connected to the cable”).
2: The aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the flyable fitting includes a base (see the dotted line portion in Fig. 1) to interface with the rotor shaft (intended use) and a spigot (Fig. 2D, 46) to couple with the extension fitting assembly (18, 38).
5: The aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the flyable fitting is concentric with a main rotor retaining nut of the rotor shaft (note that this limitation is inherent to Wiser, specifically, the flyable fitting would necessarily be concentric to the main rotor nut when the base of the fitting is inserted in the bore of the rotor shaft – note further that the flyable fitting of Wiser requires insertion to a cylindrical opening, for example, a bore in a rotor shaft, in order to operate).
6. The aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 1, wherein the extension fitting assembly (see e.g., Fig. 6C of Wiser) includes an extension pipe (190) and an anchorage fitting (192).
9: The aircraft maintenance fall protection system (Figs. 1 and 2F) of claim 6, wherein the anchor is a first anchor (24, also see left side of Fig. 1), the rotor shaft is a first rotor shaft ([0020]: “Although various implementations are described for post anchor extensions configured to be inserted into the floor of a building, the post anchor extensions may also be inserted in or connected to any receptacle in or component of any secure structure where fall protection is needed”), the flyable fitting is a first flyable fitting (34, also see left side of Fig. 1), and the extension fitting assembly is a first extension fitting assembly (18, also see left side of Fig. 1); the aircraft maintenance fall protection system including: a second anchor couplable (24, also see right side of Fig. 1) to a second rotor shaft of the aircraft (([0020]: “Although various implementations are described for post anchor extensions configured to be inserted into the floor of a building, the post anchor extensions may also be inserted in or connected to any receptacle in or component of any secure structure where fall protection is needed”)), the second anchor including: a second flyable fitting (34, also see right side of Fig. 1); and a second extension fitting assembly (18, also see right side of Fig. 1) removably couplable to the second flyable fitting; and a static line (14) that is securable to the anchorage fitting.
Claims 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thornton (US20180126199).
15: An aircraft comprising: a rotor hub ([0034]: “rotor hub”) having a rotor shaft (see bottom of Fig. 3); a plurality of blades (106) coupled to the rotor hub and rotatable about the rotor shaft; and the maintenance fall protection system of claim 1, specifically, an anchor (Fig. 3, 142/144, and [0033]) couplable to a rotor shaft of an aircraft (via grip 146, and flapping stop 148, see e.g., Fig. 3), the anchor including: a flyable fitting (142) configured to be coupled (note that a first element can be ‘coupled to’ a second element by way of elements in between) to the rotor shaft during flight ([0032]: “Those additional attachments points may be permanent or temporary”); and an extension fitting assembly (142 note that the anchor is a nut and bolt which is a removable coupling) removably couplable to the flyable fitting, the extension fitting assembly to support a tether for a maintenance operator (see e.g., [0033]: “The user would attach a line to the fall protection/restraint loop 140 during operation and it would provide fall protection to the user when working at or around the main rotor”).
19: The aircraft of claim 15, wherein the plurality of blades (106) are rotatable while the extension fitting assembly and the maintenance fall protection system are coupled to the flyable fitting (note that the system of Thornton does not preclude rotation of the blades).
20. The aircraft of claim 15, wherein the aircraft is flyable with the flyable fitting ([0032]: “Those additional attachments points may be permanent or temporary” – the permanency of Thornton’s flyable fittings indicate travel with the aircraft during flight).
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.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Harvey (US20150224350).
3: Wiser fails to disclose the aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 2, further including a cover positioned over the base, the spigot to extend through the cover. Harvey teaches, in the context of fall protection systems, a cover (Fig. 1D, 107) positioned over the base (117), the spigot to extend through the cover (see the dashed line portion adjacent the lead line from callout 21). It 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 to have included a cover positioned over the base, the spigot to extend through the cover in the system disclosed by Wiser according to the teachings of Harvey in order to further secure the anchor, see [0026[ of Harvey.
4: Wiser fails to disclose the aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 2, wherein the base is threadably couplable with an opening of the rotor shaft. Harvey teaches in the context of fall protection systems, wherein the base is threadably (note that base 117 is threaded in Fig. 1D of Harvey) couplable with an opening of the rotor shaft (intended use). It 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 to have included a threaded base in the system of Wiser according to the teachings of Harvey in order to provide a more robust connection between the base and the receptacle (see [0020] of Wiser).
7. Wiser fails to disclose the aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 6, wherein the anchorage fitting is rotatable about the extension pipe. Harvey teaches wherein an anchorage fitting is rotatable about an extension pipe (see Harvey [0021]: “the anchoring system comprises a rotating turntable 101 and a ring portion 103 on top of an anchor body 105”). It 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 to have included wherein the anchorage fitting is rotatable about the extension pipe in the system of wiser according to the teachings of Harvey in order to inhibit torque in the extension pipe.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Smith (US2185447).
8: Wiser discloses the aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 6, wherein the flyable fitting includes a base (Wise, see the dotted line portion in Fig. 1) to interface with the rotor shaft (intended use) and a spigot (Wise, Fig. 2D, 46) to couple with the extension fitting assembly (Wise, 18, 38). Wiser fails to disclose the extension pipe being releasably couplable to the spigot with a self-locking pin. Note however that Wiser (in Fig. 2F, also see [0039]) discloses a bolt 118 and nut 120 assembly to secure the extension pipe to the spigot. Also, Smith teaches a self-locking pin. It 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 to have included a self-locking pin in the system of Wiser according to the teachings of Smith in order provide a pin that may be removed without tools (see lines 10-12 of Smith).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Ostrobrod (US5957432).
10: Wiser fails to disclose the aircraft maintenance fall protection system of claim 9, further including a pulley movable along the static line. Ostrobrod teaches, in the context of fall protection systems, a pulley. It 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 to have included a pulley in the system of Wiser according to the teachings of Ostrobrod in order to allow a lanyard to travel freely along the static line (see col. 3, lines 44-49 of Ostrobrod).
11: An apparatus (Wiser, Fig. 1 and 2F) comprising: a first extension fitting assembly (Wiser, 18, see left side of Fig. 1) removably couplable to a first flyable fitting on a rotor shaft of an aircraft (intended use, also see Wiser, ([0020]: “Although various implementations are described for post anchor extensions configured to be inserted into the floor of a building, the post anchor extensions may also be inserted in or connected to any receptacle in or component of any secure structure where fall protection is needed”); a second extension fitting assembly (Wiser, 18, see right side of Fig. 1) removably couplable to a second flyable fitting on the aircraft (intended use, also see Wiser, ([0020]: “Although various implementations are described for post anchor extensions configured to be inserted into the floor of a building, the post anchor extensions may also be inserted in or connected to any receptacle in or component of any secure structure where fall protection is needed”); a static line (14) to extend between the first extension fitting assembly and the second extension fitting assembly. Wiser fails to disclose a pulley movable along the static line, the pulley to be coupled to a harness to support a maintenance operator. Ostrobrod teaches, in the context of fall protection systems, a pulley (Ostrobod, Fig. 2, 38) movable along the static line, the pulley to be coupled to a harness (Ostrobod, Fig. 2, 34) to support a maintenance operator (Ostrobod, Fig. 2, 32). It 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 to have included a pulley in the system of Wiser according to the teachings of Ostrobrod in order to allow a lanyard to travel freely along the static line thereby allowing a worker to move to perform duties (see col. 3, lines 44-49 of Ostrobrod).
12: Wiser in view of Ostrobod fail to disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the pulley is a first pulley, the harness is a first harness, and the maintenance operator is a first maintenance operator, the apparatus further including a second pulley movable along the static line simultaneously as the first pulley, the second pulley to be coupled to a second harness to support a second maintenance operator. However, Wiser appears to suggest that multiple workers may be connected to a single lifeline at [0018]: “Workers in the fall hazard areas may wear a body harness that is attached to one end of a lifeline, the other end of which is moveably connected to the cable”. Also, per MPEP 2144.VI.B., absent an unexpected a result, the duplication of parts is obvious. Accordingly, it 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 to have included a second pulley and harness in the system of Wiser in order to achieve the expected result of allowing another worker to work.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Ostrobrod (US5957432) and further in view of Harvey (US20150224350)
13: Wiser in view of Ostrobrod disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first extension fitting assembly (see e.g., Fig. 6C of Wiser) includes a first extension pipe (Wiser, 190, also see left side of Fig. 1) and a first anchorage fitting (192) about the first extension pipe, and the second extension fitting assembly (see e.g., Fig. 6C of Wiser) includes a second extension pipe (Wiser, 190, also see right side of Fig. 2) and a second anchorage fitting (192) about the second extension pipe, the static line (14) to extend between the first anchorage fitting and the second anchorage fitting. Wiser in view of Ostrobrod fail to disclose wherein the first anchorage fitting is rotatable about the first extension pipe and wherein the second anchorage fitting is rotatable about the second extension pipe. Harvey teaches wherein an anchorage fitting is rotatable about an extension pipe (see Harvey [0021]: “the anchoring system comprises a rotating turntable 101 and a ring portion 103 on top of an anchor body 105”). It 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 to have included wherein the first anchorage fitting is rotatable about the first extension pipe and wherein the second anchorage fitting is rotatable about the second extension pipe in the system of Wiser in view of Ostrobrod according to the teachings of Harvey in order to inhibit torque in the extension pipes.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Ostrobrod (US5957432) and further in view of Smith (US2185447).
14: The apparatus of claim 11, further including a first self-locking pin to couple the first extension fitting with the first flyable fitting and a second self-locking pin to couple the second extension fitting with the second flyable fitting. Wiser in view of Ostrobrod fail to disclose a first self-locking pin to couple the first extension fitting with the first flyable fitting and a second self-locking pin to couple the second extension fitting with the second flyable fitting. Note however that Wiser (in Fig. 2F, also see [0039]) discloses a bolt 118 and nut 120 assembly to secure the extension pipe to the spigot. Also, Smith teaches a self-locking pin. It 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 to have included a first self-locking pin to couple the first extension fitting with the first flyable fitting and a second self-locking pin to couple the second extension fitting with the second flyable fitting in the system of Wiser in view of Ostrobrod according to the teachings of Smith in order provide a pin that may be removed without tools (see lines 10-12 of Smith).
Claims 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Thornton (US20180126199).
Wiser discloses the maintenance fall protection system of claim 1, however, Wiser fails to disclose an aircraft comprising a rotor hub having a rotor shaft and a plurality of blades coupled to the rotor hub and rotatable about the rotor shaft. Thornton teaches, in the context of maintenance fall protection systems, an aircraft (Fig. 1) comprising a rotor hub having a rotor shaft and a plurality of blades coupled to the rotor hub and rotatable about the rotor shaft. It 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 to have included the anchor of Wiser with the aircraft of Thornton, specifically, by coupling Wiser’s flyable fitting with the rotor shaft of Thornton, e.g., inserting or connecting with an intermediary member to the rotor shaft, according to the teachings of Wiser and Thornton in order to provide additional attach points for fall arrest equipment, see e.g., [0007] of Thornton - note further that Thornton teaches the coupling fall arrest equipment to and around the rotor shaft via the rotor hub in e.g., Fig. 4C, see also e.g. [0034] of Thornton.
16: The aircraft of claim 15, further including: a main rotor retaining nut; and an oil reservoir, the flyable fitting concentric with the main rotor retaining nut and the oil reservoir (note that this limitation is inherent to Wiser, specifically, the flyable fitting would necessarily be concentric to the main rotor nut when the base of the fitting is inserted in the bore of the rotor shaft such that the oil reservoir would extend around the base, see Applicants disclosure at [0036] – note further that the flyable fitting of Wiser requires insertion to a cylindrical opening, for example, a bore in a rotor shaft, in order to operate).
19. Wiser in view of Thornton disclose the aircraft of claim 15, wherein the plurality of blades are rotatable while the extension fitting assembly and the maintenance fall protection system are coupled to the flyable fitting (note this feature is inherent to Wiser in view of Thornton, specifically, since the extenstion fitting assembly extends upwardly, the extension fitting assembly and the maintenance fall protection system would necessarily be free of interference with the plurality of blades).
20. Wiser in view of Thornton disclose the aircraft of claim 15, wherein the aircraft is flyable with the flyable fitting, specifically, the flyable fitting of Wiser in view of Thornton does not appear to interfere with the rotation/operation of the helicopter blades.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser (US20110315474) in view of Thornton (US20180126199) and further in view of Jovanovich (US2753004).
17. Wiser in view of Thornton disclose the aircraft of claim 15, wherein the rotor hub is a first rotor hub (Thornton, [0034]), the rotor shaft (Thornton, Fig. 1, note that the hub is coupled to the shaft) is a first rotor shaft, the plurality of blades (Thornton, Fig. 2, 106, also see [0032]) are a first plurality of blades, the flyable fitting is a first flyable fitting (Wiser, 34, also see left side of Fig. 1), and the extension fitting assembly is a first extension fitting assembly (Wiser, 18, also see left side of Fig. 1). Wiser in view of Thornton further disclose a second flyable fitting (34, also see right side of Fig. 1) and a second extension fitting assembly (18, also see right side of Fig. 1).
Wiser in view of Thornton fail to disclose an aircraft further including: a second rotor hub having a second rotor shaft and a second plurality of blades coupled to the second rotor hub and rotatable about the second rotor shaft. Jovanovich teaches an aircraft (10) further including: a second rotor hub (13) having a second rotor shaft (32) and a second plurality of blades (12) coupled to the second rotor hub and rotatable about the second rotor shaft.
It 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 to have included a second rotor hub having a second rotor shaft; a second plurality of blades coupled to the second rotor hub and rotatable about the second rotor shaft; and a second flyable fitting interfacing with the second rotor shaft, the second flyable fitting releasably couplable with a second extension fitting assembly to support a maintenance fall protection system according to the teachings of Wiser, Thornton, and Jovanovich in order to safely service/repair the fore and aft sections of a tandem rotor aircraft simultaneously.
18: Wiser in view of Thornton disclose the aircraft of claim 15, wherein the flyable fitting is a first flyable fitting (34, also see left side of Fig. 1) and the extension fitting assembly is a first extension fitting assembly (18, also see left side of Fig. 1). Wiser in view of Thornton further disclose a second flyable fitting (34, also see right side of Fig. 1) and a second extension fitting assembly (18, also see right side of Fig. 1). Wiser in view of Thornton fail to disclose the aircraft further including: a tail boom. Jovanovich teaches an aircraft (10) further including a tail boom (Fig. 1). It 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 to have included the aircraft further including: a tail boom; and a second flyable fitting interfacing with the tail boom, the second flyable fitting releasably couplable with a second extension fitting assembly to support a maintenance fall protection system . according to the teachings of Wiser, Thornton, and Jovanovich in order to safely service/repair the fore and aft sections of a tandem rotor aircraft simultaneously.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dutton (US3112941) discloses a rotor shaft nut and Apostolescu (US2549407) discloses helicopter rotor construction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634