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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites the limitation “the at least a portion of the support structure is a vertical member of the plurality of vertical members that is movable in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the support structure.” This limitation contains several awkward grammatical elements. Consider ––the portion of the support structure comprises a vertical member of the plurality of vertical members, and wherein the vertical member is movable in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the support structure––.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “spreading device” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feuillerac et al. (US PGPub 2021/0188445, "Feuillerac").
1. Feuillerac teaches an assembly system for assembling aircraft system components in a triangle region in a lower deck of an aircraft, the assembly system comprising:
an elongate support structure (duct support 15 may extend a length of the ducts, Feuillerac [0049]);
a guide (19) attached to the support structure and configured to guide the support structure (slideway elements guide 15, Feuillerac [0052]);
at least one holder (18) attached to the support structure and configured to releasably hold an elongate aircraft system component (receiving surfaces 18 support ducts, but are not disclosed as being permanently secured to the ducts, Feuillerac [0051]);
a guide rail configured to be inserted in a portion of the triangle region and in a longitudinal direction of the triangle region (slideway elements to form a rail/carriage configuration including a rail and guides configured to be attached to the floor in the triangle region, Feuillerac fig. 5 and [0060]-[0063]),
the guide being configured to be moved along the guide rail (Feuillerac [0060]-[0062]),
the support structure being sized such that the support structure can be inserted into the triangle region by the guide and the guide rail in the longitudinal direction of the triangle region (Feuillerac fig. 5), and
at least a portion of the support structure is configured to be moved in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the support structure (bearing surfaces 24 would be capable of moving laterally to ensure immobile contact with vertical struts 24, see Feuillerac fig. 5 and [0061]).
8. Feuillerac teaches the assembly system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one holder has a receiving surface corresponding to a portion of an outer surface of an aircraft system component (diameter of 18 corresponds to diameter of component received therein, Feuillerac [0051]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuillerac.
7. Feuillerac teaches the assembly system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the presence of a further guide rail configured to be arranged in another portion of the triangle region; and a further guide configured to be moved along the further guide rail and to guide the support structure.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Feuillerac to incorporate a further guide rail configured to be arranged in another portion of the triangle region; and a further guide configured to be moved along the further guide rail and to guide the support structure, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result would be produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill could find it obvious to use a pair of smaller guide rails to more evenly distribute the loads associated with an individual rail and guide.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuillerac as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umlauft et al. (US 9434484, "Umlauft").
2. Feuillerac teaches the assembly system according to claim 1, but although it teaches that the support structure and holder comprise a variety of vertically extending features and a longitudinally extending feature (see Feuillerac fig. 4 and [0049]), it does not teach that the support structure comprises at least one longitudinal member and a plurality of vertical members.
However, Umlauft teaches an assembly system (10) for assembling aircraft system components (12), the assembly system comprising: an elongate support structure (structure extends along longitudinal axis L, see Umlauft fig. 1); a guide (29) attached to the support structure and configured to guide the support structure (Umlauft fig. 1 and 8:26-57); at least one holder (module carrier 30) attached to the support structure (30 is attached to 18, see Umlauft fig. 1) and configured to releasably hold an elongate aircraft system component (module 12 may be elongated, see Umlauft fig. 2); a guide rail (31), the guide being configured to be moved along the guide rail (guide device 29 interacts with a complementary guide rail 31 such that wheels 28 are capable of moving the system along the rail, see Umlauft 8:26-57 and figs. 3-4),
wherein at least a portion of the support structure is configured to be moved in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the support structure (upper portion of framework is movable in horizontal and vertical directions perpendicular to longitudinal axis L of the support device, see Umlauft figs. 1-3 and 9:41-10:28), and wherein the at least one support structure comprises a plurality of longitudinal members (24) and a plurality of vertical members (22, see Umlauft fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Feuillerac according to the teachings from Umlauft regarding the use of struts such that the support structure comprises at least one longitudinal member and a plurality of vertical members, as using struts in construction allows for a reduction in weight (Umlauft 6:13-25).
3. Feuillerac as modified teaches the assembly system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one holder is attached to the plurality of vertical members (recessed holding portions 18 are each associated with vertical portions of 15 and in the modified version would be attached to the vertical members, see Feuillerac fig. 4).
4. Feuillerac as modified teaches the assembly system according to claim 2, wherein the at least a portion of the support structure is a vertical member of the plurality of vertical members that is movable in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the support structure (movable member 24 is vertical, Feuillerac fig. 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuillerac and Umlauft as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Benthien (US PGPub US 2019/0193871).
5. Feuillerac as modified teaches the assembly system according to claim 4, wherein the vertical member is connected to a further vertical member of the plurality of vertical members via a joint (one of ordinary skill would expect the vertical struts of the modified system to be connected to each other and horizontal elements by joints).
Feuillerac as modified does not teach that the connection involves a spreading device or that the vertical member can be rotated relative to the further vertical member.
However, Benthien teaches the utility of providing a system (6, Benthien figs. 1 and 3) for supporting a plurality of elongate components (such as tubes, see Benthien fig. 3), wherein the system comprises a plurality of members (20, 22, see Benthien fig. 1), wherein the members are configured for angular and linear adjustment (adjusting the relative lengths of 20 and 22 allows modification of linear and angular relationship, see Benthien [0060]), such that adjustment of individual vertical struts of a plurality (frame involves multiple struts when elongated, Benthien [0010]) would result in relative rotation of the vertical struts (22) to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system of Feuillerac and Umlauft such that the vertical member was connected to a further vertical member of the plurality of vertical members via a spreading device and was rotatable relative to the further vertical member, as doing so would allow the system to compensate for variations in the airplane structure (Benthien [0068]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuillerac as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benthien.
6. Feuillerac teaches the assembly system according to claim 1, but does not teach that the support structure comprises at least one cross member variable in length transversely to the longitudinal direction of the support structure, and wherein a holder of the at least one holder is disposed at a free end of the at least one cross member.
However, Benthien teaches the utility of providing a system (6, Benthien figs. 1 and 3) for supporting a plurality of elongate components (such as tubes, see Benthien fig. 3), wherein the system comprises a plurality of members (20, 22, see Benthien fig. 1), wherein the members are configured for angular and linear adjustment (adjusting the relative lengths of 20 and 22 allows modification of linear and angular relationship, see Benthien [0060]), and one of the plurality of elongate components is supported on a length-variable cross member (pipe is supported on member 20, see Benthien fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Feuillerac such that the support structure comprised at least one cross member variable in length transversely to the longitudinal direction of the support structure, and wherein a holder of the at least one holder is disposed at a free end of the at least one cross member, as doing so would allow the system to compensate for variations in the airplane structure (Benthien [0068]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuillerac as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anast (US PGPub 2016/0129986).
9. Feuillerac teaches the assembly system according to claim 1, but does not teach that the at least one holder comprises a hook-and-loop strip configured to hold or engage around the aircraft system component, or the at least one holder comprises a clip configured to releasably hold the aircraft system component.
However, Anast teaches the use of hook-and-loop connectors to install components in a triangle region of an aircraft (Anast [0061]-[0062] and figs. 1-5b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Feuillerac such that the at least one holder comprised a hook-and-loop strip configured to hold or engage around the aircraft system component, as doing so would allow for simple and quick installation of elements in a triangle area (Anast [0061]-[0062]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feuillerac as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loss et al. (US 10718449, "Loss").
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Feuillerac teaches the assembly system according to claim 1, but although Feuillerac teaches that the support is assembled with a plurality of ducts (Feuillerac fig. 4), it does not teach how the support is attached to each of the system components and the aircraft, and therefore does not teach the presence of a two-part assembly device, wherein a first part of the assembly device is configured to be attached to and to support the aircraft system component, and a second part of the assembly device is configured to be attached to a Z strut, a transverse spar, or a frame of the aircraft, wherein the two-part assembly device comprises at least one of a plug-in connection, a detent connection, a rail connection, a screw connection, or a clamping connection.
However, Loss teaches an assembly device (10), including a first part (16) configured to be attached to an aircraft system component (14), and a second part configured to be attached to a a transverse spar (12, see Loss fig. 1), wherein the assembly device comprises at least one of a plug-in connection, a detent connection, a rail connection, a screw connection, or a clamping connection (elements of the assembly may be fastened with a variety of connections including threaded connections, Loss 4:20-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Feuillerac to include a two-part assembly device, wherein a first part of the assembly device is configured to be attached to and to support the aircraft system component, and a second part of the assembly device is configured to be attached to a Z strut, a transverse spar, or a frame of the aircraft, wherein the two-part assembly device comprises at least one of a plug-in connection, a detent connection, a rail connection, a screw connection, or a clamping connection such as that taught by Loss, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods (Loss specifically notes that its teachings apply to pre-assembled systems that are subsequently attached to an aircraft, Loss 5:1-5), the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goehlich et al. (US 10232957, "Goehlich").
12. Goehlich teaches a method for assembling an aircraft system component in a region in a lower deck of an aircraft, comprising:
inserting a guide rail into a space-constrained region of an airplane (Goehlich 7:29-37) and in a longitudinal direction of the region (inserting a rail, Goehlich 1:40-52, the rail is in a longitudinal direction, Goehlich 2:23-40);
providing a support structure (Goehlich 1:40-52) configured to deliver an aircraft system component to be attached to the airplane fuselage in the region (Goehlich 7:42-67), wherein the support structure comprises a guide (support structure 2 moves along a rail 4 and necessarily would include some sort of guide at the contact point with the rail to maintain the relationship between the support and the rail, see, e.g. Goehlich fig. 9) and at least one holder (Goehlich teaches that the support structure is used for loading and attaching a system component such as a tank, some structural element acting as a holder would necessarily be present during the loading and moving steps, see Goehlich 8:36-41);
attaching an elongate aircraft system component to the support structure and inserting the support structure into the region in the longitudinal direction of the region by moving the support structure along the guide rail via the guide (attaching a component outside the fuselage and moved via the rail to the installation position, Goehlich 8:28-65);
moving at least a portion of the support structure in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the support structure in such a way that the elongate aircraft system component is brought into a final assembly position within the region (the support structure is configured to move an item being positioned around the axis or laterally relative to the axis, see Goehlich 3:9-55; the item being positioned may be a component, Goehlich 8:28-65);
attaching the aircraft system component to at least one primary structural component of the aircraft (delivered components are delivered and installed, Goehlich 8:28-65);
releasing the aircraft system component from the at least one holder and moving the support structure out of the region (after installation, the rail and attached support structures may be removed, Goehlich 6:30-50; the rail and support structures may only be present during assembly, Goehlich 6:63-7:7).
Although Goehlich teaches that the method of assembly may be used in a space-constrained region of an airplane (Goehlich 7:29-37) and that its applications may be used in other parts of a fuselage of an airplane (Goehlich 8:24-27), it does not explicitly teach its use in a triangle region.
However, because Goehlich suggests that its device and method may be adapted for use in additional locations, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Goehlich for use in a triangle region, as such a region is in the fuselage and represents the sort of space-constrained location where Goehlich suggests its device and method are suitable for use in other regions, which would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the reference for use in other fuselage locations such as a triangle region, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of the success of such a modification.
14. Goehlich as modified teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprising: removing the guide rail from the triangle region (after installation, the rail and attached support structures may be removed, Goehlich 6:30-50; the rail and support structures may only be present during assembly, Goehlich 6:63-7:7).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goehlich as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sayilgan (US 8602357).
13. Goehlich as modified teaches the method according to claim 12, but is silent as to the specific details of how the system component is permanently installed on the aircraft fuselage, and therefore does not explicitly teach the steps of attaching a first part of an assembly device to the aircraft system component; and attaching a second part of the assembly device to a Z-brace, a transverse spar, or a frame of the aircraft, wherein attaching the aircraft system component comprises connecting the first and second parts of the assembly device.
However, Sayilgan teaches a method for installing system components comprising attaching a first part (14,16) of an assembly device to an aircraft system component (2); and
attaching a second part (18,20) of the assembly device to a frame (6) of the aircraft,
wherein attaching the aircraft system component comprises connecting the first and second parts of the assembly device (see Sayilgan figs. 5-12 and 7:4-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have further modified the method of Goehlich as modified to use an attachment mechanism such as that taught by Sayilgan to install the system component such that the method comprised steps of attaching a first part of an assembly device to the aircraft system component; and attaching a second part of the assembly device to a Z-brace, a transverse spar, or a frame of the aircraft, wherein attaching the aircraft system component comprises connecting the first and second parts of the assembly device, as doing so would allow for secure and automatic installation of the system component (Sayilgan 2:47-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bobzien et al. (US 6536710), Breuer et al. (US 9644765), Durand et al. (US 10186848), Guering et al. (US 10358218), Benthien et al. (US PGPub 2019/0193872), and Maurel et al. (US PGPub 2021/0188417) teach structures and assemblies related to installing aircraft system components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723