Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examine`1qd under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 10th March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-15, and 17-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 18th December 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12, 19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11 line 11, “one or more of (i) a connector extending through the panel or (ii) a feed through hole…” should read “one or more of (i) a connector extending through the panel and (ii) a feed through hole…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 12 line 2, “…first plate…” should read “…first doubler plate…”.
In claim 19 line 3, “…camera, or a multispectral…” should read “…camera and a multispectral…”.
In claim 21 line 12, “one or more of (i) a connector extending through the panel or (ii) a feed…” should read “one or more of (i) a connector extending through the panel and (ii) a feed …” for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 11-12, 14, 17-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsley et al. (US 2013/0263514) in view of Scimone et al. (US 2017/0225763), Zahlen et al. (US 2015/0064389) and Bourgon et al. (US 2001/0030261).
Regarding claim 11, Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) a connection assembly/multi-purpose hatch system (100) for attaching to a fuselage of an aircraft, the connection assembly comprising:
a first doubler plate/hatch body (106) attachable to the aircraft, the first doubler plate/hatch body having a second opening (118) (Para 0048, 0054-0055);
a panel/antenna mounting plate (104) configured to be removably attached to the first doubler plate/hatch body (106), wherein the panel/antenna mounting plate (104) occludes the second opening (118) when coupled to the first doubler plate/hatch body (106) (Para 0054-0055); and
a feed through hole/opening (132) extending through the panel/antenna mounting plate (104) (Para 0063),
but it is silent about the connection assembly comprising:
a first doubler plate attachable to an external surface of the fuselage around a first opening in a skin of the fuselage.
Scimone et al. ‘763 teaches (figures 1-5) an aircraft (10) with a port/opening (18) extending through the aircraft outer skin (12) in an underside of the fuselage comprising stringer (20) and formers/ribs (22s) (clearly seen in figures 2-3) wherein the receptable (100) is installed in the port/opening (18), which extends between plurality of stringers (20) (clearly seen in figure 3), and a payload assembly (200) is aligned for insertion into the receptacle (100) wherein a doubler (34) is connected to the outer skin (12) and is structurally connected or directly attached to the housing (110) of the receptacle (100) (Para 0025-0027, 0030, 0036-0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Scimone et al. ‘763 to configure the connection assembly comprising:
a first doubler plate attachable to an external surface of the fuselage around a first opening in a skin of the fuselage.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would only provide access to the antenna from inside the fuselage and enhance security of the antenna.
Modified Parsley et al. ‘514 is silent about the connection assembly comprising:
a second doubler plate attachable to an internal surface of the fuselage around the first opening;
a panel configured to be removably sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, wherein the panel occludes the second opening when sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates.
Zahlen et al. ‘389 teaches (figures 12-13) a window panel/first doubler plate (1) and window assembly (20) wherein window assembly (20) comprises a double pane/panel (22), which overlaps the window panel/first doubler plate (1), and retainer element/ second doubler plate (24) wherein the double pane/panel (22) is sandwiched between the window panel/first doubler plate (1) and the retainer element/ second doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 12) (Para 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Zahlen et al. ‘389 to configure the connection assembly comprising:
a second doubler plate attachable to an internal surface of the fuselage around the first opening;
a panel configured to be removably sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, wherein the panel occludes the second opening when sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enclose and secure the panel from all side.
Modified Parsley et al. ‘514 is silent about the connection assembly wherein the first doubler plate is permanently coupled to a stringer or former of the fuselage.
Bourgon et al. ‘261 teaches (figures 1-4) a fuselage panel (20) comprising an opening (22) located integrally facing the support element/doubler (18) wherein the support element/doubler (18) is fixed between frames (34) and angle bars (36) by rivets (24) (Para 0033, 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Bourgon et al. ‘261 to configure the connection assembly wherein the first doubler plate is permanently coupled to a stringer or former of the fuselage (rivets permanently couple doubler plates to a stringer or former).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly secure the first doubler plate to a stringer or former of the fuselage.
Regarding claim 12, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the connection assembly wherein the first doubler plate is permanently coupled to the stringer or former of the fuselage using at least one rivet (as modified by Bourgon et al. ‘261).
Regarding claim 14, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the connection assembly wherein:
the first doubler plate is sized to extend between and overlap with a plurality of structural features of the fuselage (as modified by Scimone et al. ‘763; port/opening (18) extends between plurality of stringers/structural features (clearly seen in figure 3) ; and
the second doubler plate is sized to fit between the plurality of structural features of the fuselage (first and second doubler plate are opposite each other).
Regarding claims 17-19, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the connection assembly wherein:
the connection assembly comprises the connector; and
the connection assembly further comprises:
an electrical distribution system connected or connectable to an electrical system of the aircraft; and
a patch bay electrically connected to the electrical distribution system and comprising an electrical connector configured for one or more of electrical communication or providing power, wherein the electrical connector is compatible with the one or more of the connector.
wherein at least one of the connector or the electrical connector is configured for connection to a sensor; and
wherein the sensor comprises one or more of: an antenna, LiDAR, RADAR, a hyperspectral camera, and a multispectral camera (these are optional claim limitations due to “or” clause in an independent claim 11).
Regarding claim 20, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the connection assembly further comprising:
a re-usable seal positioned between the panel and at least one of the first and second doubler plates and configured to provide one or more of a pressure seal or a weather seal providing one or more of a pressure seal or a weather seal (Para 0057).
Regarding claims 21-22, Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) an aircraft comprising:
a connection assembly/multi-purpose hatch system (100) attached to a fuselage of the aircraft, the connection assembly comprising:
a first doubler plate/hatch body (106) attached to the aircraft, the first doubler plate/hatch body having a second opening (118) (Para 0048, 0054-0055);
a panel/antenna mounting plate (104) configured to be removably attached to the first doubler plate/hatch body (106), wherein the panel/antenna mounting plate (104) occludes the second opening (118) when coupled to the first doubler plate/hatch body (106) (Para 0054-0055); and
a feed through hole/opening (132) extending through the panel/antenna mounting plate (104) (Para 0063),
but it is silent about the aircraft comprising:
a first doubler plate attached to an external surface of the fuselage around a first opening in a skin of the fuselage; and
wherein the first doubler plate is attached around the first opening in an underside of the fuselage of the aircraft.
Scimone et al. ‘763 teaches (figures 1-5) an aircraft (10) with a port/opening (18) extending through the aircraft outer skin (12) in an underside of the fuselage comprising stringer (20) and formers/ribs (22s) (clearly seen in figures 2-3) wherein the receptable (100) is installed in the port/opening (18), which extends between plurality of stringers (20) (clearly seen in figure 3), and a payload assembly (200) is aligned for insertion into the receptacle (100) wherein a doubler (34) is connected to the outer skin (12) and is structurally connected or directly attached to the housing (110) of the receptacle (100) (Para 0025-0027, 0030, 0036-0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Scimone et al. ‘763 to configure the aircraft comprising:
a first doubler plate attached to an external surface of the fuselage around a first opening in a skin of the fuselage; and
wherein the first doubler plate is attached around the first opening in an underside of the fuselage of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would only provide access to the antenna from inside the fuselage and enhance security of the antenna.
Modified Parsley et al. ‘514 is silent about the connection assembly comprising:
a second doubler plate attached to an internal surface of the fuselage around the first opening;
a panel configured to be removably sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, wherein the panel occludes the second opening when sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, and
wherein the second doubler plate is attached around the first opening in an underside of the fuselage of the aircraft.
Zahlen et al. ‘389 teaches (figures 12-13) a window panel/first doubler plate (1) and window assembly (20) wherein window assembly (20) comprises a double pane/panel (22), which overlaps the window panel/first doubler plate (1), and retainer element/ second doubler plate (24) wherein the double pane/panel (22) is sandwiched between the window panel/first doubler plate (1) and the retainer element/ second doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 12) (Para 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Zahlen et al. ‘389 to configure the connection assembly comprising:
a second doubler plate attached to an internal surface of the fuselage around the first opening;
a panel configured to be removably sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, wherein the panel occludes the second opening when sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, and
wherein the second doubler plate is attached around the first opening in an underside of the fuselage of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enclose and secure the panel from all side.
Modified Parsley et al. ‘514 is silent about the aircraft wherein the first doubler plate is permanently coupled to a stringer or former of the fuselage.
Bourgon et al. ‘261 teaches (figures 1-4) a fuselage panel (20) comprising an opening (22) located integrally facing the support element/doubler (18) wherein the support element/doubler (18) is fixed between frames (34) and angle bars (36) by rivets (24) (Para 0033, 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Bourgon et al. ‘261 to configure the aircraft wherein the first doubler plate is permanently coupled to a stringer or former of the fuselage (rivets permanently couples doubler plate to a stringer or former).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly secure at least the first doubler plate to a stringer or former of the fuselage.
Regarding claim 23, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the connection assembly wherein:
the first doubler plate is sized to extend between and overlap with a plurality of structural features of the fuselage (as modified by Scimone et al. ‘763; port/opening (18) extends between plurality of stringers/structural features (clearly seen in figure 3) ; and
the second doubler plate is sized to fit between the plurality of structural features of the fuselage (first and second doubler plate are opposite each other).
Regarding claim 25, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the aircraft wherein the first doubler plate is permanently coupled to the stringer or former of the fuselage using at least one rivet (as modified by Bourgon et al. ‘261).
Regarding claim 26, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the aircraft wherein:
the connection assembly comprises the connector; and
the connection assembly further comprises:
an electrical distribution system connected to an electrical system of the aircraft; and
a patch bay electrically connected to the electrical distribution system and comprising an electrical connector configured for one or more of electrical communication or providing power, wherein the electrical connector is compatible with the one or more of the connector (this is an optional claim limitations due to “or” clause in an independent claim 21).
Claim(s) 15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parsley et al. (US 2013/0263514), Scimone et al. (US 2017/0225763), Zahlen et al. (US 2015/0064389) and Bourgon et al. (US 2001/0030261) as applied to claims 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2016/0001871).
Regarding claim 15, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the connection assembly of claim 11 but it is silent about the connection assembly wherein one of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate comprises one or more captive nuts configured to mate with one or more corresponding bolts coupled to the other of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate.
Martin et al. ‘871 teaches (figures 1-6) a fuel tank access door system/connection assembly (100) comprising an outer door/ first doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 6) attached to an external surface of the aircraft wing (500) and an inner door/second doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 6) attached to an internal surface of the aircraft wing (clearly seen in figure 6) (Para 0042); and
wherein the inner door/ second doubler plate comprises one or more captive nuts configured to mate with one or more corresponding bolts/screw coupled to the other of the outer door/first doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 6) (Para 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Martin et al. ‘871 to configure the connection assembly wherein one of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate comprises one or more captive nuts configured to mate with one or more corresponding bolts coupled to the other of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly secure the doubler plate/hatch body to the fuselage at multiple points.
Regarding claim 24, modified Parsley et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-12D) the aircraft of claim 21 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein one of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate comprises one or more captive nuts configured to mate with one or more corresponding bolts coupled to the other of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate.
Martin et al. ‘871 teaches (figures 1-6) a fuel tank access door system/connection assembly (100) comprising an outer door/ first doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 6) attached to an external surface of the aircraft wing (500) and an inner door/second doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 6) attached to an internal surface of the aircraft wing (clearly seen in figure 6) (Para 0042); and
wherein the inner door/ second doubler plate comprises one or more captive nuts configured to mate with one or more corresponding bolts/screw coupled to the other of the outer door/first doubler plate (clearly seen in figure 6) (Para 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Parsley et al. ‘514 to incorporate the teachings of Martin et al. ‘871 to configure the aircraft wherein one of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate comprises one or more captive nuts configured to mate with one or more corresponding bolts coupled to the other of the first doubler plate or the second doubler plate.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly secure the doubler plate/hatch body to the fuselage at multiple points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10th March 2026, with respect to claim(s) 11 and 21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Bourgon ‘261 do not disclose or suggest that a first doubler is permanently coupled to a stringer or former of the fuselage, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The first and second doubler plates are coupled because a panel, which occludes the second opening on the first doubler plate, is sandwiched between the first and second doubler plates, and since, the first doubler plate is the attached to the external surface of the fuselage it would be obvious and easy to couple the first doubler plate by rivets to frames/stringers or formers which in turn couples the connection assembly to the frames/stringers or formers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 at (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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights