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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 10/02/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2310510 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the actuator being directly connected to the drive shaft” of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a coupling mode for coupling the rotation of the drive shaft to the movement of the door, during each door movement phase of the door closing and opening operations” which corresponds with ¶93 and ¶129-¶132; and
“a decoupling mode for decoupling the door from the rotation of the drive shaft, during the door latching phase and the door latch locking phase of the closing operation, and during the door latch unlocking phase and the door unlatching phase of the opening operation” which corresponds with ¶94 and ¶134-136 in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the drive shaft extending along a control axis and being totally movable along the control axis relative to the aircraft structure” does not have support in the specification as originally filed. This conclusion is supported by ¶74-76 stating that the drive shaft is stationary or immovable relative to the aircraft structure during specific operations or conditions (hence not totally moveable).
Claims 2-20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the drive shaft is stationary relative to the aircraft structure during any movement of the door relative to the aircraft structure” contradicts the earlier limitation “the drive shaft extending along a control axis and being totally movable along the control axis relative to the aircraft structure,” and as such it is unclear whether the drive shaft is required to be capable of movement without restriction or whether the drive shaft be stationary during door movement. Hence these limitations can not be understood as written.
Also, the limitation “the drive shaft is arranged over a frame of the aircraft structure delimiting the opening of the door” is indefinite because it is unclear what arrangement of the drive shaft and frame are actually required. Given the language of the claims and the provided disclosure (see ¶79 of the specification) it is not clear when a drive shaft would be over as opposed to not over a frame of the aircraft structure.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending on a rejected 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 (as best understood), 2-7, 10-16, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savidge (US 20200181948 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) discloses an aircraft door mechanism comprising at least:
an aircraft structure (Savidge, figure 2, item 18) that delimits an opening (Savidge, figure 2, item 24);
an aircraft door (Savidge, figure 2, item 12) mounted so as to be movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position (Savidge, figures 1 and 3, item 12, ¶7), in which the door closes the opening, and a boarding position, in which the door is arranged away from the opening and in which passengers are able to board the aircraft structure through the opening (Savidge, figure 2, item 12, ¶7);
a control system configured so as to control an execution of a closing operation and the execution of an opening operation of the door (Savidge, figures 3, item 32),
the door closing operation successively comprising: a door movement phase of moving the door relative to the aircraft structure from the boarding position to the closed position; a door latching phase of latching the door in the closed position (Savidge, abstract, door latches); a door latch locking phase of locking the latching of the door (Savidge, abstract, door locks);
the door opening operation successively comprising: a door latch unlocking phase of unlocking a latching of the door in the closed position, an unlatching phase of unlatching the door, and a door movement phase of moving the door relative to the aircraft structure from the closed position to the boarding position (Savidge, abstract, door can be operated in this manner);
the control system comprising a drive shaft (Savidge, figures 4-b, item 50), the drive shaft extending along a control axis and being totally movable along the control axis relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, drive shaft can rotate with respect to aircraft structure), the control system being configured so as to control the execution of the said operations by means of continuous rotation of the drive shaft along the control axis relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, handle shaft is rotated to control operation of door);
Savidge, figures 4-b, item 50, drive shaft is over a frame of the aircraft structure delimiting opening of the door).
Regarding claim 2, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the drive shaft is arranged away from the aircraft door (Savidge, figures 4-b, item 50, drive shaft arranged away from door).
Regarding claim 3, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the control system also comprises at least one mechanical chain that joins the drive shaft to the door (Savidge, figure 6a, item 48), a latching system for latching the door in the closed position (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 40), and a latch locking system for locking the latching of the door in the closed position (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 42).
Regarding claim 4, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the mechanical chain has a coupling mode for coupling the rotation of the drive shaft to the movement of the door, during each door movement phase of the door closing and opening operations (Savidge, ¶70, rotation of the drive shaft moves the chain to in turn move the door between open or closed positions); and
a decoupling mode for decoupling the door from the rotation of the drive shaft, during the door latching phase and the door latch locking phase of the closing operation, and during the door latch unlocking phase and the door unlatching phase of the opening operation (Savidge, ¶74, latch prevents lift mechanism from operating when latched and lock prevents the latch in turn from moving; hence until the lock is unlocked and the latch is unlatched, the lift mechanism is unable to move), the mechanical chain being configured such that the rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure drives a switching of the mechanical chain from one of the modes to the other (Savidge, figures 6a-c, items 40 and 42, lock and latch driven by drive shaft).
Regarding claim 5, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 4, wherein the mechanical chain comprises a lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 54), a control-lift connection system between the drive shaft and the lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, items 56, 58, 60, and 62 ¶70, drive shaft and lift shaft connected together via these parts), and a lift- door linking system between the lifting shaft and the door (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 66, ¶72, rotation of lifting shaft drives movement of door via a lift rod).
Regarding claim 6, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 5, wherein the control-lift connection system comprises at least one pair of connection members, the pair of connection members comprising a control connection member that is fixed to the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 62); and a lift connection member that is fixed to the lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 56), the control connection member and the lift connection member being capable of rotationally coupling the drive shaft and the lifting shaft in the coupling mode and of decoupling the lifting shaft from the rotation of the drive shaft in the decoupling mode (Savidge, ¶70).
Regarding claim 7, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 6, wherein either one of the control connection member and the lift connection member comprises a connection roller (Savidge, figure 4a, item 64) while the other one of the control connection member and the lift connection member comprises a connection track that is capable of receiving the connection roller (Savidge, figure 4a, item 62).
Regarding claim 10, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 5, wherein the lift-door linking system comprises at least one pair of linking members, the pair of linking members comprising a lift linking member that is fixed to the lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 4a, item 65), and a door linking member that is fixed to the door (Savidge, figure 4a, item 66), the lift linking member being articulated to the door linking member (Savidge, figure 4a, lift link member moves the door linking member).
Regarding claim 11, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the latching system has a latching configuration for latching the door in the closed position, in which the latching system blocks the mechanical chain (Savidge, ¶74, in latched configuration latch interferes with lift mechanism); and an unlatching configuration for unlatching the door in the closed position, in which the latching system does not obstruct the mechanical chain (Savidge, ¶5 and ¶81, unlatched configuration allows lifting mechanism to operate), the latching system being configured so as to ensure that rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure drives a switching of the latching system from one of the configurations to the other (Savidge, ¶75, latch is coupled with the handle shaft).
Regarding claim 12, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 11, wherein the latching system comprises at least one latching surface of the mechanical chain (Savidge, figure 6a-c, item 82 and 84, ¶76, latching surface where the latch connects with the lift mechanism), a latch that is movable relative to the mechanical chain and to the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 6a-c, item 84), and a drive section of the drive shaft that is capable of driving the latch (Savidge, figures 6a-c, items 76 and 78, handle shaft includes section attached to drive the latch with the latching surface).
Regarding claim 13, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 12, wherein the mechanical chain comprises a lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 54), a control-lift connection system between the drive shaft and the lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, items 56, 58, 60, and 62 ¶70, drive shaft and lift shaft connected together via these parts), and a lift-door linking system between the lifting shaft and the door (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 66, ¶72, rotation of lifting shaft drives movement of door via a lift rod), wherein the latching surface is formed by the lifting shaft (Savidge, figures 6a-c, items 76 and 78, handle shaft includes section attached to drive the latch with the latching surface).
Regarding claim 14 (as best understood), Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 12, wherein a shape and form of the latching surface, the latch, and the shape and form of the drive section of the drive shaft are configured together so as to ensure that the latching system is maintained in the said configurations and so as to ensure the said switches of the latching system from one of the configurations to the other, by means of rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, ¶74, latch is switched between configurations when actuated).
Regarding claim 15, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the latch locking system has a latch locking configuration for locking the latch of the door in the closed position (Savidge, figure 6a, item 42, ¶78, latch in the locked configuration), and a latch unlocking configuration (Savidge, figure 6c, item 42, ¶79, latch in the unlocked configuration), the latch locking system being configured such as to ensure that the rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure drives a switching of the latch locking system from one of the configurations to the other (Savidge, figure 6a-c, item 42, ¶77, lock changes between locked and unlocked configuration).
Regarding claim 16, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 15, wherein the latching system comprises at least one latching surface of the mechanical chain (Savidge, figures 6a-c, item 82, latching surface), a latch that is movable relative to the mechanical chain and to the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 6a, items 40 and 84, latch moves with respect to the lift shaft and drive shaft), and a drive section of the drive shaft that is capable of driving the latch (Savidge, figure 6a-c, items 76 and 78),
wherein the latch locking system comprises at least one latch locking member that is fixed to the latch (Savidge, figure 6a-7, item 94, latch pawl) and a latch locking cam for the latch that is fixed to the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 6a-7, item 96, locking pawl linked to the drive shaft), shapes of the latch locking member and of the latch locking cam being configured together in order to ensure that the latch locking system is maintained in the said configurations and in order to ensure the said switches of the latch locking system from one of the configurations to the other, by means of rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, figure 6a-c, item 42, ¶77-¶78, lock prevents the latch from moving when locked and allows for latch to open when unlocked; latch and lock linked to rotation of the drive shaft).
Regarding claim 18, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the control system also comprises an actuator configured for rotating the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure in order to control the execution of the said operations by means of continuous rotation of the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 36, handle can be used to rotate drive shaft; alternatively ¶65 describes an electric motor opening assist system).
Regarding claim 19, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 18,
wherein the actuator is electrical (Savidge, ¶65, electric motor providing assistance in opening door).
Regarding claim 22, Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) discloses an aircraft door mechanism comprising at least:
an aircraft structure (Savidge, figure 2, item 18) that delimits an opening (Savidge, figure 2, item 24);
an aircraft door (Savidge, figure 2, item 12) mounted so as to be movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position (Savidge, figures 1 and 3, item 12, ¶7), in which the door closes the opening, and a boarding position, in which the door is arranged away from the opening and in which passengers are able to board the aircraft structure through the opening (Savidge, figure 2, item 12, ¶7);
a control system configured so as to control an execution of a closing operation and the execution of an opening operation of the door (Savidge, figures 3, item 32),
the door closing operation successively comprising: a door movement phase of moving the door relative to the aircraft structure from the boarding position to the closed position; a door latching phase of latching the door in the closed position (Savidge, abstract, door latches); a door latch locking phase of locking the latching of the door (Savidge, abstract, door locks);
the door opening operation successively comprising: a door latch unlocking phase of unlocking a latching of the door in the closed position, an unlatching phase of unlatching the door, and a door movement phase of moving the door relative to the aircraft structure from the closed position to the boarding position (Savidge, abstract, door can be operated in this manner);
the control system comprising a drive shaft (Savidge, figures 4-b, item 50),
the control system being configured so as to control the execution of the said operations by means of continuous rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, handle shaft is rotated to control operation of door);
wherein the control system also comprises at least one mechanical chain that joins the drive shaft to the door (Savidge, figure 6a, item 48), the mechanical chain comprising a lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 54), a control-lift connection system between the drive shaft and the lifting shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, items 56, 58, 60, and 62 ¶70, drive shaft and lift shaft connected together via these parts), and a lift-door linking system between the lifting shaft and the door (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 66, ¶72, rotation of lifting shaft drives movement of door via a lift rod),
wherein the control system also comprises a latching system for latching the door in the closed position (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 40),
wherein the latching system has a latching configuration for latching the door in the closed position, in which the latching system blocks the mechanical chain (Savidge, ¶74, in latched configuration latch interferes with lift mechanism); and an unlatching configuration for unlatching the door in the closed position, in which the latching system does not obstruct the mechanical chain (Savidge, ¶5 and ¶81, unlatched configuration allows lifting mechanism to operate), the latching system being configured so as to ensure that rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure drives a switching of the latching system from one of the configurations to the other (Savidge, ¶75, latch is coupled with the handle shaft),
wherein the latching system comprises at least one latching surface of the mechanical chain (Savidge, figure 6a-c, item 82 and 84, ¶76, latching surface where the latch connects with the lift mechanism) formed by the lifting shaft (Savidge, figures 6a-c, items 76 and 78, handle shaft includes section attached to drive the latch with the latching surface), a latch that is movable relative to the mechanical chain and to the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 6a-c, item 84), and a drive section of the drive shaft that is capable of driving the latch (Savidge, figures 6a-c, items 76 and 78, handle shaft includes section attached to drive the latch with the latching surface).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) in view of Mortland (US 20220135201 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the control system also comprises a pressure safety system, the pressure safety system comprising at least one ventilation opening delimited by the aircraft structure (Savidge, figure 6a, item 34, vent flap arranged in opening), a safety flap that is movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position which closes the ventilation opening and a ventilation position arranged away from the ventilation opening (Savidge, figure 6a, item 34); and a drive device for driving the safety flap between the closed and ventilation positions (Savidge, figure 6a-b, item 88), the drive device being configured so as to ensure a switching of the safety flap from one of the said positions to the other, by means of rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, ¶79).
Alternatively, Mortland (US 20220135201 A1) discloses a pressure safety system (Mortland, figure 3, item 304), the pressure safety system comprising at least one ventilation opening delimited by the aircraft structure (Mortland, figure 3, item 316), a safety flap that is movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position which closes the ventilation opening and a ventilation position arranged away from the ventilation opening (Mortland, figure 3, item 306); and a drive device for driving the safety flap between the closed and ventilation positions (Mortland, figure 4, item 410), the drive device being configured so as to ensure a switching of the safety flap from one of the said positions to the other, by means of rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure (Mortland, figures 6-12, shaft rotates to switch flap between open and closed positions).
Savidge and Mortland are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft pressurization systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Savidge with the pressure safety system of Mortland with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent damage when the aircraft is depressurized.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) in view of Noble (US 5064147 A).
Regarding claim 20, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the control system also comprises an interior handle on the interior of the aircraft structure (Savidge, figure 4a, item 36), the control system being configured such that actuation of the interior handle effectuates rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure in order to control the execution of the said operations (Savidge, figure 4a, item 50, handle attached to drive shaft);
Alternatively, Noble (US 5064147 A) teaches a control system also comprises an interior handle on the interior of the aircraft structure (Noble, figures 10-11, item 90), the control system being configured such that actuation of the interior handle effectuates rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure in order to control the execution of the said operations (Noble, figures 10-11, item 80, abstract, handle rotates torque tube); and/or the control system also comprises an exterior handle on the exterior of the aircraft structure (Noble, figures 12-13, item 162), the control system being configured such that actuation of the exterior handle effectuates rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure in order to control the execution of the said operations (Noble, figures 12-11, item 80, handle rotates torque tube).
Savidge and Noble are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft doors. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Savidge with the exterior handle of Noble with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow people to open to door from outside of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) in view of Kasper (US 4510714 A).
Regarding claim 21, Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) discloses an aircraft door mechanism comprising at least:
an aircraft structure (Savidge, figure 2, item 18) that delimits an opening (Savidge, figure 2, item 24);
an aircraft door (Savidge, figure 2, item 12) mounted so as to be movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position (Savidge, figures 1 and 3, item 12, ¶7), in which the door closes the opening, and a boarding position, in which the door is arranged away from the opening and in which passengers are able to board the aircraft structure through the opening (Savidge, figure 2, item 12, ¶7);
a control system configured so as to control an execution of a closing operation and the execution of an opening operation of the door (Savidge, figures 3, item 32),
the door closing operation successively comprising: a door movement phase of moving the door relative to the aircraft structure from the boarding position to the closed position; a door latching phase of latching the door in the closed position (Savidge, abstract, door latches); a door latch locking phase of locking the latching of the door (Savidge, abstract, door locks);
the door opening operation successively comprising: a door latch unlocking phase of unlocking a latching of the door in the closed position, an unlatching phase of unlatching the door, and a door movement phase of moving the door relative to the aircraft structure from the closed position to the boarding position (Savidge, abstract, door can be operated in this manner);
the control system comprising a drive shaft (Savidge, figures 4-b, item 50),
the control system being configured so as to control the execution of the said operations by means of continuous rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure (Savidge, handle shaft is rotated to control operation of door);
wherein the control system also comprises an actuator configured for rotating the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure in order to control the execution of the said operations by means of continuous rotation of the drive shaft (Savidge, figure 4a-b, item 36, handle can be used to rotate drive shaft; ¶65 describes an electric motor opening assist system), the actuator being electrical,
the actuator being directly connected to the drive shaft so that the actuator is capable of converting energy into rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure.
Kasper (US 4510714 A) teaches an actuator (Kasper, figure 4, item 44) being directly connected to the drive shaft (Kasper, figure 4, item 48, col 4 lines 12-62, motor coupled with drive shaft drive shaft).
Savidge and Kasper are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft doors. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Savidge with the direct connection between the actuator and drive shaft of Kapser with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the complexity and hence likelihood of mechanical failure in the connection between the actuator and the drive shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, Savidge discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 7, except:
wherein the connection track comprises a coupling travel such that, in the coupling mode of the mechanical chain, the coupling travel and the connection roller are capable of rotationally coupling the drive shaft and the lifting shaft, and such that, in the decoupling mode of the mechanical chain, the roller is outside the coupling travel (Savidge, figure 4a, item 62).
Claim 9 is allowed for depending on an objected to claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of applicant’s reply, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejection to claims 2, 14, and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
There is support for the amendments, particularly to claim 1.
This is not found persuasive to the extent of the amendments, particularly using the term ‘totally’.
Savidge fails to teach/disclose the limitation: “wherein the drive shaft is stationary relative to the aircraft structure during any movement of the door relative to the aircraft structure and/or the drive shaft is arranged over a frame of the aircraft structure delimiting the opening of the door.”
The claim limitation as written merely requires that the “wherein the drive shaft is stationary relative to the aircraft structure during any movement of the door relative to the aircraft structure” and/or “the drive shaft is arranged over a frame of the aircraft structure delimiting the opening of the door.” Here Savidge teaches “the drive shaft is arranged over a frame of the aircraft structure delimiting the opening of the door” (see the rejection of claim 1 above). As such Savidge meets the requirements of the claim as written.
Savidge, Noble, and Mortalnd do not disclose, teach or make obvious “the actuator being directly connected to the drive shaft so that the actuator is capable of converting energy into rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure”
A rejection based on an intervening reference (Kasper - US 4510714 A) has been provided.
Savidge, Noble, and Mortalnd do not disclose, teach or make obvious “wherein the latching system comprises at least one latching surface of the mechanical chain formed by the lifting shaft, a latch that is movable relative to the mechanical chain and to the drive shaft, and a drive section of the drive shaft that is capable of driving the latch” because the latching system of Savidge is more complex than the one disclosed in the present application and the present application does not disclose a dedicated latch shaft.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Here applicant argues that the latching system [of Savidge] is more complex than the claimed one, but they do not state how this means that the prior art does not meet the claim limitations. Mere differences between the prior art and parts of the disclosure not claimed do not prevent the prior art from reading on the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., there not being a dedicated latch shaft) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tendyra (US 20200115028 A1) teaches a pressurization vent system
Mueller (US 20230082864 A1) teaches a drive system with a linearly moving drive shaft
Cambell (US 20240208634 A1) teaches a vent pressurization vent system for a door
Fitzgerald (US 4470566 A) teaches a door with an interior and exterior handle; see figure 15-16, items 124 and 99
Russ (US 4887490 A) teaches a drive system which is clutched with a door actuator to move door
Ashton (US 7963482 B2) teaches a two part door which is driven by a drive shaft
Savidge (US 11560212 B2) teaches a plug door and linkages for operating the door
Savidge (EP 3587243 A1) teaches a drive motor directly driving a drive screw
Clausen (US 20090108133 A1) teaches a handle driven actuators that directly drive a shaft
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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642