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 .
Duty to Disclose
The office would like to remind Applicant of 37 CFR 1.56, and whom has a duty to disclose:
37 C.F.R. 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability.
(c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the
meaning of this section are:
(1) Each inventor named in the application;
(2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and
(3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution
of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or
anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details of an airframe mounting interface (i.e. the structure, how it mounts etc.), a pod attachment interface of an airframe (i.e. the mounting structures and components), an engine mounting interface (i.e. mounts, swing links, coat hanger mounts, thrust trunnions), an air intake mounting interface (i.e. structure and components, and how it attaches), an engine housing mounting interface (i.e. what structure components are used to mount), and an auxiliary mounting interface as described in the specification. At best the submitted drawings are not in compliance with US practice in the mechanical areas in that they are highly schematic in nature. Only one of two things can be true, either all these components are old and well-known OR there is a disclosure problem under 112a/b. Even if applicant submits the components are old and well known, it is still unknown how and where and what components make up the claim invention. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Under the presumption that all the components must be known as they are in schematic form, the below objection is also applied.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an airframe mounting interface, a pod attachment interface of an airframe, an engine mounting interface, an air intake mounting interface, an engine housing mounting interface , and an auxiliary mounting interface. See all claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claims 1-15, as noted above in the drawing objections, (under the assumption even if the components are old and well know) the specification fails to disclose with sufficient specificity pertinent details to show applicant adequately possessed the invention even as claimed because the interfaces are all configured to perform specific functions, yet no structure is show and limited guidance and direction is provided in the disclosure. The Examiner contends it is unknown how the disclosed engine (figure 1) would be mounted within the adaptor. Where are the mounting locations on the engine that would engage with the engine mounting interface? What types of mounts are used? How are the mounts on the engine connected? How are the mounts on the second surface of the plate connected? How are the mounts on the top surface of the plate connected? Etc. Given all these considerations, the examiner asserts adequate written description does not exist. See for instance, (Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) & Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002))
Re claims 3, 9 and 10, claim limitations “engine housing mounting interface configured for, auxiliary mounting interface configure for ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner asserts the specification lacks specificity as to what structure and equivalents would make up the engine housing mounting interface and auxiliary mounting interface. As such it is unknown based on the disclosure what structure and equivalents constitute the limitations. If examiner missed this recitation in the specification, Applicant is kindly asked to point out where sufficient specificity for these elements are located.
Re claims 11-13, are rejected based upon dependency.
Claims 1 - 15 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.
Claims not directly address below, are rejected based upon dependency of claims rejected base claims.
Claim 1 recites, “substantially plate-like”. It is ambiguous as to the meets and bounds of what constitutes “plate-like”. As such it is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Re claim 15, recites, “an airframe mounting interface of a second podded engine adaptor…”. However, it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim an additional second pod OR that the airframe of the aircraft is merely configured to attach to a second differently configure pod.
Re claims 3, 9 and 10, claim limitations “engine housing mounting interface configured for”, “auxiliary mounting interface configure for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner asserts the specification lacks specificity as to what structure and equivalents would make up the engine housing mounting interface and auxiliary mounting interface. If examiner missed this recitation in the specification, Applicant is kindly asked to point out where sufficient specificity for these elements are located. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-6, 10-12, and 14 AS BEST UNDERSTOOD is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 10,597,144 to Fotouhie.
Re claim 1, Fotouhie discloses a podded engine adaptor (fig 8) configured to secure a podded engine to an aircraft, comprising: an airframe mounting interface (27a) configured for attachment to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of an aircraft (at least figs 5,6, 8); an engine mounting interface (at least fig 5, left and right flanges attached to 23) configured for attachment to an engine ;wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface (fig 5) and to an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an engine to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor, wherein the podded engine adaptor has a substantially plate-like form (fig 8), having a first surface comprising the airframe mounting interface and a second surface arranged opposing the first surface (fig 8), the second surface comprising the engine mounting interface; and wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be mounted to an underside of the airframe at the airframe mounting interface (figs 5, 6).
Re Claim 2. The podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising: an air intake mounting interface (fig 5, center flanges attached to 20) configured for attachment to an air intake, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to an air intake at the air intake mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an air intake to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor.
Re Claim 3. The podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising: an engine housing mounting interface (at least fig 7) configured for attachment to an engine housing, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to an engine housing at the engine housing mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an engine housing to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor.
Re Claim 4. The podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured such that, when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface and when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an air intake at the air intake mounting interface, the engine and the air intake are attached to the podded engine adaptor independently of one another (fig 5).
Re Claim 5. A podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured such that when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface and when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an air intake at the air intake mounting interface, an engine inlet of the engine is physically separated from the air intake (at least fig 5), it is noted, the opening of the air intake is separate from the opening of an engine inlet, as such the vast scope of this claim is met.
Re Claim 6. A podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be movably attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface such that the engine is configured for relative movement with respect to the podded engine adaptor (fig 5).
RE Claim 10. A podded engine assembly for an aircraft, comprising: a podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1;an engine attached to the engine mounting interface; an air intake fluidically coupled to an engine inlet and attached to an air intake mounting interface; and an engine housing at least partially surrounding the engine and attached to an engine housing mounting interface configured for attachment to the engine housing, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to the engine housing at the engine housing mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an engine housing to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor; wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface to indirectly couple the engine, the air intake, and the engine housing to the aircraft (see at least figs 1-9).
Re Claim 11. The podded engine assembly as claimed in Claim 10, wherein the air intake is integrally formed with the engine housing (see figs 1-9, intake is part of nacelle, thus meeting the scope).
Re Claim 12. An aircraft, comprising: an airframe comprising a pod attachment interface; and a podded engine assembly according to Claim 10, wherein the podded engine adaptor of the podded engine assembly is attached to the airframe at the airframe mounting interface to couple the podded engine assembly to the aircraft (figs 1-9).
Re Claim 14. A method of mounting a podded engine to an aircraft, comprising : providing a podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1;attaching the podded engine adaptor to an engine at the engine mounting interface; and attaching the podded engine adaptor to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface to indirectly couple the engine to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor (figs 1-9).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14 & 15 AS BEST UNDERSTOOD is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 9,765,696 to Beier et al.
Re claim 1, Beier et al. discloses a podded engine adaptor (fig 2) configured to secure a podded engine to an aircraft, comprising: an airframe mounting interface (fig 2, element 1493) configured for attachment to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of an aircraft; an engine mounting interface (183) configured for attachment to an engine; wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface (fig 2) and to an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an engine to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor, wherein the podded engine adaptor has a substantially plate-like form (fig 2), having a first surface comprising the airframe mounting interface and a second surface arranged opposing the first surface (fig 2), the second surface comprising the engine mounting interface (fig2); and wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be mounted to an underside of the airframe at the airframe mounting interface (fig 2), examiner asserts that this mount system is designed as a hanging type mount, as such is in fact configured to be mounted to an underside of the airframe, thereby meeting the scope of the claim.
Re Claim 2. The podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising: an air intake mounting interface (16, fig 2) configured for attachment to an air intake, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to an air intake at the air intake mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an air intake to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor.
Re Claim 3. The podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising: an engine housing mounting interface (22 to 4 attachment, fig 2) configured for attachment to an engine housing, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to an engine housing at the engine housing mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an engine housing to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor.
Re Claim 4. The podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured such that, when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface and when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an air intake at the air intake mounting interface, the engine and the air intake are attached to the podded engine adaptor independently of one another (fig 2).
Re Claim 5. A podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured such that when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface and when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an air intake at the air intake mounting interface, an engine inlet of the engine is physically separated from the air intake (at least fig 2), it is noted, the opening of the air intake is separate from the opening of an engine inlet, as such the vast scope of this claim is met.
Re Claim 6. A podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be movably attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface such that the engine is configured for relative movement with respect to the podded engine adaptor (at least fig 2).
Re Claim 9. A podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising an auxiliary mounting interface (portion of 22 attached to 32) configured for attachment to one or more auxiliary engine components (fig 2, for example 50), wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to one or more auxiliary engine components at the auxiliary mounting interface so as to indirectly couple one or more auxiliary engine components to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor.
RE Claim 10. A podded engine assembly for an aircraft, comprising: a podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1; an engine attached to the engine mounting interface; an air intake fluidically coupled to an engine inlet and attached to an air intake mounting interface; and an engine housing at least partially surrounding the engine and attached to an engine housing mounting interface configured for attachment to the engine housing, wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to the engine housing at the engine housing mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple an engine housing to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor; wherein the podded engine adaptor is configured to be attached to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface to indirectly couple the engine, the air intake, and the engine housing to the aircraft (see at least figs 2).
Re Claim 11. The podded engine assembly as claimed in Claim 10, wherein the air intake is integrally formed with the engine housing (see 2 intake is part of nacelle and/or opening of fan casing front, thus meeting the scope).
Re Claim 12. An aircraft, comprising: an airframe comprising a pod attachment interface; and a podded engine assembly according to Claim 10, wherein the podded engine adaptor of the podded engine assembly is attached to the airframe at the airframe mounting interface to couple the podded engine assembly to the aircraft (fig 2, at least col 3, lines, 46-48).
Re Claim 14. A method of mounting a podded engine to an aircraft, comprising : providing a podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1;attaching the podded engine adaptor to an engine at the engine mounting interface; and attaching the podded engine adaptor to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface to indirectly couple the engine to the aircraft via the podded engine adaptor (figs 2).
Re Claim 15, AS BEST UNDERSTOOD, The podded engine adaptor of claim 1, wherein the podded engine adaptor is a first podded engine adaptor having a first configuration, and wherein an airframe mounting interface of a second podded engine adaptor that has a second configuration different from the first configuration is also configured for attachment to the same pod attachment interface of the airframe of the aircraft (fig 4). A similar arrangement shown with a different embodiment, thus meeting the scope of the claim.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,597,144 to Fotouhie in view of Lindberg (US 3818469 A).
Re claim 8, Fotouhie discloses a podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising a fire-retardant layer configured such that when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface and to an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface, the fire-retardant layer separates the airframe from the engine.
However, Lindberg in the field of fire-wall and burn-through protection systems (title) teaches a fire-retardant layer (fire-wall 142; fig. 13) configured such that when the podded engine adaptor (connection between pod 140 & wing 141; fig. 12) is attached to an engine (140) at the engine mounting interface (mounting interface of 140) and to an airframe (frame of wing 141; fig. 12) of the aircraft (aircraft comprising wing 141) at the airframe mounting interface (mounting interface of wing 141; fig. 12), the fire-retardant layer (142) separates the airframe (frame of 141) from the engine (140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the podded engine adaptor disclosed by Fotouhie with the fire-retardant layer taught by Lindberg with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of protecting the airframe of the wing from an engine fire.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,765,696 to Beier et al. in view of Lindberg (US 3818469 A).
Re claim 8, Beier et al. discloses a podded engine adaptor as claimed in Claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising a fire-retardant layer configured such that when the podded engine adaptor is attached to an engine at the engine mounting interface and to an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface, the fire-retardant layer separates the airframe from the engine.
However, Lindberg in the field of fire-wall and burn-through protection systems (title) teaches a fire-retardant layer (fire-wall 142; fig. 13) configured such that when the podded engine adaptor (connection between pod 140 & wing 141; fig. 12) is attached to an engine (140) at the engine mounting interface (mounting interface of 140) and to an airframe (frame of wing 141; fig. 12) of the aircraft (aircraft comprising wing 141) at the airframe mounting interface (mounting interface of wing 141; fig. 12), the fire-retardant layer (142) separates the airframe (frame of 141) from the engine (140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the podded engine adaptor disclosed by Beier et al. with the fire-retardant layer taught by Lindberg with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of protecting the airframe of the wing from an engine fire.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fotouhie in view of FR 2648430 to d’Achon, Herve.
Re Claim 13. Fotouhie discloses an aircraft as claimed in Claim 12, but fails to teach as disclosed by d’Achon wherein the airframe comprises a fuselage of the aircraft, and wherein an airframe mounting interface is configured to attach to the fuselage (7, fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to mount the engine of Fotouhie to an underside as a fuselage as disclosed to d’Achon as a known design alternative placement of a podded engine system, as a means to provide additional thrust and/or backup or auxiliary power and redundancy is a well known concept for aircraft in the event of failures.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,765,696 to Beier et al. in view of FR 2648430 to d’Achon, Herve.
Re Claim 13. Beier discloses An aircraft as claimed in Claim 12, but fails to teach as disclosed by d’Achon wherein the airframe comprises a fuselage of the aircraft, and wherein an airframe mounting interface is configured to attach to the fuselage (7, fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to mount the engine of Beier et al. to an underside as a fuselage as disclosed to d’Achon as a known design alternative placement of a podded engine system, as a means to provide additional thrust and/or backup or auxiliary power and redundancy is a well known concept for aircraft in the event of failures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua J Michener whose telephone number is (571)272-1467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am - 4pm EST.
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, TC 3600 Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOSHUA J. MICHENER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642