CTFR 18/812,765 CTFR 85153 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 5−8, 10−11, 18−19, and 26 are rejected under 35 USC §102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,899,409 to Frediani . Regarding claim 5, Frediani teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage 1 including a central structural section (i.e. any load-carrying portion of the fuselage, including any attachment points for wings, trusses, or engine pylons; see also Applicant’s Specification para. [0019]); a wing (4a, 4b) extending from and coupled to the fuselage (figs. 1−4); a truss (3a, 3b) coupled directly to the central structural section of the fuselage (figs. 2−4) and the wing (figs. 2−4); a pylon coupled directly to the central structural section, the pylon distinct from the truss (connecting engines 7 and 8 to fuselage 1 in figs. 3−4); and an engine (7, 8) coupled to the pylon (figs. 3−4). Regarding claims 6−8, Frediani teaches that a conduit to carry a fluid or electricity between the central structural section of the fuselage and the engine, wherein the conduit is positioned in the pylon, and wherein the conduit extends from a node in the central structural section to the engine via solely the pylon (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the pylon as carrying either fuel or electricity via a conduit as would be required by the engine). Regarding claims 10 and 26, Frediani teaches that the engine is positioned between a portion of the truss and the wing, wherein the engine is positioned approximately equidistant from the wing and the truss in a height direction defined by the aircraft (fig. 3). Regarding claim 11, Frediani teaches that an exhaust section of the engine is positioned forward of the wing (where fig. 4 shows the engine exhaust forward of the trailing edge of the wing). Regarding claim 18, Frediani teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage 1 including a central structural section (i.e. any load-carrying portion of the fuselage, including any attachment points for wings, trusses, or engine pylons; see also Applicant’s Specification para. [0019]); a wing (4a, 4b) extending from and coupled to the fuselage (figs. 1−4); a truss (3a, 3b) coupled to the central structural section of the fuselage (figs. 2−4) and the wing (figs. 2−4); and an engine (7, 8) coupled to the central structural section (figs. 3−4), wherein the engine is positioned approximately equidistant from the wing and the truss in a height direction defined by the aircraft (fig. 3). Regarding claim 19, Frediani teaches a conduit to convey at least one of a fluid or electricity between the fuselage and the engine (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the pylon as carrying either fuel or electricity via a conduit as would be required by the engine) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1−2, 4, 21, and 23−24 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Frediani in view of US Patent No. 8,622,340 to Bensilum . Regarding claim 1, Frediani teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage 1 including a central structural section (i.e. any load-carrying portion of the fuselage, including any attachment points for wings, trusses, or engine pylons; see also Applicant’s Specification para. [0019]); a wing (4a, 4b) extending from and coupled to the fuselage (figs. 1−4); a truss (3a, 3b) extending directly from the central structural section (figs. 2−4) and coupled (see Applicant’s Specification para. [0015]) to the wing (figs. 2−4); a pylon (connecting engines 7 and 8 to fuselage 1 in figs. 3−4) coupled directly to the central structural section distinct from the truss; and an engine (7, 8) coupled to the pylon (figs. 3−4). Frediani fails to teach that the pylon is positioned at an angle substantially 45 degrees from a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. Bensilum teaches an aircraft having a pylon attaching the engine to the aircraft and teaches that the pylon can be inclined by an angle of 45 degrees (col. 3 lines 10−12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to design the pylon of Frediani at a 45 degree angle as a matter of routine optimization within prior art conditions, since a pylon mounted lower on the fuselage allows for greater resistance to bending as compared to a purely cantilevered pylon of Frediani. Regarding claim 2 and 21, Frediani as modified teaches a conduit to carry at least one of a fluid or electricity between the fuselage and the engine, and wherein the conduit extends from a node in the central structural section to the engine via solely the pylon (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the pylon as carrying either fuel or electricity via a conduit as would be required by the engine). Regarding claim 4, Frediani as modified teaches that an inlet of the engine is positioned forward of the wing (where fig. 4 shows the engine inlet forward of the trailing edge of the wing). Regarding claim 23−24, Frediani as modified teaches that the engine is positioned between a portion of the truss and the wing in a height direction defined by the aircraft, wherein the engine is positioned approximately equidistant from the wing and the truss in the height direction (fig. 3) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Frediani as applied to claim s 5 and 18 above, and further in view of Bensilum . Regarding claim 25, Frediani fails to teach that the pylon is positioned at an angle substantially 45 degrees from a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. Bensilum teaches an aircraft having a pylon attaching the engine to the aircraft and teaches that the pylon can be inclined by an angle of 45 degrees (col. 3 lines 10−12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to design the pylon of Frediani at a 45 degree angle as a matter of routine optimization within prior art conditions, since a pylon mounted lower on the fuselage allows for greater resistance to bending as compared to a purely cantilevered pylon of Frediani. Regarding claim 27, Frediani teaches a pylon to directly couple the engine to the central structural section (connecting engines 7 and 8 to fuselage 1 in figs. 3−4). Frediani fails to teach that the pylon is positioned at an angle substantially 45 degrees from a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. Bensilum teaches an aircraft having a pylon attaching the engine to the aircraft and teaches that the pylon can be inclined by an angle of 45 degrees (col. 3 lines 10−12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to design the pylon of Frediani at a 45 degree angle as a matter of routine optimization within prior art conditions, since a pylon mounted lower on the fuselage allows for greater resistance to bending as compared to a purely cantilevered pylon of Frediani. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 22 and 28 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. NOTE: For amendments filed after final rejection, 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3) requires “a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.” See Interview Summary attached herewith. 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 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 2 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 3 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 4 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 5 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 6 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 7 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 18/812,765 Page 8 Art Unit: 3642
Prosecution Insights