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 7 supported relative to the aircraft body (figs. 1−2); and
a pylon assembly (tail 5 having 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 (fin 11 having mount 12) coupling the engine to the aircraft body (col. 3 lines 1−34);
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 (leftmost half-hoop 17 of mount 12 in fig. 2) and an aft engine mount (rightmost half-hoop 17 of mount 12 in fig. 2; 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, and furthermore teaches half-hoop 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.
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 claim 18, Guering teaches a pylon assembly (tail 5 having 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) for an aircraft, the pylon assembly comprising:
a pylon structure (fin 11 having mount 12) configured to extend between an aircraft body (fuselage 3 including rear extremity of fuselage 4) and an engine 7 of the aircraft (figs. 1−2), the pylon structure configured to be coupled to the engine at a forward engine mount (leftmost half-hoop 17 of mount 12 in fig. 2) and an aft engine mount (rightmost half-hoop 17 of mount 12 in fig. 2; see also figs. 3−4); 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).
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, and furthermore teaches half-hoop 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.
Regarding claim 19, Guering as modified teaches that the pylon control surface is coupled to an aft portion of the pylon structure and extends rearwardly therefrom (fig. 2).
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 with rigid aerodynamic covers thereof (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).
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.
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 thereof (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 teaches a pylon assembly for an aircraft, comprising:
a pylon structure 50 configured to extend between an aircraft body (front wing 22 having central section aft reinforcement 30 in figs. 3A−3C) and an engine (“two lateral jet engines with rigid aerodynamic covers thereof (33)” in col. 5 lines 14−15) of the aircraft; 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), wherein the pylon control surface is coupled to an aft portion of the pylon structure and extends rearwardly therefrom (fig. 3B).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
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