Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/842,322

DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING, ALTERING, AND CONVERTING A FUSELAGE SUITABLE FOR A FREIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 28, 2024
Examiner
DEONAUTH, NIRVANA
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ipr Conversions (Switzerland) LTD
OA Round
2 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
409 granted / 591 resolved
-0.8% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
622
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 591 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Objections Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant recites “freighter aircraft is a either a 72-212A” in claim 3. It appears as if this should be corrected to recite “freighter aircraft is either a 72-212A”. Applicant recites “wherein repositioning the intermediate section the comprises” in claim 6. It appears as if this should be corrected to recite “where the repositioning the intermediate section comprises”, or similar language, in order to provide proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2019/0389598). Regarding to claim 1, Chua et al. discloses a method of manufacturing an aircraft that is certifiable for freighter transport [as described in paragraph 0074in Chua et al.], the method comprising: a first fuselage (fuselage 112 of aircraft 102, as described in paragraph 0040 and 0049 and can be seen from Figure 1b-1c in Chua et al.) comprising a plurality of modular exterior sections (104-1-104-12, as described in paragraph 0037 and 0049 can be seen from Figure 1E in Chua et al. Note that the modular sections have an exterior and therefore interpreted as being “exterior sections”), wherein the plurality of modular exterior sections comprises a first section (a first left end section of 104-1-104-12, Figure 1e), a second section (a second right end section of 104-1-104-12, Figure 1e), and an intermediate section (a middle section between first and second sections of 104-1-104-12, Figure 1e), wherein the intermediate section is disposed intermediate the first section and the second section [Figure 1e]; installing a support (module carrier 160, as described in paragraph 0045 and can be seen from Figure 1d in Chua et al.) under the section of the plurality of modular sections [Figure 1d]. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose a step of leveling the first fuselage and wherein leveling the first fuselage offsets loads imposed on the first section, the second section, and the intermediate section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Chua et al. to include a step of leveling, which would offset loads, as a known technique used in manufacturing and construction to obtain a leveled surface, which would yield predictable results. However, Chua et al. discloses a step of installing a support under a section. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose the section being the intermediate section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the section in Chua et al. to include the intermediate section, as a simple substitution of one known element for another, which would obtain predictable results. Chua et al. discloses each module, including the intermediate section, having structural components and systems, such as components and systems for being secured or locked at one or more locations via fasteners, hooks, straps, magnetic forces, gearing mechanism etc. [as described in paragraph 0051 Chua et al.] Choe et al. also disclose the modules could be swapped, returned, or replaced [as described in paragraph 0059 of Chua et al.]. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose a step of decoupling a plurality of systems and structural components of the intermediate section from a plurality of corresponding systems of the first section and a plurality of corresponding systems of the second section; repositioning the intermediate section such that the intermediate section is no longer disposed intermediate the first section and the second section, positioning a replacement section of a second fuselage such that the replacement section is disposed intermediate the first section and the second section, coupling a plurality of systems and structural components of the replacement section to the plurality of corresponding structural components of the first section and the plurality of corresponding structural components of the second section, and leveling the replacement section, the first section, and the second section such that loads are imposed on the first section, the second section, and the replacement section. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chua et al. to include a step of decoupling a plurality of systems and structural components, repositioning (removing) the intermediate section, positioning a replacement section of a second fuselage, recoupling the plurality of systems and structural components, and leveling the replacement section, as recited, as a known technique used to swap/replace a part, such as replacing the intermediate section, which would yield predictable results. Chua et al. discloses a module (104) where passengers can board module (104) at a passenger-boarding facility before the module is transported to the location of aircraft (102) for loading. Once passengers finished boarding module (104) the module can be directly transported to the aircraft (102) location at the airport. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose the plurality of modular exterior section comprising an exterior passenger door and the replacement section being an exterior replacement section of a second fuselage comprising an exterior cargo door. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chua et al. to include a modular exterior section comprising an exterior passenger door and a replacement section comprising an exterior replacement section of a second fuselage comprising an exterior cargo door, as a known technique used to enclose the module during transport and protect passengers from injury while being transported into the aircraft. Regarding to claim 2, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 1, having a first fuselage that can be a passenger or freight aircraft [as described in paragraph 0038 of Chua et al.]. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose the first fuselage is that of a passenger aircraft and the second fuselage is that of a freighter aircraft. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first fuselage to be a passenger aircraft and the second fuselage to be a freighter aircraft, as a simple substitution of one known aircraft type for another, which would yield predictable results. 7. Regarding to claim 3, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 2, having a passenger aircraft and freighter aircraft. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose the passenger aircraft is a 72-500, and the freighter aircraft is either a 72-212A and/or 72-600. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify passenger aircraft to be a 72-500 and the freighter aircraft to be either a 72-212A or 72-600, as a simple substitution of one known aircraft type for another, which would yield predictable results. 8. Regarding to claim 4, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 1, having an intermediate section, first section, and second section. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose the intermediate section, first section, and second section comprising a first mechanical tolerance and a replacement section comprises a second mechanical tolerance, and wherein the first mechanical tolerance is higher than the second mechanical tolerance. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second tolerance of a replacement section being less than a first tolerance, to improve precision and fitting of parts, which would yield predictable results. 9. Regarding to claim 5, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 1, having a first fuselage and an exterior replacement section. However, Chua et al. does not explicitly disclose a step of obtaining a certification from a governmental authority, wherein the certification confirms that the replacement section is acceptable for use with the first fuselage. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Chua et al. to include a step of obtaining a certification, as a known technique used in manufacturing, which would yield predictable results. 10. Regarding to claim 6, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the support (160) comprises at least one castor (Figure 1d) configured to transport the intermediate section from a first location to a second location [as can be seen from Figure 1d in Chua et al.]; and wherein the repositioning the intermediate section comprises rolling the support away from the first section and the second section [as can be seen from Figure 1d in Chua et al.]. 11. Regarding to claim 7, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of systems of the intermediate section comprise at least a hydraulic system, an environmental control system, and an electrical system, or combinations thereof [as described in paragraph 0053 of Chua et al.]. Regarding to claim 8, Chua et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of structural components of the intermediate section comprise at least a sheet metal overlay, a skin doubler, and a stringer strap, or combinations thereof [straps, as described in paragraph 0051 in Chua et al.]. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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. Applicant argues examiner agreed that the foregoing amendments to the claims overcome the outstanding rejection. Examiner notes, no agreement was reached in the interview on 11/25/25. Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose leveling because the prior art of Chua fails to teach the wholesale modification of an aircraft’s exterior fuselage. However, the modular sections have an exterior and therefore interpreted as being “exterior sections”, as rejected above in the new grounds of rejection. Applicant has amended the claims to further define having exterior sections, an exterior passenger door and an exterior cargo door. However, applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added features are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above. 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 NIRVANA DEONAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 5712723460. 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. /NIRVANA DEONAUTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 25, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 13, 2026
Notice of Allowance
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589817
FUEL TANK BOOST AND BOLT SECURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577735
SPIKE TRAY HEAD WITH REPLACEABLE WEAR PLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558750
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING A PART BEING MACHINED
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12522983
Cordless Railroad Spike Puller
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12454040
BOTTOM BRACKET TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 591 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month