DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 3, 7−8, 16, and 18−19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,581,694 to Guering in view of US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0409226 to West.
Regarding claim 1, Guering teaches an aircraft, comprising:
an aircraft body (fuselage 3 including rear extremity of fuselage 4);
an engine (engine 7, including skin 31 which forms the outer wall of the duct for airflow channels 23 and 24 of the engine) supported relative to the aircraft body (figs. 1−2); and
a pylon assembly (fin 11, which would be understood as a pylon by one of ordinary skill in the art because it supports the engine on the fuselage) extending between the aircraft body and the engine, the pylon assembly comprising:
a pylon structure (lower part of vertical tail unit 29 having half-hoops 17 and hoops 20) coupling the engine to the aircraft body (col. 3 lines 1−34 and col. 4 lines 12−24 );
and a pylon control surface 26 coupled to and movable relative to at least a portion of the pylon structure (col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 3);
wherein the engine is coupled to the pylon assembly at a forward engine mount (where the forward engine mount is the location where forwardmost hoop 20 in fig. 3 connects to skin 31, which is the duct of engine 7 through which air flow channels 23 and 24 pass) and an aft engine mount (aftmost hoops 20; see also figs. 3−4).
While one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the tail unit of Guering as most likely having a conventional design incorporating structural members beneath the skin of tail 5, Guering is silent to the particulars of this structure.
West teaches a pylon supporting an engine above an aircraft body, engine having an airflow duct, and furthermore teaches engine mounts (116A, 116B, 122A, 122B) similar to those of Guering, with a forward internal pylon mounting element 114 coupled to the forward engine mount and the aircraft body (paras. [0020]−[0022]) and an aft internal pylon mounting element 120 coupled to the aft engine mount and the aircraft body (paras. [0023]−[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the tail unit of Guering with internal pylon mounting elements as taught by West so that the load of the tail and engine can be passed to the aircraft airframe in the conventional manner to provide a safe and weight-efficient design compared to other alternatives which would add weight and be more difficult to maintain, such as systems having reinforced skin but no semi-monocoque structure underneath.
In such an arrangement the engine (engine 7 including the duct formed by skin 31) and the pylon assembly (fin 11 having hoops 20 and half-hoops 17 attached to skin 31 and extending through the fin to the aircraft body) are separate (see Guering fig. 4 and West fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Guering as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is coupled to the pylon structure rearward of the aft engine mount (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Guering as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is configured as a rudder (where one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a vertical control surface at the vertical tail to be a rudder) extending between the engine and the aircraft body (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Guering as modified teaches that the pylon assembly is configured to function as a vertical stabilizer (where vertical tail 5 functions as a vertical stabilizer since it provides stability to aircraft about the yaw axis).
Regarding claim 16, Guering as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is coupled to and movable relative to the at least a portion of the pylon structure at a location between the engine and the aircraft body (fig. 2).
Regarding claims 18−19, Guering as modified teaches as discussed above.
Claims 1, 3, 7−8, 13, and 16−19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,056,852 to Dizdarevic et al. (“Dizdarevic”) in view of West.
Regarding claim 1, Dizdarevic teaches an aircraft, comprising:
an aircraft body (front wing 22 having central section aft reinforcement 30 in figs. 3A−3C);
an engine (“two lateral jet engines” which are inside rigid covers 33 in col. 5 lines 14−15), supported relative to the aircraft body (figs. 3A−3C); and
a pylon assembly (V-tail 50 would be understood as reading upon pylons since the members 50 support the engines) extending between the aircraft body and the engine (figs. 3A−3C), the pylon assembly comprising:
a pylon structure 50 coupling the engine to the aircraft body; and
a pylon control surface 52 coupled to and movable relative to at least a portion of the pylon structure (col. 11 lines 2−8).
Although one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the tail unit of Dizdarevic as most likely having an internal support structure underneath the skin of tail 50, Dizdarevic is silent to the particulars of such a structure. West teaches a pylon supporting an engine above an aircraft body, and furthermore teaches half-hoop forward and rear engine mounts (116A, 116B, 122A, 122B), with a forward internal pylon mounting element 114 coupled to the forward engine mount and the aircraft body (paras. [0020]−[0022]) and an aft internal pylon mounting element 120 coupled to the aft engine mount and the aircraft body (paras. [0023]−[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the tail unit of Dizdarevic with engine mounts and internal pylon mounting elements as taught by West so that the load of the tail and engine can be passed to the aircraft airframe in the conventional manner to provide a safe and weight-efficient design compared to other alternatives which would add weight and be more difficult to maintain, such as systems having reinforced skin but no semi-monocoque structure underneath. In such an arrangement the engine (with jet engines of Dizdarevic being mounted at their air duct in similar fashion to the mounting of air duct 214 in West) and the pylon assembly (where the pylons support the air duct of the engine as in fig. 4 of West) are separate (see West fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Dizdarevic as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is coupled to the pylon structure rearward of the aft engine mount (where in the arrangement of Dizdarevic, the coupling of the pylon to the control surface happens at the aftmost portion of the pylon structure as seen in fig. 3B, and therefore is rearward of the aft engine mount).
Regarding claim 7, Dizdarevic as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is configured as a rudder (col. 11 lines 2−8) extending between the engine and the aircraft body (fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 8, Dizdarevic as modified teaches that the pylon assembly is configured to function as a vertical stabilizer (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the V-tail 50 as functioning as a vertical stabilizer since it would provide stability to aircraft about the yaw axis).
Regarding claim 13, Dizdarevic as modified teaches that the engine comprises a first engine, further comprising a second engine (“two lateral jet engines with rigid aerodynamic covers [33]” in col. 5 lines 14−15) and a second pylon assembly 50 extending between the aircraft body and the second engine (figs. 3A−3C), the second pylon assembly comprising a second pylon structure coupling the second engine to the aircraft body and a second a pylon control surface 52 coupled to and movable relative to at least a portion of the second pylon structure (col. 11 lines 2−8, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the second engine and pylon would be arranged in similar fashion as the first engine and pylon discussed previously).
Regarding claim 16, Dizdarevic as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is coupled to and movable relative to the at least a portion of the pylon structure at a location between the engine and the aircraft body (fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 17, Dizdarevic as modified teaches that the aircraft body is a blended wing body (fig. 3A, where the wings and body are shown as blended as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Dizdarevic as modified teaches as discussed previously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that engine 7 of Guering is integral with the vertical tail unit. In response, throughout Applicant’s disclosure, Applicant uses the term “engine” as broadly including not only the machinery itself, but the structures (also referred to in the art as ducts) which channel the air to and through other parts of the engine. See Applicant’s fig. 2 and and para. [0044]. In the above rejection, Guering is treated similarly, with skin 31 that forms the outer duct for airflow channels 23 and 24 being considered a part of the engine. Thus, the engine of Guering, including engine 7 and skin 31, are not integral with the pylon, but are separate. See West fig. 4 for a similar arrangement, with a duct portion of the engine 214 being supported on pylon structures which are separate from the engine.
Applicant does not appear to directly address the rejection of Dizdarevic in view of West.
Conclusion
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
