DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 there is a typo in “wherein the wing arrangement has that comprises at least one weapon station”
Claim 16 there is a typo in “at least one cargo ring configured to be connected to be connecting rope”
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.
Claims 1−2 and 4−6 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,479,502 to Barbieri.
Regarding claim 1, Barbieri teaches an external cargo adapter (hoist device 30) for use with a rotorcraft (col. 7 lines 60−65) having a wing arrangement with at least one left-hand side wing and one right-hand side wing, wherein the wing arrangement has at least one weapon station (where the device of Barbieri is capable of being used with such a rotorcraft), comprising:
at least one mounting lug (fork 67 comprises two lugs on either side of fuselage lug 66, with the lugs of fork 67 being understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as having openings for capturing pin 68; see col. 10 lines 25−36) for attachment to the at least one weapon station;
at least one cargo carrying ring 43 (shown as a ring in figs. 5−6) for connection to a connecting rope adapted for transport of an external cargo (fig. 5); and
a connecting member (body of hoist 30 including arm 60) that connects the at least one mounting lug with the at least one cargo carrying ring (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Barbieri teaches that the at least one mounting lug comprises an associated lug opening configured for receiving a blocking hook or bar of the at least one weapon station (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the mounting lugs of fork 67 as having openings in order to capture pin 68).
Regarding claim 4, Barbieri teaches that the connecting member is a connecting rail (where arm 60 of connecting member constitutes a rail, see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Barbieri teaches a first mounting lug and a second mounting lug which are spaced apart from each other on the connecting rail (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Barbieri teaches that the first and second mounting lugs and the at least one cargo carrying ring are mounted to opposite sides of the connecting rail (fig. 6).
Claims 1−2, 4−6, 16−17, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 2,991,960 to McNutt et al. (“McNutt”).
Regarding claim 1, McNutt teaches an external cargo adapter for use with a rotorcraft having a wing arrangement with at least one left-hand side wing and one right-hand side wing, wherein the wing arrangement has at least one weapon station (since McNutt attaches via standard bomb rack lugs, it is capable of being used with such a rotorcraft), the external cargo adapter comprising:
at least one mounting lug (“standard bomb lugs” 28) for attachment to the at least one weapon station (col. 3 lines 14−15);
at least one cargo carrying ring 26 for connection to a connecting rope adapted for transport of an external cargo (where “cable engaging hooked portion 72” of 26 is configured to function as a ring by substantially encircling cable 32, see fig. 3; additionally opening 74 on 26 acts as a ring for hook retaining cable 27); and
a connecting member (shell 21 and boom 24) that connects the at least one mounting lug with the at least one cargo carrying ring (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 2, McNutt teaches that the at least one mounting lug comprises an associated lug opening (fig. 2) configured for receiving a blocking hook or bar of the at least one weapon station (where the lugs are standard bomb lugs, and thus are configured for receiving conventional blocking hooks).
Regarding claim 4, McNutt teaches that the connecting member is a connecting rail (where the connecting member is considered a rail in that it comprises an elongate linear body upon which the lugs and cargo carrying ring are mounted).
Regarding claim 5, McNutt teaches a first mounting lug and a second mounting lug which are spaced apart from each other on the connecting rail (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, McNutt teaches that the first and second mounting lugs and the at least one cargo carrying ring are mounted to opposite sides of the connecting rail (fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 16, McNutt teaches an external cargo adapter for use with a rotorcraft having a wing arrangement with at least one left-hand side wing and one right-hand side wing, wherein the wing arrangement has that comprises at least one weapon station (since McNutt attaches via standard bomb rack lugs, it is capable of being used with such a rotorcraft), the external cargo adapter comprising:
a pair of mounting lugs (“standard bomb lugs” 28) spaced apart (fig. 1a) and configured to be removably attachable to the at least one weapon station along an exterior of the rotorcraft (col. 3 lines 18−24);
a connecting rail (shell 21, where shell 21 is considered a rail in that it comprises an elongate linear body upon which the lugs) extending between and connecting the pair of mounting lugs (fig. 1a); and
at least one cargo ring 26 configured to be connected to be connecting rope for transport of an external cargo (where “cable engaging hooked portion 72” of 26 is configured to function as a ring by substantially encircling cable 32, see fig. 3; additionally opening 74 on 26 acts as a ring for hook retaining cable 27).
Regarding claim 17, McNutt teaches that each of the pair of mounting lugs comprises a lug opening (fig. 2) configured for receiving a blocking hook or bar of the at least one weapon station (where the lugs are standard bomb lugs, and thus are configured for receiving conventional blocking hooks).
Regarding claim 19, McNutt teaches that each of the pair of mounting lugs and the at least one cargo carrying ring are mounted to opposite sides of the connecting rail (fig. 1a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 7, and 12−15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue Techniques by National Search and Rescue Academy (“Helicopter Rescue”).
Regarding claim 3, Barbieri fails to explicitly teach a swivel.
Helicopter Rescue teaches helicopter rescue hoist having a cargo carrying ring (where personnel hook and safety latch function as a cargo carrying ring since they completely encircle the item being hooked, see fig. 23 on page 46 Helicopter Rescue) which is mounted to the connecting member via a swivel (i.e. “ball bearing swivel” on page 46 of Helicopter Rescue).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily interpret the cargo carrying ring of Barbieri (Barbieri fig. 6) as representing the traditional rescue hoist hook also shown in fig. 23 on page 46 Helicopter Rescue, since this is the US Military Spec design 18027-2A and is a standard hoist cable hook used on rotorcraft.
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a swivel as taught by Helicopter Rescue to the cargo carrying ring of Barbieri for attachment to the connecting member, since Helicopter Rescue teaches that “[a] free-spinning hook at the end of the cable also serves as a swivel between the load and the hoist cable, preventing twisting of the cable” (page 45 of Helicopter Rescue), thereby providing a safer device in which the cable cannot be twisted as it is wound around drum 32, which would result in a corresponding untwisting (and dangerous spinning) of the attached load when the cable is deployed at a later time.
Regarding claim 7, Barbieri teaches a human external cargo transportation arrangement for use with a rotorcraft that comprises at least a first weapon station and a second weapon station (Barbieri col. 7 lines 20−22), comprising:
a first external cargo adapter for attachment to the first carrier station (as discussed above with claim 1);
a second external cargo adapter for attachment to the second carrier station (as discussed above with claim 1, where the second external cargo adapter is the device capable of being attached to the other side in Barbieri col. 7 lines 20−22);
the first and second external cargo adapters including the external cargo adapter of claim 1 (as discussed above);
a first connecting rope for connection to the first external cargo adapter (fig. 5); and
a second connecting rope for connection to the second external cargo adapter (fig. 5).
Barbieri fails to teach a swivel.
Helicopter Rescue teaches helicopter rescue hoist having a cargo carrying ring (where personnel hook and safety latch function as a cargo carrying ring since they completely encircle the item being hooked, see fig. 23 on page 46 Helicopter Rescue) which is mounted to the connecting member via a swivel (i.e. “ball bearing swivel” on page 46 of Helicopter Rescue).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily interpret the cargo carrying ring of Barbieri (Barbieri fig. 6) as representing the traditional rescue hoist hook also shown in fig. 23 on page 46 Helicopter Rescue, since this is the US Military Spec design 18027-2A and is a standard hoist cable hook used on rotorcraft.
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a swivel as taught by Helicopter Rescue such that each one of the first and second connecting ropes is connected to a swivel for connection to at least one first human external cargo attachment rope and one second human external cargo attachment rope of Barbieri, since Helicopter Rescue teaches that “[a] free-spinning hook at the end of the cable also serves as a swivel between the load and the hoist cable, preventing twisting of the cable” (page 45 of Helicopter Rescue), thereby providing a safer device in which the cable cannot be twisted, which could lead to unsafe spinning of the cargo as the rope untwists.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,845,154 to Behrens et al. (“Behrens”).
Regarding claim 8, Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue fails to teach that the first and second connecting ropes are connected to a single swivel that attaches the first connecting rope to the second connecting rope.
Behrens teaches connecting a first rope 10a and second rope 10b of an external cargo system at an attachment point 10d (i.e. a y-rope arrangement, as it is known in the art), thereby providing redundancy such that the external cargo system is failsafe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to connect the first and second connecting ropes of Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue to a single attachment point as taught by Behrens, to increase the safety of the cargo system, and furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ a swivel at the attachment point, in order to prevent any twisting of the bottom rope causing any twisting to the first and second connecting ropes, thereby preventing any twisting or failure of the two connecting ropes and increasing safety of the cargo system.
Claims 12−15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue as discussed above for claim 7, and further in view of “Sikorsky PZL Mielec S-70i: Black Hawk” by Michael Badrocke et al. (“Badrocke”)1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1110
1649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue teaches a human external cargo transportation system, comprising: a rotorcraft (Barbieri col. 7 lines 60−65) with at least one weapon station (where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret wing 10 of Barbieri as being a weapon station based on other known rotorcraft).
Alternately, Badrocke (see cropped version) teaches a rotorcraft having wings 90 similar to that of Barbieri, where the wings are configured as weapons stations capable of carrying various weapons (see full figure of Badrocke at ref. num. 187, 188, 190) as well as carrying a human passenger via external rope (see figure at 192). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the wings 90 of Barbieri as weapons stations to allow the rotorcraft to function as an attack helicopter, thereby increasing the usefulness of the rotorcraft.
Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue and Badrocke teach a human external cargo transportation arrangement according to claim 7 (as discussed above, with Badrocke providing additional disclosure for configuring such a helicopter for weapons missions as well as human external cargo missions).
Regarding claim 13, Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue and Badrocke teaches that the rotorcraft comprises a wing arrangement with at least one left-hand side wing and one right-hand side wing;
wherein the left-hand side wing comprises at least the first weapon station; and
wherein the right-hand side wing comprises at least the second weapon station (Barbieri col. 7 lines 20−22, see also Badrocke for additional disclosure of left-hand and right-hand side wings).
Regarding claim 14, Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue and Badrocke teaches that the wing arrangement is a stub wing arrangement, and wherein the left-hand side wing and the right-hand side wing are stub wings (where wings of Badrocke would be understood by one of ordinary skill as being stub wings).
Regarding claim 15, Barbieri in view of Helicopter Rescue and Badrocke teaches that the rotorcraft is an attack helicopter (as discussed above with claim 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest prior art is considered to be McNutt, Barbieri, Helicopter Rescue, and Behrens as discussed above.
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious the particulars of the claimed invention, including the connecting rail attached to the pair of mounting lugs for removable attachment to the weapon station, as well as the cargo ring directly attached to the connecting rail via a swivel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 that Barbieri fails to disclose an external cargo adapter since the hoisting device of Barbieri is arranged in an interior space of a wing. Similarly, Applicant argues on page 10 that ‘the shell [21 of McNutt] is in an “integrated enclosure” and therefore McNutt does not disclose a strictly “external” cargo adapter.’ In response, there is no special definition for “external” provided in Applicant’s disclosure, thus the claim term is interpreted in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Elsewhere in the disclosure, Applicant refers to “the applicable [Federal Aviation Regulations] for transportation,” where Federal Aviation Regulations refers to Title 14 CFR—Aeronautics and Space from the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 1.1 of 14 CFR (I)(A)—which sets forth general definitions for use in FAR—states that:
External load means a load that is carried, or extends, outside of the aircraft fuselage.
External-load attaching means means the structural components used to attach an external load to an aircraft, including external-load containers, the backup structure at the attachment points, and any quick-release device used to jettison the external load.
Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art, “external cargo” refers to cargo carried outside the fuselage, and an “external cargo adapter” is interpreted as an adapter used to carry cargo outside the fuselage. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the devices of Barbieri and McNutt as reading upon external cargo adapters. In fact, Barbieri explicitly discusses their device as carrying “external loads” (see Barbieri col. 1 lines 20−33).
Applicant argues on pages 8- that Barbieri does not teach an adapter because it cannot be attached and detached from a weapon station. This is not found persuasive, because (1) the device of Barbieri is capable of being attached to a weapon station since it is attachable in the manner shown in Barbieri, and (2) the claims do not require detachment from a weapon station.
Similarly, Applicant argues on page 9 that Barbieri does not teach “at least one mounting lug” for attachment to the weapon station since the structure is “structure permanently secured to the rotorcraft. By contrast, the in mounting lungs [sic] allow the adapter to be swiftly and effortlessly secured to the rotorcraft but are also configured to allow quick and easy dismounting of the external cargo adapter.” As discussed previously, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, since the claims do not require quick and easy dismounting of the device.
Applicant argues on page 10 that McNutt fails to teach a connecting member because the combination of boom 24 and casing 21 do not disclose a connecting member. A good faith effort has been made to comprehend Applicant’s argument, however there does not appear to be an explanation as to why the boom and casing fail to read upon a connecting member.
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 Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 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.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
1 Examiner’s Note: the original quality of the Badrocke image is perfectly legible, however USPTO’s correspondence system will, in all likelihood, render the reference numerals and other fine details inscrutable. Examiner has provided a cropped version of the image below to show the relevant features of Badrocke. Additionally, Examiner’s List of References Cited provides the internet address of the original image, if needed for clarification.