Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacko (US 20220340254 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lacko teaches a hollow dorsal fin (“This airfoil 26 may be configured as a wing, a vane, a fin […]” Par. [0042] lines 5-6) for an aircraft, comprising: an interior of the hollow dorsal fin that defines a compartment (Fig 1 “hollow body” element 32); at least one portion configured to be fixedly connected to a fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 34A/B are configured to be fixed to the fuselage); and at least one portion configured to be selectively releasably connected to a fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 34A/B are configured to be releasably connected to the fuselage; “The airfoil mount 36, for example, may be mechanically fastened to the aircraft assembly base 22 using one or more fasteners 124,” Par. [0074] lines 12-14).
Regarding Claim 3, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the hollow dorsal fin comprises first, second, and third portions; the first and second (Fig. 11 elements 80) portions are configured to be fixedly connected to the fuselage of the aircraft; and the third portion (Fig. 11 elements 34A and 34B) comprises the compartment and is configured to be selectively releasably connected to the fuselage of the aircraft and is located between the first portion and the second portion.
Regarding Claim 4, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses a first seal between the first portion and the third portion; and a second seal between the second portion and the third portion; wherein the first and second seals are weatherproof (“may be attached (e.g., bonded) together using bonding material such as resin or any other adhesive, and/or joined via a sealant material” Par. [0066] lines 5-6).
Regarding Claim 5, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses a fastener configured to fixedly connect the first and second portions of the hollow dorsal fin to the fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 124).
Regarding Claim 6, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 3 and further discloses the first and second portions of the hollow dorsal fin are not transmissive to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (“Each segment mount 80, for example, may be constructed from metal such as, but not limited to, aluminum (Al)” Par. [0077] lines 3-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a fastener configured to selectively releasably connect the at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin to the fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 124).
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacko (US 20220340254 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Lacko teaches a hollow dorsal fin for an aircraft (“This airfoil 26 may be configured as a wing, a vane, a fin […]” Par. [0042] lines 5-6), comprising: a compartment in an interior of at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin (Fig 1 “hollow body” element 32); an opening configured to provide access to the compartment; and a removable cover configured to cover the opening (Fig. 1 cover elements 34A and 34B separate to form opening; are removable).
Regarding Claim 9, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses the hollow dorsal fin is not transmissive to electromagnetic radiation in the visible range (Fig. 1 element 26 is not visibly transparent).
Regarding Claim 10, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses the at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin is made of a radome material (“The airfoil body 32 and its airfoil segments 34 may be constructed substantially (or only) from the non-metallic and/or dielectric material(s)” Par. [0075] lines 1-3; Dielectric materials are known to be radome material).
Regarding Claim 11, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses the at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin is transmissive to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (“The airfoil body 32 and its airfoil segments 34 may be constructed substantially (or only) from the non-metallic and/or dielectric material(s)” Par. [0075] lines 1-3; Radomes are known to be made from dielectric materials).
Regarding Claim 12, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses the compartment comprises one or more of: at least one divider; at least one stringer; or at least one frame (Fig. 1 elements 60 and 80).
Regarding Claim 13, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses the one or more of the at least one divider, the at least one stringer, or the at least one frame is transmissive to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 11 elements 60 are made from dielectric material).
Regarding Claim 14, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses the compartment comprises the at least one divider; and the at least one divider is not transmissive to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (Fig. 11 elements 80 made from metallic material).
Regarding Claim 15, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses the hollow dorsal fin comprises mounting equipment positioned inside the compartment; and the mounting equipment is configured to mount electrical equipment inside the compartment (Fig. 11 element 30).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacko (US 20220340254 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Lacko teaches a method for providing a hollow dorsal fin on an aircraft (“This airfoil 26 may be configured as a wing, a vane, a fin […]” Par. [0042] lines 5-6), the method comprising: releasably connecting the hollow dorsal fin to a fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 124); wherein the hollow dorsal fin comprises an interior that defines a compartment (Fig 1 “hollow body” element 32); at least one portion configured to be fixedly connected to a fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 34A/B are configured to be fixed to the fuselage); at least one portion configured to be selectively releasably connected to the fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 34A/B are configured to be releasably connected to the fuselage; “The airfoil mount 36, for example, may be mechanically fastened to the aircraft assembly base 22 using one or more fasteners 124,” Par. [0074] lines 12-14).
Regarding Claim 18, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16 and further discloses removing the at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin from the fuselage of the aircraft; installing electrical equipment on the fuselage of the aircraft; and releasably reconnecting the at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin to the fuselage of the aircraft such that the electrical equipment is within the compartment (“to facilitate placement of the electric device 30 within the airfoil system 24 during assembly, the airfoil 26 may be configured with a segmented (e.g., clamshell-like) construction” Par. [0044] lines 12-15).
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacko (US 20220340254 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Lacko teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (Fig. 1 element 22); a hollow dorsal fin releasably connected to the fuselage (“This airfoil 26 may be configured as a wing, a vane, a fin […]” Par. [0042] lines 5-6), wherein the hollow dorsal fin comprises an interior that defines a compartment (Fig 1 “hollow body” element 32); at least one portion configured to be fixedly connected to a fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 34A/B are configured to be fixed to the fuselage); at least a portion of the hollow dorsal fin configured to be selectively releasably connected to the fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 elements 34A/B are configured to be releasably connected to the fuselage; “The airfoil mount 36, for example, may be mechanically fastened to the aircraft assembly base 22 using one or more fasteners 124,” Par. [0074] lines 12-14); and electrical equipment positioned inside the compartment (Fig. 1 element 30).
Regarding Claim 21, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 20 and further discloses a conduit configured to be connected to the electrical equipment, the conduit configured to provide a connection between the compartment and an interior of the fuselage of the aircraft (Fig. 1 line to element 28 shows the connection between element 30 and the aircraft electronic system).
Regarding Claim 22, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 20 and further discloses the electrical equipment comprises one or more of: an antenna; or a sensor (“This electric device 30 may be configured as or otherwise include an antenna such as, but not limited to, a VHF antenna. The electric device 30 may also or alternatively be configured as or otherwise include a sensor such as, but not limited to, a prognostics and health management (PHM) sensor” Par. [0043] lines 6-11).
Regarding Claim 23, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 20 and further discloses the hollow dorsal fin comprises first, second, and third portions; the first and second portions (Fig. 11 elements 80) are configured to be fixedly connected to the fuselage of the aircraft; and the third portion (Fig. 11 elements 34A and 34B) comprises the compartment and is configured to be selectively releasably connected to the fuselage of the aircraft and is located between the first portion and the second portion.
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.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacko (US 20220340254 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Lacko teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 16.
Lacko fails to explicitly teach before releasably connecting the hollow dorsal fin to the fuselage of the aircraft, removing a fixed dorsal fin from the fuselage of the aircraft.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lacko to have the step of removing a previous dorsal fin before connecting the new dorsal fin, if there is a dorsal fin being replaced. Doing so is known in the art as aerodynamic structures are known to be replaced and replacing an aerodynamic structure requires the removal of the previous structure.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacko (US 20220340254 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Lacko teaches a method of installing electrical equipment (Fig. 1 element 30) on an aircraft, the method comprising: providing a hollow dorsal fin comprising; an interior that defines a compartment (Fig 1 “hollow body” element 32); an opening configured to provide access to the compartment (Fig 1 “hollow body” element 32); and a cover configured to cover the opening (Fig. 1 cover elements 34A and 34B separate to form opening; are removable); connecting the hollow dorsal fin to the fuselage of the aircraft; and installing electrical equipment on the fuselage of the aircraft such that the electrical equipment is within the compartment (“to facilitate placement of the electric device 30 within the airfoil system 24 during assembly, the airfoil 26 may be configured with a segmented (e.g., clamshell-like) construction” Par. [0044] lines 12-15).
Lacko fails to explicitly teach removing a fixed dorsal fin from a fuselage of the aircraft.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lacko to have the step of removing a previous dorsal fin before connecting the new dorsal fin, if there is a dorsal fin being replaced. Doing so is known in the art as aerodynamic structures are known to be replaced and replacing an aerodynamic structure requires the removal of the previous structure.
Pertinent Prior Art
Luttmann et al. (WO 2020216737 A1) – discloses hollow dorsal fin structure
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that Lacko does not disclose portions that are configured to be fixedly or releasably connected to the fuselage as cited in the non-final rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the portions of Lacko are capable of being fixedly or releasably connected to the fuselage. Unless the structures are monolithic to the fuselage of the aircraft, the portions can be fixedly connected or releasably connected to the fuselage.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644