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.
Specification
The amendment filed 06/02/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Item 110 and dashed lines in figure 3 as submitted on 06/02/2026 were not in the disclosure as originally filed along with the corresponding amendments to ¶67 of the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, the limitation “wherein the latching system comprises a single-piece latch that is movable relative to the lifting shaft and relative to the drive shaft between an abutment position abutting a surface of the lifting shaft and a release position for releasing the mechanical chain, the latch being in contact with a surface of the drive shaft so that rotation of the drive shaft relative to the aircraft structure moves the latch between the abutment position and the release position” does not have support in the specification as originally filed. This conclusion is supported by ¶213-¶235 stating that “The latch 80 has a base body 86A, a latch abutment 86B and at least two drive rollers 86C” and elaborating on the construction of the latch, which goes against the single-piece latch construction applicant claims. As such this claim contains new matter.
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) 1-2 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasper (US 4510714 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kasper (US 4510714 A) discloses an aircraft door mechanism comprising at least:
an aircraft structure (Kasper, figure 1, item 12) that delimits an opening (Kasper, figure 1, item 10);
an aircraft door (Kasper, figure 1, item 14) mounted so as to be movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position (Kasper, figure 2, item 14), 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 (Kasper, figure 3, item 14);
a control system configured so as to control an execution of a closing operation and the execution of an opening operation of the door (Kasper, figures 1 and 6, items 24, 26, 50 and 52, handles and actuators for opening or closing door),
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 (Kasper, figures 2-3, item 14); a door latching phase of latching the door in the closed position (Kasper, figure 1, item 72, col 4 line 63 – col 6 line 13); a door latch locking phase of locking the latching of the door (Kasper, figure 1, item 72, col 4 line 63 – col 6 line 13, door is locked when the door is latched);
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 (Kasper, figure 1, item 72, col 4 line 63 – col 6 line 13; door unlocked, unlatched, and moved);
the control system comprising a drive shaft (Kasper, figure 1, items 46 and 48), the drive shaft extending along a control axis and being rotationally movable along the control axis relative to the aircraft structure (Kasper, figure 1, items 46 and 48, drive shaft rotates along a rotational axis with respect to the 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 (Kasper, figures 1 and 6, items 24, 26, 50 and 52, actuators for opening or closing door by continuous rotation);
wherein the control axis of the drive shaft is stationary relative to the aircraft structure during any movement of the door relative to the aircraft structure (Kasper, figure 1, items 46 and 48, control axis is stationary with respect to aircraft structure during door movement).
Regarding claim 2, Kasper discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the drive shaft is arranged away from the aircraft door (Kasper, figure 1, items 46 and 48, drive shaft arranged away from door).
Regarding claim 18, Kasper 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 (Kasper, figure 1, items 24, 26, actuators for opening or closing door by continuous rotation).
Regarding claim 19, Kasper discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 18,
wherein the actuator is electrical (Kasper, col 2 lines 4-12, power driven rotary actuators).
Regarding claim 20, Kasper 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 (Kasper, figure 6, item 122, col 7 lines 12-14, crank or handle attached at input connection), 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 (Kasper, figure 6, item 122, col 6 line 62-col 7 line 17);
Regarding claim 21, Kasper discloses an aircraft door mechanism comprising at least:
an aircraft structure (Kasper, figure 1, item 12) that delimits an opening (Kasper, figure 1, item 10);
an aircraft door (Kasper, figure 1, item 14) mounted so as to be movable relative to the aircraft structure between a closed position (Kasper, figure 2, item 14), in which the door closes the opening, and a boarding position (Kasper, figure 3, item 14), in which the door is arranged away from the opening and in which passengers are able to board the aircraft structure through the opening;
a control system (Kasper, figure 1, items 24, 26, 46, and 48) configured so as to control an execution of a closing operation and the execution of an opening operation of the door,
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; a door latch locking phase of locking the latching of the door (Kasper, figure 1, item 72, col 4 line 63 – col 6 line 13);
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 (Kasper, figure 1, item 72, col 4 line 63 – col 6 line 13);
the control system comprising a drive shaft (Kasper, figure 1, items 46 and 48), 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 (Kasper, figure 1, items 24, 26, actuators for opening or closing door by continuous rotation),
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 (Kasper, figure 1, items 24, 26, actuators for opening or closing door by continuous rotation), the actuator being electrical, .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 3, Kasper discloses the aircraft door mechanism according to claim 1, except:
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).
Savidge teaches 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).
However, it would not have been obvious to modify the control system Kasper to have a mechanical chain because that would require hindsight reconstruction of the door mechanism
Claims 4-17 are objected to for depending on an objected to claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of applicant’s reply, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection to claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14 and 16-19 of applicant’s reply, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 10-20 under Savidge (US 20200181948 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kasper (US 4510714 A) alone to claims 1-2 and 18-21.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is based on applicant’s amendments introducing new matter.
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
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
Prosecution Insights