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 .
Response to Amendment
The objection to claims 32, 33 have been withdrawn. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 23, 25, 32, 33 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues “The Proposed Combination Modifies the Principle of Operation and Equates Non-Equivalent Structures” and the rejection of claim 1 “improperly equates two fundamentally different structures and fails to recognize that Suter's teaching is incompatible with Nagle's principle of operation.” Also “A skilled person would not have been motivated to replace or modify Nagle's inflatable structural members with Suter's non-inflatable tensioning straps.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reference Suter is looked to for teaching known components of an aircraft protecting cover which are arranged around an aircraft structure. For Suter the structures, such as ties or straps, are arranged to form a ring in order to securing attach to that structure.
Applicant further argues “The Combination Lacks a Sufficient Motivation and Relies on Impermissible Hindsight” and the “motivation to combine Nagle and Suter "to securely attach the envelope" is a generic goal that is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness and relies on improper hindsight.”
In response, the motivation to combine “to securely attach the envelope” is one of a common and well-known reason when handling aircraft. One wants parts of the aircraft as well as objects which are touching the aircraft to be securely attached or coupled to avoid possible movement and damage to the aircraft from this movement.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues the combination of references “fails to teach the claimed invention "As a Whole"” and “the combined teachings of Nagle and Suter would not result in the invention as claimed” and further “Even if a person skilled in the art had combined the prior art of Nagle and Suter, he would, at best, have envisaged Suter's straps around Nagle's fabric. It would be an inflatable Nagle-style shelter with Suter's non-inflatable straps attached to it.”
In response, Suter is looked to in teaching known components of an aircraft protecting cover which are arranged around an aircraft structure. For Suter the structures, such as ties or straps, are arranged to form a ring in order to securely attach/hold to that structure. For the argument above, Applicant uses different reason for the combination and comes to a different conclusion than that of combination of Nagle with Suter.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 2-5, 8-10, 13-14, 17, 21-26, 28, 30-34 are based upon claim 1 and the response to arguments above are applied to these claims as well.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the framework being configured so as to be located between the portion of the aircraft body and an inner face of the fabric so that the fabric could at least partially cover the portion of the aircraft body”. Recommend rephrasing “the fabric could” in order to make the limitation certain what function the fabric is performing.
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 1-5, 8-10, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagle (US 20020023390) in view of Suter (US 4598883).
In regards to claim 1, Nagle discloses a protective envelope for a portion of an aircraft body, comprising
a framework (Fig. 1 ref. 2) and a fabric (Fig. 1 ref. 9a disclosed as covering),
the fabric being mechanically coupled to the framework ([0048] “placing the cover on top of the framework the cover may be placed or loosely affixed to portions of the framework 2”) and extending around the framework (as seen at least in Fig. 1) so that, in a deployed configuration of the envelope, the framework enables holding of the fabric (as seen at least in Fig. 1),
the framework being configured so as to be located between the portion of the aircraft body and an inner face of the fabric (ref. 9a) so that the fabric could at least partially cover the portion of the aircraft body while keeping the fabric at a distance from the portion of the aircraft body (as seen at least in Fig. 2c, 13, 15, outer cover kept at a distance from aircraft surface),
the framework comprising at least one duct (Fig. 1 ref. 4) adapted to be filled with a fluid ([0046] discloses inflation of frame, and of frame members, ref. 2), so that when
Nagle does not expressly disclose: wherein the framework forms at least one ring, said at least one ring being configured to at least partially surround the portion of the aircraft body when the framework is deployed and
Suter teaches an aircraft cover which uses a ring system to secure the cover to the aircraft body by surround the aircraft body (as seen in Fig. 1, ref. 90 system of straps surrounding body).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Nagle with Suter by providing the framework forms at least one ring to at least partially surround the portion of the aircraft body when the framework is deployed in order to securely attach the envelope, and for the covering of Nagle to cover the fuselage to provide greater coverage of the aircraft.
Nagle as combined further discloses:
wherein said at least one ring is configured to clasp the portion of the aircraft body when the framework is deployed (Nagle combined, Suter Fig. 1 ref. 90 clasp ref. 61).
In regards to claim 2, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, wherein said at least one duct includes a fluid-tight hollow body (Nagle disclose inflated, accordingly fluid-tight).
In regards to claim 3, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of ducts forming a network of branched ducts (as seen at least in Fig. 1 of Nagle).
In regards to claim 4, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, wherein
In regards to claim 5, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, wherein the framework comprises at least one inlet orifice configured to be connected to a deployment system (Nagle ref. 8), the deployment system being configured to supply the framework with fluid (Nagle ref. 8 disclosed as air inlet for inflation).
In regards to claim 8, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, wherein a cross section of said at least one ring forms a completely closed continuous contour (Nagle as combined, Suter discloses strap having continuous connection/contour around the fuselage).
In regards to claim 9, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, wherein the framework forms at least two rings (Nagle as combined, Suter discloses two rings ref. 90), one amongst the two rings having a continuous contour and the other one amongst the two rings (Nagle as combined, Suter discloses continuous rings ref. 90) having an interrupted contour to form an opening, the opening being carried by the ring located at a distal end of the envelope and is directed opposite the ground when the framework is deployed (as seen in Fig. 1 of Nagle half ring/interrupted ring seen in forward end of ref. 1).
In regards to claim 10, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, wherein, said at least one ring is located at least at one of the ends of the envelope (as seen in Fig. 1 of Nagle half ring/interrupted ring seen in forward end of ref. 1).
In regards to claim 22, Nagle as combined discloses an assembly comprising an aircraft and an envelope according to claim 1 (Nagle aircraft seen in Figs 2, 11 ref. 94).
In regards to claim 23, Nagle as combined discloses the assembly according to claim 22, wherein the envelope is configured to be supported by the portion of the aircraft body that is at least partially covered when the envelope is in the deployed configuration (Nagle as combined, Nagle Fig. 2c contact seen with aircraft).
In regards to claim 25, Nagle as combined discloses the assembly according to claim 22 wherein the aircraft comprises at least one probe (Pitot tube, AOA indicator), and wherein the envelope is configured so that, when the duct is filled with a fluid, the fabric of the envelope deploys without interfering with the probe (Nagle as combine, ref. 9a orients away from aircraft skin, accordingly not to interfere with probe).
In regards to claim 26, Nagle as combined discloses the assembly according to claim 22, but does not expressly disclose: wherein, in the deployed configuration, the fabric is configured to cover at least 50% of the portion of the aircraft body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success to provide, in the deployed configuration, the fabric is configured to cover at least 50% of the portion of the aircraft body in order to provide cover to a greater amount of the aircraft to avoid damage, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 28, Nagle as combined discloses the assembly according to claim 22, wherein the portion corresponds to a cockpit and/or a wing of an aircraft (Nagle as combined, Nagle discloses wing in Fig. 15).
In regards to claim 31, Nagle as combined discloses a method for protecting a portion of an aircraft body, comprising providing an envelope according to claim 1, and deploying the envelope so that the fabric of the envelope at least partially covers the portion of the aircraft body (Nagle as combined, ref. 9a at least partially), the deployment comprising filling at least one duct of the framework with a fluid (Nagle discloses inflating ref. 2 [0046]).
In regards to claim 32, Nagle as combined discloses for protecting a portion of an aircraft body according to claim 31, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the deployment is automated such that filling of the at least one duct occurs without manual user intervention (Nagle discloses an air inlet for inflation, the inflating air automatically deploying the device without the help of ground crew).
In regards to claim 33, Nagle as combined discloses for protecting a portion of an aircraft body according to claim 32, wherein the deployment comprises an extension of the framework according to a longitudinal deployment axis (Nagle the shape of ref. 2 in Fig. 2 extends in a longitudinal direction).
In regards to claim 34, Nagle as combined discloses the assembly according to claim 22, but does not expressly disclose: wherein, in the deployed configuration, the fabric is kept at a distance from the portion of the aircraft body comprised between 5 cm and 50 cm. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success to provide that in the deployed configuration, the fabric is kept at a distance from the portion of the aircraft body comprised between 5 cm and 50 cm in order to prevent contact with the aircraft skin to avoid damage and abrasion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 13, 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagle, Suter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jimenez (US 20160340925).
In regards to claim 13, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the fabric comprises a transparent area.
Jimenez taches a transparent area/window for an inflatable envelope (abstract, [0030] Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Nagle as combined with Jimenez by providing the fabric comprises a transparent area in order allow for the ground crew to observe interior areas of the envelope.
In regards to claim 30, Nagle as combine discloses the assembly according to claim 22, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the fabric comprises a transparent area located at a windshield of the aircraft.
Suter teaches a panel located at the aircraft windshield (ref. 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Nagle as combined with Jimenez by the fabric comprises a transparent area located at a windshield of the aircraft in order allow for the ground crew to observe interior areas of the envelope.
Claim 14, 17, 21, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagle, Suter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tillery (US 20210380273).
In regards to claim 14, Nagle as combined discloses the envelope according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose:
comprising at least one sensor configured to collect measurements as well as a transmission device configured to transmit data relating to these measurements to a remote terminal,
Tillery teaches an aircraft covering system comprising a sensor and system to transmit signals/data measurements to a remote terminal ([0040] discloses sensor and system to send signals/measurements)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Nagle as combined with Tillery by providing at least one sensor to collect measurements and a transmission device configured to transmit data relating to these measurements to a remote terminal in order to determine if conditions within the envelope, such as humidity, are within limits to prevent damage to the aircraft.
Nagle as combined further discloses:
said sensor being taken among a shock sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity or hygrometry sensor (Nagle as combined, Tillery [0040]) or a position sensor.
In regards to claim 17, Nagle as combined discloses a protective system for a portion of an aircraft body, comprising an envelope according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: a deployment system comprising a compression system and a connector,
Tillery teaches a compression system/pump ([0032] discloses compression system /blower “a blower 30 that is arranged to force feed exterior air into the interior of the shelter” and a duct connection, ref. 26)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Nagle as combined with Tillery by providing a deployment system comprising a compression system/pump and a connector in order to quickly inflate the supports as is well known in the art.
Nagle as combined further discloses:
said at least one duct of the envelope comprising an inlet orifice (Nagle ref. 8) adapted to be connected to the deployment system (Nagle ref. 8 disclosed as inlet orifice for inflating), the connector being configured to transmit a fluid from an outlet of the compression system up to the inlet orifice so as to fill said at least one duct with the fluid (Nagle as combined ref. 26 of Tillery duct for transporting inflating air).
In regards to claim 21, Nagle as combined discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the compression system includes an electromechanical compressor (Tillery ref. 30).
In regards to claim 24, Nagle as combined discloses an assembly comprising an aircraft and a system according to claim 17 (Nagle as combined, ref. 94).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642