DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
1. The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are presented below. Accordingly, this action is Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,436,111 (Nolfi).
Foremost, Examiner notes for claim 1, the term “heat resistant material” is not interpreted with support from any special definition or teaching within the specification, and is thus given its broadest reasonable interpretation (However, Examiner notes the term “high-temperature tolerant” is interpreted in view of support in the Specification as comprising a material’s ability to sustain the high temperature of an airplane’s engine “immediately after landing”; see Spec pg. 2, lines 15-18; pg. 3, lines 16-18). Nolfi teaches the stopper (202) is formed of “polymer, a rubber, or a polymer or rubber foam” (col. 7, lines 21-22). Examiner asserts that such materials are “heat resistant” at least up until their melting point, and that the term is not read to comprise any specific temperature threshold for heat resistance.
Regarding claim 1, Nolfi teaches a system for inserting and removing a plug from an opening in an aircraft comprising:
a body (202) with a cover made of a heat resistant material (explicitly taught in col. 10, lines 1-8 as comprising “a flame retardant, resistant, or quenching coating”);
a single stanchion (20; Examiner notes the post is formed of injection molded polymers (col. 7, lines 12-20, thus comprising at least a minimal level of rigidity) extending through the body of the plug from a front surface of the body to a rear surface of the body;
said stanchion having a first end (26) that is attached to a first end plate (cap 50),
said first end plate being on an outside surface of the front surface of the body (col. 6, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 16, system for inserting and removing a plug from an opening in an aircraft comprising:
a body (202) with a cover (explicitly taught in col. 10, lines 1-8 as comprising “a flame retardant, resistant, or quenching coating”);
said body having a shape that conforms to the inside surface of the opening (see generally cylindrical shape of 202 in Figure 5; conforming nature of foam construction in col. 7, lines 23-25);
at least two stanchions (120; see Figure 2) each comprising an elongated rod-shaped structure (generally cylindrically shaped as seen in Figure 2);
a first end plate (150) attached to a front surface of the body and a second end plate (140) attached to a second, opposing surface of the body;
wherein the at least two stanchions extend through the body of the plug to attach to the first end plate and the second end plate (clearly seen in Figure 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,436,111 (Nolfi) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US 6,662,490 (Aesch).
Regarding claim 2, Nolfi fails to teach that the body is hollow.
Aesch, analogous to plugs with stanchions (38) connected to end plates (30), teaches it is known to form plug bodies as hollow, which body is nonetheless “deformable and resilient” (col. 4, lines 8-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plug body of Nolfi, forming it to be hollow as taught by Aesch, motivated by the use of a suitably conformable plug body construction which uses less material, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 3-15, 17, and 18 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.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, from which claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 depend, Nolfi in view of DeTolla fails to teach that the body is filled with a heat-resistant, high- temperature tolerant, compressible foam.
Examiner notes the Specification details “high temperature tolerant” as comprising a material’s ability to sustain the high temperature of an airplane’s engine “immediately after landing” (see Spec pg. 2, lines 15-18; pg. 3, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 4, from which claims 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 depend, Nolfi in view of DeTolla fails to teach the system further comprising an installation pole receiver positioned on an outside surface of the first end plate; and an installation pole.
While the extraction member (204) of Nolfi could be used with such a pole, an installation pole itself is not taught or suggested by the reference; additionally, no motivation could be found to modify the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, from which claim 18 depends, Nolfi in view of DeTolla fails to teach the system further comprising a separate installation pole.
While the extraction member (204) of Nolfi could be used with such a pole, an installation pole itself is not taught or suggested by the reference; additionally, no motivation could be found to modify the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights