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 Arguments
The claim objections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
The 112 rejections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn, except for claim 6 which still remains.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Smith does not disclose the claimed transmission mechanism with a dual-path, single-actuator. The examiner disagrees with the argument that the claims require a dual-path of transmission to the actuator and cover. The claims make no mention of “dual-path”. As applicant states, “Amended claim 1 requires an architecture in which the actuator simultaneously drives the ammunition and drives the cover via a transmission mechanism that is located in the rack, has a first end connected to the cover, and has a second end connected to the actuator.” The applicant then states “This is a dual-path, single-actuator architecture”. The examiner disagrees with this. The claims do not require that the transmission path be separate for the rack and cover. The claims states that the actuator “drives the ammunition” (which is does via movement of the cover through the transmission mechanism) and “drives the cover via the transmission mechanism” (which it also does via the transmission mechanism. There is no recitation of separate structures to perform each of these functions.
The applicant then argues that the “third position” in Smith is not an operational carrying configuration, and instead is a post-launch configuration. Applicant cites the specification, which “explicitly describes this purpose”. However, there is nothing in the claims that mentions this limitation. Applicant states that the claims define “a structural configuration that must be achievable by the single-actuator and transmission mechanism” – this is provided by Smith by releasing an ammunition and then closing the door. The applicant appears to read limitations from the specification into the claims.
For claim 5, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to make the carrier in a curved form. Applicant states that “it is functionally necessary to enable the ammunition to pass the transmission mechanism without collision” and that where a “specific form is dictate by the functional requirements of the mechanism, it is not merely a design choice”. However, it appears applicant is discussing the instant application (and details from the specification which are not in the claims), rather than the prior art. When applicant states that the curved form is functionally necessary, this is only true of the applicant’s invention, not the prior art; so then what bearing does this argument have on the rejection which is only based on the prior art? Smith discloses a carrier 31 which appears to be have a curved shape but is not explicitly stated. Applicant has not shown any unexpected results from such a shape change and therefore the arguments are not found convincing.
For claim 6, the reference has been reinterpreted in light of the amendments. Applicant argues that the two portions of 16 (in Smith) cannot be considered separate components which are “a single piece” but gives no reasoning for why, and provides no definition by which we should be interpreting “a single-piece” which is formed by two separate components. Applicant only cites the specification which states that “the protrusion seals the rack completely”. Again, the applicant is relying on details of the specification which are not found in the claims.
For claims 7-8, applicant argues it would not have been obvious to Smith with Thompson. Applicant states that Thompson is for landing gear bay doors and not for an ammunition rack. However, as stated in the rejection Thompson states “applications may include bomb bay doors” (Para 0003). Applicant argues that the mechanism of Thompson is not for simultaneously driving a cover and ammunition. As states before, Smith already discloses these elements, and Thompson is only used to teaches the configuration of the bars that link the actuator to the door. Applicant argues that the combination would require dismantling the integral relationship between the missile support means and the closure member. This is not correct. The bar linkage configuration that would be replaced has nothing to do with the missile support and cover. It would only replace the bars from the actuator to the cover. This replacement of bars in Smith which are used to rotate a cover, with the bars in Thompson, which are also used to rotate a cover, is not considered a fundamental redesign as applicant states.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 states “the carrier being mutually located with an aerodynamic surface of the rack, and at least one protrusion being single-piece with the carrier, extending from the carrier and contacting the aerodynamic surface, thereby protecting the rack from aerodynamic effects”.
It is unclear which of the carrier or the protrusion is “protecting the rack from aerodynamic effects”. Whichever it is, it is then further unclear what is meant by this. How does the structure protect the rack from aerodynamic effects by contacting an aerodynamic surface? Does this mean that it completely shields the rack from the air? This does not seem to be the case. So then does it just prevent some air from reaching the rack?
Claim 6 states “the carrier being mutually located with an aerodynamic surface of the rack”. It is unclear what it meant by mutually located as the drawings do not appear to show the carrier being located where a surface of the rack is located. How close do the components need to be in order to be “mutually located”? It appears it is actually the protrusion which is disclosed as contacting the aerodynamic surface. But it is then unclear if the protrusion is considered a part of the carrier or a separate component. Claim 6 states the “protrusion being single-piece with the carrier, extending from the carrier”. If it is a separate component as it appears to be, then what is meant by “single-piece”? Just that they are connected and move together? The applicant states that this interpretation is incorrect in the remarks of 5/18/26. So then what is meant by this limitation?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al (GB 2177668 A).
For claim 1, Smith discloses an attack aircraft comprising a body Fig. 1, at least one rack located on the body Fig. 4-5 in which ammunition 17 is located and carried, a cover outer surface 16a protecting the rack from aerodynamic effects, a first position in which the ammunition is located in the rack and the cover is closed Fig. 5, a second position in which the ammunition is located outside the rack and the cover is opened Fig. 4, an actuator 26 for enabling the ammunition to be rotatingly brought from the first position to the second position, a third position in which the ammunition is located outside the rack and the cover is closed after a missile 17 is released and the door is closed, and a transmission mechanism 19/23/27 located in the rack Fig. 5, the transmission mechanism having a first end connected to the cover at 19 and a second end connected to the actuator at 25, the transmission mechanism transmitting movement received from the actuator to the cover to enable the cover to be moved movement from Fig. 4 to 5, wherein the actuator simultaneously drives the ammunition via movement of the cover and drives the cover via the transmission mechanism Fig. 4-5, thereby enabling the ammunition and the cover to be brought simultaneously from the first position to the third position as they move together.
For claim 3, Smith discloses an attack aircraft according to 1, characterized by the cover being rotatingly opened while the ammunition is brought from the first position to the second position from Figs. 4 to 5 and rotatingly closed while the ammunition and the cover are brought from the second position to the third position the cover is able to be closed after the missile is released (this is an intended use limitation), the transmission mechanism for enabling the cover to be rotatingly opened and closed by the actuator Fig. 4-5.
For claim 4, Smith discloses an attack aircraft according to claim 1, characterized by multiple transmission elements 23/27 located on the transmission mechanism at user-predetermined angular values at angles, which were predetermined by their design, actuated by the actuator so as to be moved without contacting the ammunition as the ammunition switches from the first position to the third position no contact, the transmission mechanism transmitting the movement transmitted by the actuator to the cover by means of the multiple transmission elements' interconnection points and/or rotational movements around each other, thereby for enabling the cover to be opened or closed Fig. 4-5: motion is transferred to the cover.
For claim 9, Smith discloses an attack aircraft according to claim 1, characterized by the transmission mechanism being composed of a first transmission element 23 with one end connected to the actuator at 25 and transmitting the rotational movement received from the actuator a second end thereof rotates about 24 at its other end, thereby providing movement to the transmission mechanism, an I-shaped second transmission element 27 with one end being connected to the first transmission element at 25 and actuated by the movement of the first transmission element, and a third transmission element 19 with one end being connected to the second transmission element at pivot 30, transmitting the movement received from the second transmission element to a second end thereof by rotating at the point by which it is connected to the rack at pivot 20, thereby for enabling the cover to be opened or closed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al.
For claim 5, Smith discloses an attack aircraft according to claim 1, characterized by a rack wall 13 of the rack that is exposed to aerodynamic effects, a carrier support means 31 being located without contacting the rack wall no contact, ammunition 17 being located on the carrier, and the carrier leaving a gap between itself and the rack wall when the ammunition is in the third position no contact, therefore there is a gap.
Smith fails to disclose the shape of the carrier 31. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the support means 31 of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such as having a curved form, in order to create a more aerodynamic shape, or to match the curved shape of the ammunitions. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
For claim 6, Smith discloses an attack aircraft according to claimed claim 5, characterized by the carrier being mutually located with an aerodynamic surface of the rack 31 is located at the inner surface of 16 (this inner surface is considered an aerodynamic surface as it is exposed to the free stream air when open), and at least one protrusion Fig. 4: top portion of 31 which contains one of the top missiles is protruding upwards from the lower portion which contains a lower missile being single-piece with the carrier as the two portions are denoted together as 31, extending from the carrier and contacting the aerodynamic surface Fig. 4: top of 31 contacts bottom of 16, thereby protecting the rack from aerodynamic effects as the mount 31 could impede airflow from reaching a portion of the rack (interpreted in light of the 112 above).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Thompson et al (US 20160016656 A1).
For claims 7-8, Smith discloses an attack aircraft according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that it is characterized by the transmission mechanism being in the form of a four-bar mechanism, or an arm pendulum four-bar mechanism.
However, Thompson teaches aircraft munition doors Para 0003: “applications may include bomb bay doors” which use a four-bar mechanism to open and close the door Para 0043-0044, Fig. 10.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Smith by using a four-bar linkage to transfer the motion to the door as disclosed by Thompson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since it would have been a simple substitution of one known element (linkage with less than four bars) for another (four-bar linkage) to produce predictable results (moving an aircraft munitions door), in order to use a reliable, known mechanism with low complexity, and to change the location of the anchors and actuator depending on the available space within the bay.
For claim 8, as modified above, this mechanism is considered an arm pendulum as it rotates around a pivot point like a pendulum.
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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, JOSHUA J 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights