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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on February 4, 2025 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “locking means” in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 4, on line 4, the recitation, “the base being fixed to an upper spar or to a front wall” is unclear. What element(s) define(s) the “upper spar” and the “front wall” so as to understand the metes and bounds of the claim? In other words, when one reads the claim, one must as “to an upper spar or to a front wall of what?” It should also be noted that claim 5, which depends directly from claim 4, also recites “the upper spar or to the front wall”.
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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alby et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0041293.
As to claim 1, Alby shows (see Figs. 1, 2 and 5) and describes a propulsion assembly (12) for an aircraft (10), said propulsion assembly having: a jet engine (16), an attachment pylon (18) having a rigid structure (50; see Fig. 5), and an extinguishing system (66; see Fig. 5, and see paragraph [0056]), wherein said extinguishing system is located in a front position relative to said rigid structure (as shown in Fig. 5, at least portions of the extinguishing system are in a front position, relative to portions of 50), the extinguishing system being positioned between said rigid structure and said jet engine (in the context of the broader arrangement shown in Fig. 2, the extinguishing system of Fig. 5 is positioned between at least portions of the rigid structure and the jet engine).
As to claim 2, Alby shows the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, and wherein said jet engine comprises a fan casing (implicit, based on 16 in Fig. 2 being disclosed as a jet engine) and a central casing (implicit, based on 16 in Fig. 2 being disclosed as a jet engine) both extending around a longitudinal axis (A16), wherein said rigid structure takes a form of a box that has a front wall (shorter length portion of the element designated with 52 in Fig. 5) and an upper spar (longer length portion of the element designated with 52 in Fig. 5) extending forwardly with respect to the front wall, and wherein said extinguishing system is positioned between the upper spar, the front wall and the fan casing.
As to claim 8, Alby shows an aircraft (10) comprising: the propulsion assembly according to claim 1.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alby et al., in view of Cayssials et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0188457.
As to claim 3, Alby shows the propulsion assembly according to claim 1. However, while it appears that most, if not all of a complete and functioning extinguishing system having the claimed components is shown in Fig. 5 of Alby, such is not absolutely clear, and the description of the extinguishing system in paragraph [0056] of Alby lacks such details. Thus, Alby is silent as to the extinguishing system comprising: at least one extinguishing bottle containing an extinguishing agent, at least one nozzle positioned in a critical fire area of said propulsion assembly, and pipes, each pipe having a first end connected to the at least one extinguishing bottle and a second end connected to said at least one nozzle for delivering the extinguishing agent.
Cayssials (sharing the same Assignee and at least one named inventor with the Alby reference) shows a detailed example of an extinguishing system (50) integrated into a propulsion assembly (100) of an aircraft (10) having a remarkably similar design as compared to that of Alby; with the Cayssials system (see Figs. 1-3) including at least one extinguishing bottle (102; which may include more than one bottle, as per paragraph [0055]) containing an extinguishing agent, at least one nozzle (the downstream end portions of “discharge pipe 104” implicitly comprise at least one outlet, which is a nozzle, and each bottle includes a discharge pipe; see paragraph [0030]) positioned in a critical fire area of said propulsion assembly, and pipes (104), each pipe having a first end (proximate 106) connected to the at least one extinguishing bottle and a second end (the downstream end portions of each pipe 104, as discussed above) connected to said at least one nozzle (the downstream end portions of each pipe 104 is fluidly connected to the outlet there) for delivering the extinguishing agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an extinguishing system having the detailed components as shown by Cayssials, for the non-descript extinguishing system of the propulsion assembly shown by Alby, thus providing fire protection for at least one potential fire area of the propulsion assembly.
As to claim 4, modified Alby shows the propulsion assembly according to claim 3, and further, with the inclusion of the extinguishing system details taught by Cayssials, the extinguishing system further comprises a supporting device having at least one support ring (114 is a support ring in one interpretation; and 118 is a support ring in an alternative interpretation) on which the at least one extinguishing bottle is held and removably fixed (in paragraph [0046] of Cayssials, element 114 is disclosed as being “fastened” to the bottle, and thus it is capable of being un-fastened; and in paragraph [0045] of Cayssials, element 118 is disclosed as being “fixed around” the bottle, and thus it is capable of being un-fixed), each support ring being fixed to a base (in the case of 114, as described in paragraph [0046], the ring “bears against” wall 16, which thus fixes 114 to 16, with 16 being a base element; and in the case of 118, as described in paragraph [0045], the ring is in a fixed contact with 116, once installed, which thus fixes 118 to 116, with 116 being a base element) the base being fixed to an upper spar or to a front wall (in the case of 16 being the base, 16 is fixed to an upper spar and to a front wall of the corresponding rigid structure of the corresponding pylon 12 shown by Cayssials; and in the case of 116 being the base, 116 is fixed, via the flange-like elements shown at the opposing ends of 116, to the opposing walls 16 of the corresponding pylon, with either of 16 being interpreted as a “front wall”, or with either of 16 being interpreted as being at least indirectly fixed to an upper spar or a front wall of the corresponding rigid structure of the corresponding pylon 12 shown by Cayssials).
As to claim 5, modified Alby shows the propulsion assembly according to claim 4, and wherein said supporting device comprises a side panel (in the case of 16 being the base, 16 is fixed to a panel, being a “side panel”, at either longitudinal end of the corresponding rigid structure of the corresponding pylon 12 shown by Cayssials, which in turn is fixed to at least the upper spar of the corresponding rigid structure of the corresponding pylon 12; and in the case of 116 being the base, 116 is fixed, via the flange-like elements shown at the opposing ends of 116, each being a “side panel”, to the opposing walls 16 of the corresponding pylon, with either of 16 being interpreted as a “front wall”, or with either of 16 being interpreted as being at least indirectly fixed to an upper spar or a front wall of the corresponding rigid structure of the corresponding pylon 12 shown by Cayssials) extending globally perpendicularly to the base (in either of the interpretations discussed above with respect to the side panel, the side panel extends perpendicularly to the corresponding base element), the side panel being fixed to the upper spar or to the front wall (such is the case in either of the aforementioned interpretations).
As to claim 6, modified Alby shows the propulsion assembly according to claim 4, wherein each support ring (with 118 being applied in this case as each support ring) comprises a cutout (as shown in each of Figs. 2 and 3 of Cayssials, the ring does not complete an entire circle, and thus the incomplete portion is a cutout) allowing said extinguishing bottle to be installed and removed from the support ring (such would, at least in part, facilitate the un-fixing of 118 from around the bottle).
As to claim 7, The propulsion assembly according to claim 4, wherein each support ring comprises locking means (in the case of 114 being each support ring, whatever means facilitates the disclosed fastening of element 114 to the bottle, as per paragraph [0046] of Cayssials and discussed above with respect to claim 4, is a locking means; and in the case of 118 being each support ring, whatever means facilitates the disclosed fixing of element 118 around the bottle, as per paragraph [0045] of Cayssials and discussed above with respect to claim 4, is a locking means) for removably fixing one of said at least one extinguishing bottle on said support ring, said locking means being arranged to allow locking and unlocking of said extinguishing bottle on said support ring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Machado et al., Lucas et al., Martinel et al. and Cayssials et al., are cited as of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752