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 Objections
Claims 21-22 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21 line 5, “…of a base of the fixture…” should read “…of the base of the fixture…” as positively recited in line 3.
In claim 21 lines 15-16 and 19-20, “…the respective base or floor plane…” should read “…the base or floor plane…” for the purpose of consistency and clarity.
In claim 22 line 2, “a base,” should read “the base,” as positively recited in claim 21.
In claim 39 line 8, “…the respective base or floor…” should read “…the base or floor…” for the purpose of consistency and clarity.
In claim 39 line 16, “…the respective base or floor…” should read “…the base or floor…” for the purpose of consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14, 21-23, 30 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Storgaard Pederen (US 2011/0187083).
Regarding claim 1, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) a fixture/front support structure (45) for supporting a payload/blade (7) (Para 0066), comprising:
a first base/portion of base which support the first cantilevered support (clearly shown in the figure below) having a first longitudinal axis extending a length thereof (clearly seen in the figure below);
a second base/ portion of base which support the second cantilevered support (clearly shown in the figure below) having a second longitudinal axis extending a length thereof, the first and second longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to each other (clearly seen in the figure below);
a first cantilevered support coupled to the first base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis (clearly seen in the figure below) (first cantilevered support is only supported at the base);
a second cantilevered support coupled to the second base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the second longitudinal axis (clearly seen in the figure below), the first and second cantilevered supports extending substantially parallel to each other (clearly seen in the figure below) (second cantilevered support is only supported at the base);
a support beam (46) extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam (46) being configured to receive a payload/blade (7), the first end of the support beam (46) being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam (all vertical axes/first vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the first end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the first end of the support beams (46)), and the second end of the support beam (46) being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the second longitudinal axis and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam (46) (Para 0066; all vertical axes/second vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the second end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the second end of the support beams (46)).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein the oblique angle formed by the first and second longitudinal axes and the respective first and second cantilevered supports is approximately in the range of about 10 degrees to about 80 degrees (clearly seen in the figure above; angle is about 10 degrees).
Regarding claim 13, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein the first and second longitudinal distances are approximately in the range of about 0.10 meters to about 10 meters (multiple vertical axes are at first and second longitudinal distances approximately in the range of about 0.10 meters to about 10 meters from the first end and second end of the support beam respectively).
Regarding claim 14, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein the first cantilevered support includes a first terminal end coupled to the first base, a second terminal end coupled to the support beam, and a first support body extending between the first and second terminal ends (clearly seen in the figure above; first cantilevered support has two terminal ends coupled to the first base and a support beam; portion of the first cantilevered support in between two terminal ends is a first support body),
wherein the second cantilevered support includes a third terminal end coupled to the second base, a fourth terminal end coupled to the support beam, and a second support body extending between the third and fourth terminal ends (clearly seen in the figure above; second cantilevered support has two terminal ends coupled to the second base and a support beam; portion of the second cantilevered support in between two terminal ends is a second support body).
Regarding claim 21, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) a fixture/front support structure (45) for supporting a payload in a cargo aircraft (Para 0066), comprising:
a first cantilevered support extending at a first oblique angle with respect to a base of the fixture such that a first longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the first cantilevered support forms the first oblique angle with the base plane extending through a substantial portion of a top surface of the base of the fixture (clearly seen in the figure below) (first cantilevered support is only supported at the base; base plane extends through the top surface of the base of the fixture);
a second cantilevered support extending at a second oblique angle with respect to the base of the fixture such that a second longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the second cantilevered support forms the second oblique angle with the base plane (clearly seen in the figure below) (second cantilevered support is only supported at the base; base plane extends through the top surface of the base of the fixture);
a support beam (46) extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam (46) being configured to receive a payload/blade (7), the first end of the support beam (46) being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the base plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the base plane and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam (all vertical axes/first vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the first end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the first end of the support beams (46)), and the second end of the support beam (46) being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the base plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the base plane and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam (46) (Para 0066; all vertical axes/second vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the second end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the second end of the support beams (46)).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture further comprising:
the base (clearly shown in the figure above);
wherein each of the first and second cantilevered supports are coupled to the base, the first cantilevered support extending at the first oblique angle with respect to the base and the second cantilevered support extending at the second oblique angle with respect to the base (clearly seen in the figure above; both first and second cantilevered supports form respective first and second angles with the base).
Regarding claim 23, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein the base further comprises:
a first base/portion of base which support the first cantilevered support (clearly shown in the figure below) having a first longitudinal axis extending a length thereof (clearly shown in the figure below);
a second base/ portion of base which support the second cantilevered support (clearly shown in the figure below) having a second longitudinal axis extending a length thereof, the first and second longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to each other (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein the first cantilevered support includes a first terminal end coupled to the base, a second terminal end coupled to the support beam, and a first support body extending between the first and second terminal ends (clearly seen in the figure above; first cantilevered support has two terminal ends coupled to the base and a support beam; portion of the first cantilevered support in between two terminal ends is a first support body),
wherein the second cantilevered support includes a third terminal end coupled to the base, a fourth terminal end coupled to the support beam, and a second support body extending between the third and fourth terminal ends (clearly seen in the figure above; second cantilevered support has two terminal ends coupled to the second base and a support beam; portion of the second cantilevered support in between two terminal ends is a second support body).
Regarding claim 37, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein each of the first oblique angle and the second oblique angle is approximately in the range of about 10 degrees to about 80 degrees (clearly seen in the figure above; angle is about 10 degrees).
Regarding claim 38, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture wherein the first and second longitudinal distances are approximately in the range of about 0.10 meters to about 10 meters (multiple vertical axes are at first and second longitudinal distances approximately in the range of about 0.10 meters to about 10 meters from the first end and second end of the support beam respectively).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storgaard Pederen (US 2011/0187083) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hadley et al. (US 2020/0094993).
Regarding claim 2, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 1 but it is silent about the fixture wherein the first and second bases comprise first and second carriages, respectively, each of the first and second carriages comprising a brace and a plurality of wheels associated therewith.
Hadley et al. ‘993 teaches (figure 8) a fixture/blade support apparatus comprising first and second bases (clearly shown in the figure below) wherein the first and second bases comprises first and second carriages, respectively, each of the first and second carriages comprising a brace/portion of base which to which wheels are secured and a plurality of wheels (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
470
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Hadley et al. ‘993 to configure the fixture wherein the first and second bases comprise first and second carriages, respectively, each of the first and second carriages comprising a brace and a plurality of wheels associated therewith.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to easily move the fixture around on the ground.
Claim(s) 9 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storgaard Pederen (US 2011/0187083) as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of Thomsen et al. (US 10,502,191).
Regarding claim 9, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 1 but it is silent about the fixture comprising:
a plurality of support rods extending between the two cantilevered supports, the plurality of support rods including:
a first support rod extending from the first base to at least one of a location on the support beam proximate to the second cantilevered support or a location on the second cantilevered support proximate to the support beam; and
a second support rod extending from the second base to at least one of a location on the support beam proximate to the first cantilevered support or a location on the first cantilevered support proximate to the support beam.
Thomsen et al. ‘191 teaches (figures 1-5) a root frame/fixture (10) comprising two upright struts (91, 92), a support beam and a support rod (clearly shown in the figure below) extending between two upright struts (91, 92) wherein a support rod extends from the base of the upright strut (92) to a location on the upright strut (91) proximate to the support beam (clearly seen in the figure below) proximate to the uprights strut (91) (Col. 8 Lines 63-67; Col. 9 Lines 1-2).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
545
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Thomsen et al. ‘191 to configure the fixture comprising:
a plurality of support rods extending between the two cantilevered supports, the plurality of support rods including:
a first support rod extending from the first base to a location on the second cantilevered support proximate to the support beam; and
a second support rod extending from the second base to a location on the first cantilevered support proximate to the support beam.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance the structural integrity of the fixture.
Regarding claim 27, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 22 but it is silent about the fixture comprising:
a plurality of support rods extending between the two cantilevered supports, the plurality of support rods including:
a first support rod extending from the base to at least one of a location on the support beam proximate to the second cantilevered support or a location on the second cantilevered support proximate to the support beam; and
a second support rod extending from the base to at least one of a location on the support beam proximate to the first cantilevered support or a location on the first cantilevered support proximate to the support beam.
Thomsen et al. ‘191 teaches (figures 1-5) a root frame/fixture (10) comprising two upright struts (91, 92), a support beam and a support rod (clearly shown in the figure below) extending between two upright struts (91, 92) wherein a support rod extends from the base of the upright strut (92) to a location on the upright strut (91) proximate to the support beam (clearly seen in the figure below) proximate to the uprights strut (91) (Col. 8 Lines 63-67; Col. 9 Lines 1-2).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
545
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Thomsen et al. ‘191 to configure the fixture comprising:
a plurality of support rods extending between the two cantilevered supports, the plurality of support rods including:
a first support rod extending from the base to a location on the second cantilevered support proximate to the support beam; and
a second support rod extending from the base to a location on the first cantilevered support proximate to the support beam.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance the structural integrity of the fixture.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storgaard Pederen (US 2011/0187083) as applied to claim 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Ellsworth (US 2004/0195356).
Regarding claims 15-16, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 1 but it is silent about the fixture wherein the first cantilevered support comprises:
a first upper cap;
a first lower cap; and
a first terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the first upper and first lower caps,
wherein the first upper and first lower caps extend from the first terminal end support rod to a common point on the first base such that the first upper cap, the first lower cap, and the first terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the second cantilevered support comprises:
a second upper cap;
a second lower cap; and
a second terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the second upper and second lower caps,
wherein the second upper and second lower caps extend from the second terminal end support rod to a common point on the second base such that the second upper cap, the second lower cap, and the second terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the first cantilevered support further comprises a truss support rods extending alternately between the first upper cap and the first lower cap, and
wherein the second cantilevered support further comprises truss support rods extending alternately between the second upper cap and the second lower cap.
Ellsworth ‘356 teaches (figure 3E) two spray booms (130) comprising a triangular trusses/support which supports spray plumbing section (310) wherein triangular trusses/support comprises:
an upper cap, an lower cap; and a terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the upper and lower caps (clearly shown in the figure below),
wherein the upper and lower caps extend from the terminal end support rod to a common point such that the upper cap, the lower cap, and the terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape (clearly seen in the figure below), and
wherein the triangular trusses/support further comprises a truss support rods extending alternately between the upper cap and the lower cap (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
339
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Ellsworth ‘356 to configure the fixture wherein the first cantilevered support comprises:
a first upper cap;
a first lower cap; and
a first terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the first upper and first lower caps,
wherein the first upper and first lower caps extend from the first terminal end support rod to a common point on the first base such that the first upper cap, the first lower cap, and the first terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the second cantilevered support comprises:
a second upper cap;
a second lower cap; and
a second terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the second upper and second lower caps,
wherein the second upper and second lower caps extend from the second terminal end support rod to a common point on the second base such that the second upper cap, the second lower cap, and the second terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the first cantilevered support further comprises a truss support rods extending alternately between the first upper cap and the first lower cap, and
wherein the second cantilevered support further comprises truss support rods extending alternately between the second upper cap and the second lower cap.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance structural efficiency by efficiently distributing loads with less material.
Regarding claims 39-40, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 21 but it is silent about the fixture wherein the first cantilevered support comprises:
a first upper cap;
a first lower cap; and
a first terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the first upper and first lower caps,
wherein the first upper and first lower caps extend from the first terminal end support rod to a common point on the base or floor such that the first upper cap, the first lower cap, and the first terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the second cantilevered support comprises:
a second upper cap;
a second lower cap; and
a second terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the second upper and second lower caps,
wherein the second upper and second lower caps extend from the second terminal end support rod to a common point on the base or floor such that the second upper cap, the second lower cap, and the second terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the first cantilevered support further comprises a truss support rods extending alternately between the first upper cap and the first lower cap, and
wherein the second cantilevered support further comprises truss support rods extending alternately between the second upper cap and the second lower cap.
Ellsworth ‘356 teaches (figure 3E) two spray booms (130) comprising a triangular trusses/support which supports spray plumbing section (310) wherein triangular trusses/support comprises:
an upper cap, an lower cap; and a terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the upper and lower caps (clearly shown in the figure below),
wherein the upper and lower caps extend from the terminal end support rod to a common point such that the upper cap, the lower cap, and the terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape (clearly seen in the figure below), and
wherein the triangular trusses/support further comprises a truss support rods extending alternately between the upper cap and the lower cap (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
339
566
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Ellsworth ‘356 to configure the fixture wherein the first cantilevered support comprises:
a first upper cap;
a first lower cap; and
a first terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the first upper and first lower caps,
wherein the first upper and first lower caps extend from the first terminal end support rod to a common point on the base such that the first upper cap, the first lower cap, and the first terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the second cantilevered support comprises:
a second upper cap;
a second lower cap; and
a second terminal end support rod that extends between outer terminal ends of the second upper and second lower caps,
wherein the second upper and second lower caps extend from the second terminal end support rod to a common point on the base such that the second upper cap, the second lower cap, and the second terminal end support rod form a substantially triangular shape, and
wherein the first cantilevered support further comprises a truss support rods extending alternately between the first upper cap and the first lower cap, and
wherein the second cantilevered support further comprises truss support rods extending alternately between the second upper cap and the second lower cap.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance structural efficiency by efficiently distributing loads with less material.
Claim(s) 17 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Storgaard Pederen (US 2011/0187083) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Montgomery et al. (US 3,885,685).
Regarding claim 17, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 1 but it is silent about the fixture wherein the first and second cantilevered supports are configured such that the payload received by the support beam extends into a volume of a nose cone of an aircraft without any structure of the fixture, including the first base, the second base, the first cantilevered support, the second cantilevered support, and the support beam, being in contact with a bottom surface of the nose cone.
Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a cargo carrying aircraft (11) comprising a cargo deck (27) with a plurality of rotatable wheels (93) wherein a portion of a volume of a nose (15) is empty (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 18-20; Col. 6 Lines 8-10; since a portion of a volume of a nose (15) is empty, nose (15) has a cargo volume).
PNG
media_image6.png
422
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Montgomery et al. ‘685 to configure the fixture wherein the first and second cantilevered supports are configured such that the payload received by the support beam extends into a volume of a nose cone of an aircraft without any structure of the fixture, including the first base, the second base, the first cantilevered support, the second cantilevered support, and the support beam, being in contact with a bottom surface of the nose cone (fixture can be configured/placed, as needed, to support the payload inside the cargo aircraft such that the fixture is outside of the nose cone volume) .
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to configure the fixture to be used in the aircraft without obstructing an opening and closing of the nose.
Regarding claim 41, Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) the fixture of claim 21 but it is silent about the fixture wherein the first and second cantilevered supports are configured such that the payload received by the support beam extends into a volume of a nose cone of an aircraft without any structure of the fixture, including the first base, the second base, the first cantilevered support, the second cantilevered support, and the support beam, being in contact with a bottom surface of the nose cone.
Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a cargo carrying aircraft (11) comprising a cargo deck (27) with a plurality of rotatable wheels (93) wherein a portion of a volume of a nose (15) is empty (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 18-20; Col. 6 Lines 8-10; since a portion of a volume of a nose (15) is empty, nose (15) has a cargo volume).
PNG
media_image6.png
422
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to incorporate the teachings of Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a cargo carrying aircraft (11) comprising a cargo deck (27) with a plurality to configure the fixture wherein the first and second cantilevered supports are configured such that the payload received by the support beam extends into a volume of a nose cone of an aircraft without any structure of the fixture, including the first base, the second base, the first cantilevered support, the second cantilevered support, and the support beam, being in contact with a bottom surface of the nose cone (fixture can be configured/placed, as needed, to support the payload inside the cargo aircraft such that the fixture is outside of the nose cone volume) .
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to configure the fixture to be used in the aircraft without obstructing an opening and closing of the nose.
Claim(s) 18, 20, 42 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montgomery et al. (US 3,885,685) in view of Storgaard Pederen (US 2011/0187083).
Regarding claim 18, Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a system for loading a cargo aircraft, comprising:
at least one rail/plurality of wheels (93s) disposed in an interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) of a cargo aircraft (11), the interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) having a forward bay portion/empty volume of nose (15) located in a forward end of the cargo aircraft and an aft bay portion/bay portion aft of the nose (15) located in an aft end of the cargo aircraft, the forward bay portion extending forward beyond a forward terminal end of the at least one rail/ plurality of wheels (93) (clearly seen in figure 3; rail/plurality of wheels (93) starts after an aft end of nose (15) (Col. 3 Lines 14-15, Col. 6 Lines 8-12; plurality of wheels form a rail)
PNG
media_image6.png
422
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the system comprising fixture for supporting a payload, comprising:
a first base having a first longitudinal axis extending a length thereof;
a second base having a second longitudinal axis extending a length thereof, the first and second longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to each other;
a first cantilevered support coupled to the first base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis;
a second cantilevered support coupled to the second base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the second longitudinal axis, the first and second cantilevered supports extending substantially parallel to each other; and
a support beam extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam being configured to receive a payload, the first end of the support beam being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam, and the second end of the support beam being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the second longitudinal axis and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam,
wherein the fixture is configured to support a payload in the forward bay portion that extends beyond the forward terminal end of the at least one rail.
Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) a fixture/front support structure (45) for supporting a payload (Para 0066), comprising:
a first base/portion of base which support the first cantilevered support (clearly shown in the figure below) having a first longitudinal axis extending a length thereof (clearly seen in the figure below);
a second base/ portion of base which support the second cantilevered support (clearly shown in the figure below) having a second longitudinal axis extending a length thereof, the first and second longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to each other (clearly seen in the figure below);
a first cantilevered support coupled to the first base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis (clearly seen in the figure below) (first cantilevered support is only supported at the base);
a second cantilevered support coupled to the second base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the second longitudinal axis (clearly seen in the figure below), the first and second cantilevered supports extending substantially parallel to each other (clearly seen in figure below) (second cantilevered support is only supported at the base);
a support beam (46) extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam (46) being configured to receive a payload/blade (7), the first end of the support beam (46) being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam (all vertical axes/first vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the first end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the first end of the support beams (46)), and the second end of the support beam (46) being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the second longitudinal axis and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam (46) (Para 0066; all vertical axes/second vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the second end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the second end of the support beams (46)).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
1123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Montgomery et al. ‘685 to incorporate the teachings of Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to configure the system comprising fixture for supporting a payload, comprising:
a first base having a first longitudinal axis extending a length thereof;
a second base having a second longitudinal axis extending a length thereof, the first and second longitudinal axes being substantially parallel to each other;
a first cantilevered support coupled to the first base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the first longitudinal axis;
a second cantilevered support coupled to the second base and extending at an oblique angle with respect to the second longitudinal axis, the first and second cantilevered supports extending substantially parallel to each other; and
a support beam extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam being configured to receive a payload, the first end of the support beam being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam, and the second end of the support beam being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the second longitudinal axis when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the second longitudinal axis and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam,
wherein the fixture is configured to support a payload in the forward bay portion that extends beyond the forward terminal end of the at least one rail (fixture can be configured/placed, as needed, to support the payload in the forward bay portion).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to secure payloads to cargo floor.
Regarding claim 20, modified Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a cargo aircraft (11) comprising:
the system of claim 18; and
an articulating nose cargo door/nose (15) containing a forward end of the forward bay portion (empty volume of nose (15) forms a forward bay portion) and configured to move between an open position (clearly seen in figure 1) and a closed position such that, in the closed position, the articulating nose cargo door/nose (15) forms a closed forward end of the interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) and in the open position the articulating nose cargo door is moved to expose a cargo opening into the interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 3 Lines 19-20),
wherein the fixture is configured to support a payload in the forward bay portion that extends within a volume defined by the nose cargo door/nose (15) when the door is in the closed position (fixture can be configured/placed, as needed, to support the payload in the forward bay portion).
Regarding claim 42, Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a system for loading a cargo aircraft, comprising:
at least one rail/plurality of wheels (93s) disposed in an interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) of a cargo aircraft (11), the interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) having a forward bay portion/empty volume of nose (15) located in a forward end of the cargo aircraft and an aft bay portion/bay portion aft of the nose (15) located in an aft end of the cargo aircraft, the forward bay portion extending forward beyond a forward terminal end of the at least one rail/ plurality of wheels (93) (clearly seen in figure 3;rail/plurality of wheels (93) starts after an aft end of nose (15) (Col. 3 Lines 14-15, Col. 6 Lines 8-12; plurality of wheels form a rail)
PNG
media_image6.png
422
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the system comprising fixture for supporting a payload in a cargo aircraft, comprising: a first cantilevered support extending at a first oblique angle with respect to at least one of a base of the fixture or a floor of the cargo aircraft such that a first longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the first cantilevered support forms the first oblique angle with at least one of a base plane extending through a substantial portion of a top surface of a base of the fixture or a floor plane extending through a substantial portion of a top surface of a floor of the cargo aircraft;
a second cantilevered support extending at a second oblique angle with respect to at least one of the base of the fixture or the floor of the cargo aircraft such that a second longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the second cantilevered support forms the second oblique angle with at least one of the base plane or the floor plane;
a support beam extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam being configured to receive a payload, the first end of the support beam being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the respective base or floor plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the respective base or floor plane and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam, and the second end of the support beam being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the respective base or floor plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the respective base or floor plane and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam,
wherein the fixture is configured to support a payload in the forward bay portion that extends beyond the forward terminal end of the at least one rail.
Storgaard Pederen ‘083 teaches (figures 1-4b) teaches (figures 1-4b) a fixture/front support structure (45) for supporting a payload in a cargo aircraft (Para 0066), comprising:
a first cantilevered support extending at a first oblique angle with respect to a base of the fixture such that a first longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the first cantilevered support forms the first oblique angle with the base plane extending through a substantial portion of a top surface of the base of the fixture (clearly seen in the figure below) (first cantilevered support is only supported at the base; base plane extends through the top surface of the base of the fixture);
a second cantilevered support extending at a second oblique angle with respect to the base of the fixture such that a second longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the second cantilevered support forms the second oblique angle with the base plane (clearly seen in the figure below) (second cantilevered support is only supported at the base; base plane extends through the top surface of the base of the fixture);
a support beam (46) extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam (46) is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam (46) being configured to receive a payload/blade (7), the first end of the support beam (46) being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the base plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the base plane and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam (all vertical axes/first vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the first end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the first end of the support beams (46)), and the second end of the support beam (46) being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the base plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the base plane and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam (46) (Para 0066; all vertical axes/second vertical axis other than the vertical axis passing through the second end of the support beam (46) are/is at a longitudinal distance from the second end of the support beams (46)).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Montgomery et al. ‘685 to incorporate the teachings of Storgaard Pederen ‘083 to configure the system comprising fixture for supporting a payload in a cargo aircraft, comprising: a first cantilevered support extending at a first oblique angle with respect to at least one of a base of the fixture or a floor of the cargo aircraft such that a first longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the first cantilevered support forms the first oblique angle with at least one of a base plane extending through a substantial portion of a top surface of a base of the fixture or a floor plane extending through a substantial portion of a top surface of a floor of the cargo aircraft;
a second cantilevered support extending at a second oblique angle with respect to at least one of the base of the fixture or the floor of the cargo aircraft such that a second longitudinal axis extending through an entirety of the second cantilevered support forms the second oblique angle with at least one of the base plane or the floor plane;
a support beam extending between the first and second cantilevered supports such that a first end of the support beam is coupled to the first cantilevered support and a second end of the support beam is coupled to the second cantilevered support, the support beam being configured to receive a payload, the first end of the support beam being a first longitudinal distance away from a first vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the respective base or floor plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the respective base or floor plane and extends between the first vertical axis and the first end of the support beam, and the second end of the support beam being a second longitudinal distance away from a second vertical axis extending substantially perpendicular to the respective base or floor plane when measured along a line that is substantially parallel to the respective base or floor plane and extends between the second vertical axis and the second end of the support beam,
wherein the fixture is configured to support a payload in the forward bay portion that extends beyond the forward terminal end of the at least one rail (fixture can be configured/placed, as needed, to support the payload in the forward bay portion).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to secure payloads to cargo floor.
Regarding claim 44, modified Montgomery et al. ‘685 teaches (figures 1-3) a cargo aircraft (11) comprising:
the system of claim 42; and
an articulating nose cargo door/nose (15) containing a forward end of the forward bay portion (empty volume of nose (15) forms a forward bay portion) and configured to move between an open position (clearly seen in figure 1) and a closed position such that, in the closed position, the articulating nose cargo door/nose (15) forms a closed forward end of the interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) and in the open position the articulating nose cargo door is moved to expose a cargo opening into the interior cargo bay/cargo compartment (17) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 3 Lines 19-20),
wherein the fixture is configured to support a payload in the forward bay portion that extends within a volume defined by the nose cargo door/nose (15) when the door is in the closed position (fixture can be configured/placed, as needed, to support the payload in the forward bay portion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 31-32, 43 and 45-46 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 47 is allowed.
The specific arrangement of the fixture inside the cargo interior bay is a novel concept as the arrangement is subject to interaction of different forces between fixture and fuselage.
Conclusion
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