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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26 regarding the 112 rejections have been fully considered. The rejections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are 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.
Claim 6 states “the one or more regions”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Also, it is unclear what is meant by “the one or more regions including one or more desired volumes around the at least one specific position for securing ULDs”. How does this limit the structure of the cargo compartment? And what makes a volume “desired”?
Claims 6 and 8 are unclear as they depend from a cancelled claim 4.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mapitigama et al (US 20080003075 A1) in view of Muller et al (US 20070023572 A1).
For claim 1, Mapitigama discloses an aircraft having a cargo compartment Para 0003: “Once the load is secured on a pallet it may be loaded into the cargo hold of an aircraft”, the cargo compartment comprising:
a lining aircraft fuselage, and
a modular fire barrier pallet cover 2 entirely made of a multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements panels 4/6/8, which entirely comprise a flexible material Para 0006: “textile material”… “will simply adapt to the shape of the load” offering additional burn-through protection in relation to the material of the lining of the cargo Para 0004: “the pallet cover may take the form of fireproofing for the load to prevent a fire spreading from the load”, the modular fire barrier being movable between a storage state may be stored where the entire modular fire barrier is stowable within the cargo compartment the panels could remain in the cargo compartment when stored and a use state where the modular fire barrier is unstowed to encase, on at least four sides, a container loaded into the cargo compartments Fig. 3 wherein the remaining sides of the container not encased by the modular fire barrier are encased by the lining of the cargo compartment such that in the use state, the container is entirely encased as it is within the cargo hold, it would be encased by the aircraft lining where not encased by the pallet cover, and
a plurality of quick-action securing devices Fig. 3: net attachment devices 19/20, corner securement devices 30, and hooks 36 configured to secure the multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements to the lining of the cargo compartment configured for this use by being attachment devices,
wherein the multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements are configured into the use state after the container is loaded into the cargo compartment based on a shape of the container functional limitation - the panels are configured to be arranged after a container is loaded.
Mapitigama does not state that the lining of the aircraft comprises a material with respective burn-through protection. However, Muller teaches an aircraft fuselage with burn-through protection Para 0024.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mapitigama by using the fuselage in Fig. 1 of Muller which is made of a material with burn-through protection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to achieve the highest level of safety for a passenger plane relative to fire exposure from outside” (Muller, Para 0024).
For claim 3, Mapitigama as modified discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 2, the storage state comprising integral storage in the cargo compartment as defined in the disclosure at Para 0010: “integral means that the modular fire barrier is located in the cargo compartment permanently and does not hinder loading and unloading in the storage state”; therefore, the storage state of the cover is integral as it may be permanently located in the cargo compartment and not hinder loading and unloading.
For claim 5, Mapitigama as modified discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 1, the lining comprising at least one of lateral elements, ceiling elements, or floor elements of the cargo compartment as modified by Muller.
For claim 6, Mapitigama as modified discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 1, the cargo compartment being suitable for securing unit load devices (ULDs) at least at one specific position Para 0003: “it may be loaded into the cargo hold of an aircraft” and one or more regions including one or more desired volumes around the at least one specific position for securing ULDs wherever the curtain is used would be considered the region where a ULD could be secured.
For claim 7, Mapitigama as modified discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 1, the cargo compartment being arranged in at least one of a lower deck or on a main deck of the aircraft Para 0003: “it may be loaded into the cargo hold of an aircraft”, as a “main deck” does not denote specific structure, this cargo hold may be called the main deck.
For claim 9, Mapitigama as modified discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose the multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements comprising aramids.
However, Pherson teaches a fire barrier cargo cover comprising aramids Para 0029.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mapitigama by using aramids in the cover as disclosed by Pherson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a material with high temperature resistance also with a high strength to weight.
For claim 12, Mapitigama as modified discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 3, wherein the modular fire barrier is stowable by rolling the modular fire barrier into the integral storage may be rolled as the panels are flexible and wherein the modular fire barrier is unstowed by unrolling the modular fire barrier from the integral storage to entirely encase the container may be unrolled into the position shown.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mapitigama in view of Muller, further in view of Ivester et al (US 20140299711 A1).
For claims 1 and 8, Mapitigama discloses claim 1 as described above but fails to disclose quick-action securing devices configured to secure the multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements to the lining of the cargo compartment comprising at least one of hook-and-loop closures or zip fasteners.
However, Ivester teaches an aircraft with a cargo compartment comprising a plurality of quick-action securing devices Para 0046: “The one or more fasteners (e.g., for the bezel 220, fasteners 325, and/or fasteners 370) may include nails, screws, rivets, bolts, magnets, pins, pegs, clips, snaps, hook and loop fasteners” configured to secure elements, such as a multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements, to the lining of the cargo compartment Fig. 2-3: within stowage pod wherein the quick-action securing devices comprising at least one of hook-and-loop closures or zip fasteners Para 0046: “hook and loop fasteners”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mapitigama by including quick-action securing devices configured to secure the multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements to the lining of the cargo compartment comprising at least one of hook-and-loop closures or zip fasteners as disclosed by Ivester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a stowage pod for storing items, such as the modular fire barrier when not in use.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mapitigama in view of Muller, further in view of Popp et al (US 7810577 B2).
For claims 10-11, Mapitigama discloses an aircraft as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose that the multiplicity of flexible fire barrier elements also comprise at least one sensor for detecting at least one of temperature, smoke, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ethylene or methane, the at least one sensor being communicatively coupled to an aircraft management system.
However, Popp teaches a cargo hold sensor for detecting temperature Col 6, lines 23-25: “The one or more fire temperature sensors 14 may be located in a cargo area 32”, the at least one sensor being communicatively coupled to an aircraft management system Abstract: “The fire alerting system may be configured to receive information from the temperature sensor and generate a warning signal based on an undesirably high temperature associated with the area”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Mapitigama by including a temperature sensor to communicate a warning to an aircraft management system as disclosed by Popp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to alert the crew of a possible fire as early as possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached on (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights