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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 5/1/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-14 are amended,
Claims 2 and 12 are canceled,
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-14 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeilon (Swedish Patent Publication SE445853B, previously cited) in view of Mores et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0031562, “Mores”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Zeilon discloses a hot air duct (figs 2a and 2b), the hot air duct comprising:
a body (3, 4, 7);
an inlet (see annotated fig 2b below) in the body and configured to receive hot air (page 1, lines 32-33), wherein the body is made of a flexible material (at least element 4) and is configured to be inflated when hot air is received through the inlet (as evident by figs 2a and 2b).
The limitation of the hot air being for an aircraft is considered an intended use limitation. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zeilon does not explicitly disclose an aircraft skin; a cargo floor forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and the hot air duct in the bilge area; and a bottom having at least one section configured to huddle against the aircraft skin the bilge area of the aircraft section. Mores, however, discloses an aircraft section (see fig 3), comprising: an aircraft skin (18); a cargo floor (11) forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and a hot air duct (20) in the bilge area (fig 3); and a bottom having at least one section configured to huddle against the aircraft skin the bilge area of the aircraft section (see annotated fig 3 below). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Zeilon to provide the duct in the aircraft of Mores in order to circulate hot air in the aircraft more effectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of wherein, the at least one first section is formed corresponding to or has a size fitting between structural elements arranged on the aircraft skin is considered a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, Zeilon discloses a bottom (3, 7) having at least one second section (7) with a plurality of holes (6) configured to create air jets by releasing the hot air from the body.
However, Zeilon does not explicitly disclose a cargo floor forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and a hot air duct in the bilge area, the hot air duct comprising: a body; an inlet in the body and configured to receive hot air. Mores, however, discloses an aircraft section (see fig 3), comprising: an aircraft skin (18); a cargo floor (11) forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and a hot air duct (20) in the bilge area (fig 3), the hot air duct comprising: a body (20); an inlet in the body and configured to receive hot air (as there must be an inlet to allow for the introduction of hot air). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Zeilon to provide the duct in the aircraft of Mores in order to circulate hot air in the aircraft more effectively.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of wherein the body corresponding to the at least one second section is formed or sized, so that the at least one second section is spaced apart from an aircraft skin is considered a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zeilon and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Zeilon further discloses wherein the plurality of holes (6) are configured to release the hot air from the body with a volume flow equal than a volume flow of the hot air entering the body at the inlet (see annotated fig 2b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Zeilon discloses at least one strut (31) arranged in the body (3, 4, 7) and connecting a bottom (7) and a ceiling (3) of the body in a substantially vertical direction.
However, Zeilon does not explicitly disclose a cargo floor forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and a hot air duct in the bilge area, the hot air duct comprising: a body; an inlet in the body and configured to receive hot air. Mores, however, discloses an aircraft section (see fig 3), comprising: an aircraft skin (18); a cargo floor (11) forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and a hot air duct (20) in the bilge area (fig 3), the hot air duct comprising: a body (20); an inlet in the body and configured to receive hot air (as there must be an inlet to allow for the introduction of hot air). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Zeilon to provide the duct in the aircraft of Mores in order to circulate hot air in the aircraft more effectively.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zeilon and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Zeilon further discloses wherein the at least one strut (31) is made of a non-elastic material (page 1, lines 49-54).
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. Patent No. 3,567,134, previously cited) in view of Mores et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0031562, “Mores”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a duct (figs 1-6), the hot air duct comprising:
a body (figs 1-3);
an inlet (21) in the body, wherein the body is made of a flexible material and is configured to be inflated when a fluid is received through the inlet (col 2, lines 26-64).
However, Smith does not explicitly disclose an aircraft skin; a cargo floor forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and the hot air duct in the bilge area; and a bottom having at least one section configured to huddle against the aircraft skin the bilge area of the aircraft section. Mores, however, discloses an aircraft section (see fig 3), comprising: an aircraft skin (18); a cargo floor (11) forming a bilge area between the aircraft skin and the cargo floor; and a hot air duct (20) in the bilge area (fig 3); and a bottom having at least one section configured to huddle against the aircraft skin the bilge area of the aircraft section (see annotated fig 3 below). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Smith to provide the duct in the aircraft of Mores in order to circulate hot air in the aircraft more effectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
370
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Smith and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Smith further discloses a horizontal separation (see annotated fig 1 below) arranged between opposite lateral sides (18, 19) of the body and configured to separate an interior volume of the body into two longitudinally extending chambers (15, 17).
PNG
media_image3.png
244
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Smith and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Smith further discloses wherein the horizontal separation has a width larger than a distance between the opposite lateral sides of the body (see annotated fig 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Smith and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Smith further discloses an outlet (12) arranged at a downstream end of the body (downstream the inlet), wherein the horizontal separation (see annotated fig 1 above) is connected to the downstream end of the body along a line (see annotated fig 4 below) running underneath the outlet, wherein the inlet has a lower inlet (below 13’) and an upper inlet (above 13’), and wherein the horizontal separation is connected to an upstream end (closer to the inlet) of the body along a line (see annotated fig 4 below) running between the lower inlet and the upper inlet.
PNG
media_image4.png
268
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Smith and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Smith, as modified, further discloses a heat generating equipment (¶0080, Mores); and a waste heat removal device (as there would have to be a heat exchanger to extract the heat) configured to remove hot air from the heat generating equipment and fluidly connected with the inlet of the hot air duct.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Smith and Mores discloses all previous claim limitations. Smith, as modified, further discloses an aircraft, comprising: the aircraft section of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6) that claim 1 is now allowable as presented above. However, as laid out above claim 1 is rejected based on Zeilon in view of Mores and Smith in view of Mores.
Applicant argues (page 6) that claims 4 and 7 are now allowable. However, as laid out above claims 4 and 7 are rejected based on Zeilon in view of Mores.
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 HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571)270-7740. 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights