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
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 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 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 of this title, 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, 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keen (US 2016/0172748) in view of Sequeiros Murciano (US 2012/0126054).
With regard to claim 1, Keen, in Figs. 1 & 10, teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (21), an element (144, 146 & 70) and at least one attachment system for fastening the element to the outside of said fuselage, the attachment system having: a metal fitting (142) fastened to said element and having a shoe with a contact face in contact with a first face of the fuselage, and at least one fastening bolt (143) having a screw and a nut (paragraph 0055 teaches that the bolt is a hi-lok bolt which would necessarily comprise a screw and nut), the nut is screwed to the screw, securing the fuselage and the shoe of the fitting.
Keen does not teach a plate having a first face and a second face oriented towards the fuselage, and wherein the plate is fastened to said fuselage, wherein a head of the screw is housed in the plate on the side of the second face and wherein the nut is screwed to the screw, sandwiching the plate and the shoe of the fitting.
Sequeiros Murciano, in Figure 3, teaches an element (4) secured to a fuselage (63 & 62) of an aircraft with lightning protection. It is taught that the device comprises an attachment system having: a plate (66) having a first face and a second face oriented towards the fuselage, and wherein the plate is fastened to said fuselage (via fasteners 68), a metal fitting (61) fastened to said element and having a shoe with a contact face in contact with the first face, and at least one fastening bolt (67) having a screw and a nut, wherein a head of the screw is housed in the plate on the side of the second face and wherein the nut is screwed to the screw, sandwiching the plate and the shoe of the fitting (as seen in Fig. 3 and taught in paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Keen with Sequeiros Murciano, by providing an insulating plate as taught by Sequeiros Murciano to secure the element and metal fitting to the fuselage of Keen, for the purpose of preventing a path for current into the inside of the structure (Sequeiros Murciano, paragraph 0031).
With regard to claims 2, 3, 6 & 7, Keen in view of Sequeiros Murciano discloses the aircraft of claim 1, and further discloses that the the plate comprises an electrically insulating material arranged to prevent a passage of current (Sequeiros Murciano, paragraph 0031) (re claim 2), wherein the plate comprises a thermally insulating material arranged to limit a passage of heat (Sequeiros Murciano, paragraph 0028) (re claim 3), wherein the plate is fastened to the fuselage by a plurality of bolts (Sequeiros Murciano, 68), wherein each bolt has a screw with a head and a nut, wherein, for each bolt, the plate has a through-piercing and the fuselage has a through-orifice aligned with the piercing, wherein, for each bolt, the screw of said bolt passes through a piercing and an associated through-orifice so as to sandwich the plate and the fuselage between the head of the screw of said bolt and the nut of said bolt, and wherein the piercings of the plate are arranged such that there is no contact between the shoe and the heads of the screws (as seen in Fig. 3 of Sequeiros Murciano) (re claim 6), wherein the plate is wider than the shoe and the piercings are on an outside of and at a distance from the shoe (as seen in Fig. 3 of Sequeiros Murciano) (re claim 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 & 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an aircraft comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with an intermediate plate disposed against the second face of the plate and configured to be disposed against the fuselage.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because it depends on claim 4 which would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pridham (US 2005/0103936), Hoffjann (US 2006/0273224), Warren (US 9,309,005), Moupfouma (US 2018/0178928), Tristant (US 2018/0362182) and Douglas (US 2020/00001970) all teach attaching devices for an aircraft fuselage to protect against lightning strike which share similarities with Applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm EST.
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, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838