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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that “attachment device” does not invoke 35 U.S.C 112(f) because there is description in the instant application specification as to what an attachment device is. The applicant misinterprets MEP 2181 (I) in that it is the claim itself that must recite sufficiently definite structure to avoid a 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation (not the specification). The examiner recognizes that the instant application specification does provide sufficient structure to what an “attachment device” is. The applicant’s analysis is to whether rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) are proper {see MPEP 2181 (II) and (III). The examiner therefore maintains that “attachment device” by itself does not recite a sufficiently definite structure.
The applicant argues with regard to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections that the amendments clarify that the receiver mounts are on the rotary-wing aircraft in contrast to the prior art of Muylaert. Due to the amendments and the structure of the invention, 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are presented below for independent claims 1 and 11. The applicant’s interpretation in the arguments is incompatible with the broadest reasonable interpretation as highlighted by these 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections. With regard to claim 15, the examiner presents an interpretation of the receiver mounts that is broader but still reasonable than the interpretation presented by the applicant. The examiner finds that the claims and specification to be vague as to what is considered part of the aircraft, especially when the aircraft is in a non-operational mode. The examiner finds that anything attached to the aircraft in a non-operational mode may be considered part of the aircraft in a non-operational mode. An element does not have to be permanently joined to the aircraft to be considered part of the aircraft in this non-operational mode.
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 1-12 and 14 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.
Claim 1 recites:
“A ground service device for securing rotor blades of a multi-blade rotor while the rotary-wing aircraft is in a non-operational mode, wherein the rotary-wing aircraft has first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts, the ground service device comprising:”
Claim 1 also recites functional claim limitations such as, “a first strut that is pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with to the rotary-wing aircraft at the first receiver mount”.
The ground service device itself is what is positively recited. The rotary-wing aircraft that has first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts is not positively recited. Additionally, the functional limitations such as the example shown above relate a function of releasably attaching the rack base to a non-positively recited element such as the first receiver mount. The examiner finds that it is unclear what structure is required for first strut and rack base in this example. For instance, there could be substantial structure associated with the first receiver mount itself that could allow for releasably attaching to the first strut. See MPEP 2173.02 II and 2173.05(g).
The logic above applies to the several instances of functional language and non-positively recited elements, but is not repeated for each due for brevity and clarity.
Claim 11 recites:
“A connecting interface adapted for receiving a ground service device that secures rotor blades of a multi-blade rotor of a rotary-wing aircraft while the rotary-wing aircraft is in a non- operational mode, the ground service device comprising:”
The claim is directed toward “A connecting interface” adapted for “receiving a ground service device” and “the ground service device comprising” a series of features. As claimed there are no limitations following the preamble that define the connecting interface itself. It is unclear the structural requirements of the connecting interface if there are no positive limitations directed towards its structure and there are only limitations regarding the ground service device that it receives is not a part of the connecting interface. See MPEP 2173.02 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 6, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muylaert et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20040118971) hereinafter Muylaert.
Regarding claim 1, Muylaert discloses:
A ground service device for securing rotor blades of a multi-blade rotor while rotary-wing aircraft in a non-operational mode {[0004]},
wherein the rotary-wing aircraft has first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts {The rotary-wing aircraft is not a part of the ground service device. The first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts are not positively clamed. The ground service device only has to be capable of securing rotor blades of a rotary-wing aircraft with these mounts},
the ground service device comprising:
a rack releasably attachable to first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts of the rotary-wing aircraft {Figures 2, 4, and 8, a portion of (150) may be considered the rack. The rack is required to be releasably attachable to first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts of the rotary-wing aircraft. As described above the first through fourth receiver mounts are not positively recited because the claim is directed toward the ground service device itself and not the rotary-wing aircraft that has these mounts. As the receiver mounts could have structure that allows them to releasably attach to the rack, this limitation does not provide a structural limitation to the rack that is not met by the rack (150). See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above; this applies to the other function limitations as well}
a rack base {Figure 8, another portion of (150) may be considered the rack base},
a first strut pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base to the rotary-wing aircraft at the first receiver mount {Figures 4 and 8 (92) is a first strut pivotally attached as it is a “rocker” to the rack base (150); [0027]. As described in the limitation above, the first receiver mount is not positively recited because the claim is directed toward the ground service device itself and not the rotary-wing aircraft that has this receiver mount. As the first receiver mount could have structure that allows them to releasably attach to the rack base, this limitation does not provide a structural limitation to the rack, rack base, or strut that is not met by the rack, rack base, and first strut of Muylaert },
a second strut pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base to the rotary-wing aircraft at the first receiver mount {Figures 4 and 8 (96) is a second strut pivotally attached as it is a “rocker” to the rack base (150); [0027]. As described in the limitation above, the second receiver mount is not positively recited because the claim is directed toward the ground service device itself and not the rotary-wing aircraft that has this receiver mount. As the second receiver mount could have structure that allows them to releasably attach to the rack base, this limitation does not provide a structural limitation to the rack, rack base, or strut that is not met by the rack, rack base, and second strut of Muylaert },
a third strut pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base to the rotary-wing aircraft at the first receiver mount {Figures 4 and 8 (94) is pivotally attached as it is a “rocker” to the rack base (150); [0027]. },
an attachment device fixedly attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching to rotary-wing aircraft at the fourth receiver mount below a lower shell of the rotary-wing aircraft {Figures 4 and 8 (98) is considered an attachment device that is fixedly attached to the rack base (150) and below the lower shell of the rotary-wing aircraft (54); it is noted that the examiner interprets the rocker (98) as being fixedly attached to the rack base as it is constrained in the 3 translational degrees of freedom as well as 2 rotational degrees of freedom. Fixedly attached is not limited to all 6 degrees of freedom being fixed under a broadest reasonable interpretation. As described in the limitation above, the fourth receiver mount is not positively recited because the claim is directed toward the ground service device itself and not the rotary-wing aircraft that has this receiver mount. As the fourth receiver mount could have structure that allows them to releasably attach to the rack base, this limitation does not provide a structural limitation to the rack, rack base, or attachment device that is not met by the rack, rack base, and attachment device of Muylaert }
clamps that are attached to the rack for releasably connecting the rotor blades with the first, second, third and fourth receiver mounts of the rotary-wing aircraft such that the rotor blades are secured in the non-operational mode of the rotary-wing aircraft {Figure 2 (190) are clamps that are attached to the rack for releasably connecting the blades; [0029], [0004]. As described above the first through fourth receiver mounts are not positively recited because the claim is directed toward the ground service device itself and not the rotary-wing aircraft that has these mounts. As the receiver mounts could have structure that allows them to releasably attach to the rack, this limitation does not provide a structural limitation to the clamps that are not met by (190)}.
Regarding claim 2, Muylaert further teaches:
wherein a first strut axis is associated with the first strut {Figure 8 (92) has an axis that extends along the axis of the tail boom},
wherein the first strut axis deviates by a first strut inclination angle of less than 40 degrees from a first axis {Figure 8, the first axis does not have a defined direction. As an example the first axis may be coincident with the first strut axis, this would mean the first strut inclination angle would be 0 degrees, which is less than 40 degrees},
wherein a second strut axis is associated with the second strut {Figure 8 (96) has an axis that extends along the axis of the tail boom}, and
wherein the second strut axis deviates by a second strut inclination angle of less than 40 degrees from a second axis that is parallel to the first axis {Figure 8, the second axis is parallel to the first axis which does not have a defined direction. As an example the first and second axis may be parallel with the first and second strut axis strut axes, this would mean the second strut inclination angle would be 0 degrees, which is less than 40 degrees}.
Regarding claim 3, Muylaert further teaches:
wherein the first and second strut axes are tangential to side shells of a tail boom of the rotary-wing aircraft when the first and second struts are attached to the first and second receiver mounts, respectively {Figures 4 and 8, the first and second strut axes are in the plane tangential to corresponding points on the surface of the side shell of the tail boom which is roughly cylindrical}.
Regarding claim 6, Muylaert further teaches:
support arms that connect the clamps with the rack base {Figure 4, (26) connect (190) to the rack base (150) that’s part of (82)}.
Regarding claim 11, Muylaert discloses:
{See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. A connecting interface is claimed with no details of the connecting interface itself; there are only details of non-positively recited elements. The examiner finds Muylaert discloses a connected interface that receives a ground service device to secure the blades of a rotary wing aircraft as there are many connecting interfaces shown in for example Figure 4. A detailed claim mapping is therefore not provided below as each of these elements are not positively recited and do not actually define the connecting interface itself}
A connecting interface adapted for receiving a ground service device that secures rotor blades of a multi-blade rotor of a rotary-wing aircraft while the rotary-wing aircraft is in a non-operational mode, the ground service device comprising: a rack releasably attachable to the rotary-wing aircraft, the rack comprising: a rack base, a first strut pivotally attached to the rack base, a second strut pivotally attached to the rack base, a third strut pivotally attached to the rack, and an attachment device fixedly attached to the rack base; and clamps attached to the rack for releasably connecting the rotor blades with the first, second, third and fourth receiver mounts of the rotary-wing aircraft such that the rotor blades are secured in the non-operational mode of the rotary-wing aircraft, a first receiver mount on the rotorcraft that is adapted for releasably receiving a first strut; a second receiver mount on the rotorcraft that is adapted for releasably receiving the second strut;a third receiver mount on the rotorcraft that is adapted for releasably receiving the third strut; and the fourth receiver mount on the rotorcraft that is attached to a frame at a lower shell of the rotary-wing aircraft and adapted for releasably receiving the attachment device {see annotation before the claim}.
Regarding claim 12, Muylaert further discloses:
wherein the first receiver mount and the second receiver mount are fastened to a side shell of the rotary-wing aircraft, wherein the third receiver mount is fastened to the lower shell of the rotary-wing aircraft {As explained with regard to claim 11, a detailed claim mapping is therefore not provided below as each of these elements are not positively recited and do not actually define the connecting interface itself}.
Regarding claim 14, Muylaert further discloses:
wherein the second receiver mount is fastened to the side shell of the rotary-wing aircraft at a same longitudinal position and at an opposite lateral position as the first receiver mount {As explained with regard to claim 11, a detailed claim mapping is therefore not provided below as each of these elements are not positively recited and do not actually define the connecting interface itself}.
Regarding claim 15, Muylaert further teaches:
A ground service system for securing rotor blades of a multi-blade rotor of a rotary-wing aircraft while the rotary-wing aircraft is in a non-operational mode {[0004], the ground service device is detailed below; the connecting interface on the rotary-wing aircraft is detailed below},
the ground service system comprising:
A ground service device that is attached to first, second, third, and fourth receiver mounts of the rotary-wing aircraft {Figures 2, 4, and 8, (80) and (90) are attached to instances of the first through fourth receiver mounts as defined below via instances of rockers (92)/(94)/(96)/(98) instances of (182)/(184); [0027]} and comprises:
a connecting interface on the rotary-wing aircraft, the connecting interface {The following elements of the connecting interface below are considered part of the rotary-wing aircraft in a non-operational mode. Anything that is connected to rotary-wing aircraft in a non-operational mode can be considered as part of the aircraft in a non-operational mode} comprising:
a first receiver mount on the rotary-wing aircraft {Figure 4, the connecting interface which is the part of the outer shell (54) that corresponds to (92) and its corresponding instances of (182)/(184)};
a second receiver mount on the rotary-wing aircraft {Figure 4, the connecting interface which is the part of the outer shell (54) that corresponds to (96) and its corresponding instances of (182)/(184); this part is adapted to releasably receive the second strut as discussed in the modification of claim 15};
a third receiver mount on the rotary-wing aircraft {Figure 4, the connecting interface which is the part of the outer shell (54) that corresponds to (94) and its corresponding instances of (182)/(184); this part is adapted to releasably receive the third strut as discussed in the modification of claim 15}; and
the fourth receiver mount attached to a frame of the rotary-wing aircraft along a lower shell {Figure 4, the connecting interface which is the part of the outer shell (54) is part of the lower shell that corresponds to (98) and its corresponding instances of (182)/(184); this part is adapted to releasably receive the attachment device as discussed in the modification of claim 15}.
a rack base {Figure 8, (150) may be considered the rack base},
a first strut that is pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the first receiver mount {Figures 4 and 8 (92) is pivotally attached as it is a “rocker” to the rack base (150); [0027]; The first strut is adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the first receiver mount (see definition above) as the left/right lower saddle frames are each detachably connected to (80) and therefore the corresponding portions of the shells that form the receiver mounts as well},
a second strut that is pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the second receiver mount {{Figures 4 and 8 (96) is pivotally attached as it is a “rocker” to the rack base (150); [0027]; The second strut is adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the third receiver mount (see definition above) as the left/right lower saddle frames are each detachably connected to (80) and therefore the corresponding portions of the shells that form the receiver mounts as well},
a third strut that is pivotally attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the third receiver mount {Figures 4 and 8 (96) is pivotally attached as it is a “rocker” to the rack base (150); [0027]; The third strut is adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the third receiver mount (see definition above) as the left/right lower saddle frames are each detachably connecting to (80) and therefore the corresponding portions of the shells that form the receiver mounts as well}, and
an attachment device fixedly attached to the rack base and adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the fourth receiver mount below a lower shell of the rotary-wing aircraft {Figures 4 and 8 (98) is fixedly attached to the rack base (150) and below the lower shell of the rotary-wing aircraft (54). It is noted that the examiner interprets the rocker (98) as being fixedly attached to the rack base as it is constrained in the 3 translational degrees of freedom as well as 2 rotational degrees of freedom. Fixedly attached is not limited to all 6 degrees of freedom being fixed under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The attachment device is adapted for releasably attaching the rack base with the fourth receiver mount (see definition above) as the left/right lower saddle frames are each detachably connecting to (80) and therefore the corresponding portions of the shells that form the receiver mounts as well}
clamps that are attached to the ground service device for releasably connecting the rotor blades with the first, second, third and fourth receiver mounts of the rotary-wing aircraft such that the rotor blades are secured in the non-operational mode of the rotary-wing aircraft {Figure 2 (190) are clamps that are attached to the ground service device for releasably connecting the blades with the receiver mounts as defined above via blade supports (26) when the blades are in a folded configuration; [0029], [0004]}
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 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:
Claims 16-21 require a ground service system which includes both the ground service device and connecting interface on the rotary wing aircraft as recited in claim 15.
The closest prior art is Muylaert used in the rejections above. Claim 16 recites, “wherein a third strut axis is associated with the third strut, and wherein the third strut axis deviates by a third strut inclination angle of less than 40 degrees from a third axis that is perpendicular to the first axis.” The third strut axis and the first strut axis are parallel, therefore there can’t be a first axis and third axis that are perpendicular while being within 40 degrees from their respective strut axes. The strut axes of Muylaert are designed to be along longerons and frame members. There is insufficient evidence to modify the orientation of the struts in a way that satisfies the claim limitation. Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16 and therefore also contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the rack base further comprises: a main beam; and first and second diagonal beams that form a triangle together with the main beam.” The rack base of Muylaert surrounds the approximately cylindrical tail boom and has a connecting rod 170 that tightens the rack around tail boom; forming a triangular structure would interfere with this aspect of Muylaert. Knott et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20220297830) has a triangular shapes formed from the rack base as shown in Figure 4. Knott uses clamps that attach to the rotor hub rather than the blades. Additionally, the connections between the rack base and fuselage are via jack fittings which appear to not be pivotal connections, Knott [0036]. The examiner finds that Knott does not teach the claim and that there is insufficient evidence to suggest modifying Muylaert to have a triangle shaped configuration rack base or Knott to have the claimed connection type and attach to the rotor blades. Claims 19-20 are dependent on claim 18 and therefore also contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 21 recites, “wherein the first strut, the second strut, and the third strut are pivotally attached to the rack base by at least one of a ball joint, a spherical bearing, or a universal joint.” Muylaert struts are attached to the rack base such that the struts are pinned such that they are rockers. This is a single degree of rotational freedom. The claim requires joints which have multiple rotational degrees of freedom. The strut of Muylaert is designed to be along the longerons and frame members. Additional degrees of freedom would make it so that strut could rotate and would not be aligned as desired. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to modify Muylaert to have the clamed joint/connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights