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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 states “the transmission mechanism (5)”. However, the transmission mechanism has been referred to by numeral (6).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are 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 1 states “the transmission mechanism (6) characterized by a transmission mechanism (6)”. First, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the transmission mechanism”. Further, how is this component characterized by itself? What does that mean?
Claim 1 states “a transmission mechanism (6) located in the rack (3) so as to be connected to the cover (4) from one end thereof and to the actuator (5) from the other end thereof”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the other end”. This structure has not been defined by a number of ends. How many ends are there?
Claim 9 similarly has issues with reciting “its other end”.
Claim 3 states that the cover is “rotatingly closed while the ammunition (M) is brought from the second position (II) to the third position (III)”. However, the third position (and all the positions) are defined by the location of both the cover and munitions together. So how can only the munitions be brought to the third position? Similarly, how could the cover be in any other position than closed when the munition is in the third position?
Claim 3 states “the ammunition (M) being triggered simultaneously with the same actuator (5), and a cover (4)”. What is meant by triggered simultaneously? There has been no mention of any trigger. What structure is required for said triggering? There is also a lack of antecedent basis for “the same actuator”. Further, is “a cover” the same cover as “the cover” previously recited?
Claim 4 similarly has issues with a recitation of “triggered by”.
Claim 6 states “the carrier (8) being mutually located with the aerodynamic surface, and at least one protrusion (9) being single-piece with the carrier (8), extending from the carrier (8) and contacting the aerodynamic surface, thereby protecting the rack (3) from aerodynamic effects”.
First, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the aerodynamic surface”.
Then, 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?
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 (1) comprising a body (2) Fig. 1, at least one rack (3) located on the body (2) Fig. 4-5 in which ammunition (M) 17 is located and carried, a cover (4) 16 protecting the rack (3) from aerodynamic effects, a first position (I) in which the ammunition (M) is located in the rack (3) and the cover (4) is closed Fig. 5, a second position (II) in which the ammunition (M) is located outside the rack (3) and the cover (4) is opened Fig. 4, and an actuator (5) 26 for enabling the ammunition (M) to be rotatingly brought from the first position (I) to the second position (II), and a third position (III) in which the ammunition (M) is located outside the rack (3) and the cover (4) is closed after a missile 17 is released and the door is closed, the actuator (5) for enabling the ammunition (M) and the cover (4) to be brought simultaneously from the first position (I) to the third position (III) cover and missile move simultaneously by triggering a transmission mechanism (6) 19/23/27 located in the rack (3) so as to be connected to the cover (4) from one end thereof at the flange 19 and to the actuator (5) from the other end thereof at end of 27, transmitting the movement it receives from the actuator (5) to the cover (4), thereby for enabling the cover (4) to be moved transfers movement, the actuator (5) simultaneously triggering the cover (4) and the ammunition (M) by means of the transmission mechanism (6), thereby for enabling the ammunition (M) to be moved cover and missile move simultaneously.
For claim 3, Smith discloses an attack aircraft (1) according to 1, characterized by the cover (4) being rotatingly opened while the ammunition (M) is brought from the first position (I) to the second position (II) from Figs. 4 to 5 and rotatingly closed while the ammunition (M) is brought from the second position (II) to the third position (III) the cover is able to be closed after the missile is released (this is an intended use limitation), the transmission mechanism (5) for enabling the cover (4) to be opened Fig. 4-5, the ammunition (M) being triggered simultaneously with the same actuator (5), and a cover (4) missile moves with the actuator (in light of the 112 issues this is interpreted as the ammunition is moved simultaneously with the actuator).
For claim 4, Smith discloses an attack aircraft (1) according to claim 1, characterized by multiple transmission elements (7) 23/27 located on the transmission mechanism (6) at user-predetermined angular values at angles, which were predetermined by their design, triggered by the actuator (5) so as to be moved without contacting the ammunition (M) as the ammunition (M) switches from the first position (I) to the third position (III) no contact, the transmission mechanism (6) transmitting the movement transmitted by the actuator (5) to the cover (4) by means of the multiple transmission elements' (7) interconnection points and/or rotational movements around each other, thereby for enabling the cover (4) to be opened or closed Fig. 4-5: motion is transferred to the cover.
For claim 9, Smith discloses an attack aircraft (1) according to claim 1, characterized by the transmission mechanism (6) being composed of a first transmission element (701) 23 with one end being connected to the actuator (5) at 25 and transmitting the rotational movement received from the actuator (5) to its other end rotates about 24 at its other end, thereby providing movement to the transmission mechanism (6), an I-shaped second transmission element (702) 27 with one end being connected to the first transmission element (701) at 25 and triggered by the movement of the first transmission element (701), and a third transmission element (703) 19 with one end being connected to the second transmission element (702) at pivot 30, transmitting the movement received from the second transmission element (702) to its other end by rotating at the point by which it is connected to the rack (3) at pivot 20, thereby for enabling the cover (4) 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 (1) according to claim 1, characterized by a rack wall (301) 13 of the rack (3) that is exposed to aerodynamic effects, a carrier (8) support means 31 being located without contacting the rack wall (301) no contact, ammunition (M) being located thereon 17, and leaving a gap between itself and the rack wall (301) when the ammunition (M) is in the third position (III) 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. 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 (1) according to claimed claim 5, characterized by the carrier (8) being mutually located with an aerodynamic surface mutually located at the inner surface of the cover where it is mounted, and at least one protrusion (9) 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 (8) as the two portions move together, they are considered a single piece, extending from the carrier (8) and contacting the aerodynamic surface mounted to the inner surface of the cover, thereby protecting the rack (3) 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 (1) according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that it is characterized by the transmission mechanism (6) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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