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 .
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding the 112a&b, drawings and prior art rejections.
Regarding applicant’s arguments of 112a written description, that “because the specification teaches the interfaces are mounted by means of bolting, riveting, or welding sufficient disclosure exists for possession.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While, yes, the general components maybe known as admitted to by applicant, a generic schematic box and generic engine don’t provide sufficient details of possession.
The examiner contends applicant’s disclosure is akin to the examiner “inventing” an automobile engine using all known components, and making a statement that the engine achieves 10,000 miles per gallon. In this hypothetical invention, and the examiner could show a schematic box as an engine with generic parts. Would that be sufficient disclosure? As such, it cannot be agreed that Applicant’s disclosure is sufficient. One of ordinary skill in the Aerospace arts would and should firmly disagree now and in the future regardless.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding 112b to “substantially plate-like”, that the specification provides adequate scope because “By being formed as a plate, the podded engine adaptor 31 has a thin construction….”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While, the specification discusses a plate, that is not the scope encompassed by the claim. A plate would be one possible reading of the claim construction, which isn’t at issue, its what are the ‘meets and bounds’ of the claim? What encompasses “substantially plate-like”? That is unascertainable.
Regarding 112f, applicant states on the record that the interface was not intended to be invoked under 112f. Rather, an interface is a broad as a generic boundary or location for mounting. The examiner accepts this interpretation, no claim clauses will be construed under 112f.
Applicant admits that all the mounting hardware etc. is old and well known, and that only the generic concept of a substantially plate-like adapter attachment interface is the improvement.
Regarding the drawing objections arguments, the examiner disagrees. Regardless of applicant admitting the mounts and connections elements are old and well-known and thus don’t need to be shown, while that aspect is correct, but it does not mean that a generic schematic of a complex mounting system and connections is sufficient. As such, it cannot be agreed that Applicant’s drawings ares sufficient. Should the PTAB wish to say that generic schematics are sufficient in the mechanical arts with next to no disclosure, that is on them, but one of ordinary skill in the Aerospace arts would and should firmly disagree now and in the future regardless. Furthermore, the details surrounding the generic plate are not sufficient for the same reasons.
Regarding applicant’s arguments to Brier because it fails to teach a “substantially plate-like” adapter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, what encompasses “substantially plate-like”? If applicant intends to claim “a plate” adaptor, the arguments to Brier would be persuasive, as it is subjective and in the as to anyone and unclear as to what encompasses “substantially plate-like”, as such, the examiner maintains that Breir is reasonably constructed as generally in the form of something that sort of looks ‘substantially plate-like’, as such meets the scope.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Breir teaches an accessory mounting frame, and thus doesn’t teach indirectly coupling the engine to the aircraft. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The mounting frame clearly teaches an indirect connection as it connects to a pylon, the examiner is at a loss. The limitation is clearly met.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Beier fails to teach interchangeable adaptors, the examiner respectfully disagrees. If two very similar looking embodiments show a similar adapter, the examiner contends the limitations are met, as it is clear that such an adaptor is “capable of being interchangeable”, thereby meeting the broad scope claimed.
Regarding applicant’s arguments to Fotouie not being “substantially plate-like”, refer to the same rebuttal above. Examiner maintains rejection. The rejection is reasonable and extremely clear. Fotouhie discloses something that is “substantially plate-like”. We don’t even know how applicant’s invention is mounted and by what?
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the examiner mischaracterizes Fotouhie’s mounting configuration, the examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims and disclosure are so exceedingly broad and vague that why can’t the examiner interpret Fotouhie broadly as well?
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. 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 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 shown 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))
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. To further elaborate, it is unclear if a second adaptor is positively included as claimed or simply a mere functional recitation of capability.
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 14,16 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).
Re Claim 16. Fotouhie discloses the podded engine adaptor is configured to form a strongback that distributes a load of the engine across a length and a width of the podded engine adaptor to the airframe. The examiner asserts, no structure has been added, and that Fotouhie functions as a strongback to distribute some engine loads, thereby meeting the scope. However, assuming arguendo, see new grounds of rejection below.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 14 & 15, 16 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.
Re Claim 16. Beier discloses the podded engine adaptor is configured to form a strongback that distributes a load of the engine across a length and a width of the podded engine adaptor to the airframe. The examiner asserts, no structure has been added, and that Beier functions as a strongback to distribute some engine loads, thereby meeting the scope. However, assuming arguendo, see new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2648430 to d’Achon, Herve in view of Gioffre et al. (US 7,520,467) and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), see applicant arguments of 6/12/2026 page 6.
Re claims 1 and 16, d’Achon discloses a podded engine (6 or 7) configured to secure a to an aircraft via a mounting interface (not labeled, by connection boundary between podded engine and fuselage).
d’Achon fails to disclose the details of the attachment interface and that is configured as a strongback to distribute a long of the engine cross a length and width to the aircraft. However, as taught by Gioffree et al., a “substantially plate-like adaptor” (30) 3 functions as a strong back to distribute load, comprising: an airframe mounting interface (32) configured for attachment to a pod attachment interface of an airframe of an aircraft; an secondary mounting interface for mounting equipment into the pod (40) configured for attachment to an equipment ;wherein the podded adaptor is configured to be attached to an equipment at the equipment mounting interface (fig 5) and to an airframe of the aircraft at the airframe mounting interface, so as to indirectly couple equipment (figs 3a,3b)to the aircraft via the podded adaptor, wherein the podded adaptor has a substantially plate-like form (fig 5), having a first surface comprising the airframe mounting interface and a second surface arranged opposing the first surface (see all figs), the second surface comprising the equipment mounting interface; and wherein the podded adaptor is configured to be mounted to an underside of the airframe at the airframe mounting interface (all figs).
It is acknowledged that the podded system and adaptor plate of Gioffree et al. are for equipment, the novelty of Gioffree et al. is the adaptor plate that functions as a strong back to indirectly mount the pod to the aircraft, which is applicants alleged improvement to podded mounts, is clearly known as shown by Gioffree et al.
Further, considering Applicant’s own admittance (AAPA) that the components to mount an engine are old and well known, the examiner notes that the adaptor plate of Gioffree et al. must be able and known by one of ordinary skill how to use and mount an engine if so desired.
As such, the examiner asserts, it the time of filing it would have been obvious to modify d’Achon to further include a plate-like adaptor plate (30) of Gioffree to the podded assembly of d’Achon to achieve a removable (as taught by Gioffree, col 1, line 66) mounting assembly, that helps balance loads such as center of gravity (as taught by Gioffree, col 1, line 49), using known techniques and known components as admitted to by AAPA, to achieve an overall predictable improvement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 Joe 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
Prosecution Insights