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 Amendment
Applicant’s submission dated 06/28/2026 has been entered.
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 tow hitch of claims 11 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). (Drawbar ring 3 is claimed separately from the tow hitch in claim 11, suggesting that the tow hitch is a different element from the drawbar ring.)
Also, wherein the engine guard folds down while in use and folds up for transport and storage to minimize footprint of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Also, wherein the hinge of claim 12 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract recites in part “no-contact aircraft engine intake shield that is cover and suitable for use”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the embodiment" in the 12th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 11, the 11th line refers to a stabilizer not introduced until line 14.
Claim 11 recites in part “a traffic reflector provided for ease of visibility particular in dark conditions;”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the embodiment" in the 7th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 11 and 12 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.
The terms “soft” and “strong” in claim 11 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “soft” and “strong” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites in part “sufficiently large so as to span enough of the intake of a jet aircraft”. It is unclear as to how much of an intake is “enough”.
Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PG Pub US 2017/0009485 – Gentry et al., hereinafter Gentry.
Regarding claim 12.
Gentry discloses a mobile shield (12, fig to protect ground personnel from being ingested into the intake of a running engine (Examiner notes that this is intended use language, and the shield of Gentry can, without modification, perform the use, as claimed.), comprising:
a rigid, semi-rigid, or soft goods screen (27, fig 8) which is configured to be perpendicular (see fig 7) to the ground (46, fig 7) so as to cover an aircraft engine (intended use) and a stabilizer (13, fig 4) which stabilizes the screen in position (See fig 7), wherein the screen and stabilizer can connect at a hinge (20, fig 4) which allows the stabilizer to pivot up and out of the way to reduce the footprint of the embodiment for easier transport and storage (as in fig 3) and wherein the screen is sufficiently large so as to span enough of the intake of a jet aircraft (Examiner notes that jet aircraft intakes come in various sizes, and that the scale of the barrier of Gentry is sufficient to cover intakes of smaller jet engines, particularly those of model aircraft. See fig 1);
a supporting arm (28, fig 4) used to brace the stabilizer when in the stationary configuration (See fig 7) and configured to be removed or articulated out of the way in the mobile configuration (See fig 3);
wheels (42, fig 6) attached to the underside of the screen and stabilizer, spaced sufficiently apart so as to provide adequate stability while in both the stationary and mobile configurations (See fig 8); and
a tow hitch (47, fig 6) extending from the front of the screen (extending laterally from the front of the screen, as in fig 9) configured to allow for transport using other airport equipment (Paragraph [0060]; Coupling means 47 has proven very versatile in allowing the movement of a plurality of interconnected fence units 12 together, for example, using a tow vehicle).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry in view of PG Pub US 2023/0265711 – Cooper and US Pat 1,893,547 – Graham.
Regarding claim 11.
Gentry discloses a mobile shield (12, fig 8) to protect ground personnel from being ingested into the intake of a running engine (Examiner notes that this is intended use language, and the shield of Gentry can, without modification, perform the use, as claimed.), comprising:
a screen frame (21, fig 8);
a net (27, fig 8);
a cushion (33, fig 6) made of a soft foam material configured to protect persons from injury on contact (Paragraph [0047]; Another form of protection is provided by cylindrically shaped padding 33, encircling top portion 22 of peripheral frame 21. This would be useful in preventing injury);
a drawbar ring (44, fig 5) provided for ease of manipulation (clip 44 meets a broadest reasonable interpretation of drawbar ring, as it is provided for coupling element 43, which meets a BRI of drawbar, locking it in position to extend the casters for ease of manipulation.);
a handle (43, fig 8) configured to be used for fine positioning by hand (See fig 8);
a quick release pin (See fig 11) enabling easy folding and unfolding (See fig 4);
collapsible arms (28, fig 4) extending between the screen (19, fig 4) and stabilizer (13, fig 4) when the shield is deployed configured to be used for reinforcement and fixating the embodiment when unfolded (See fig 5);
a base stabilizer (13, fig 5) configured to increase stability in an unfolded state (See fig 5) and give support to the structure;
casters (42, fig 6) with brakes (retracted state, as in fig 7) to fix the embodiment in place (See fig 7);
a hinge (at 29 in fig 4) with a vertical axis (the hinge axis has a vertical component. See fig 4), allowing the arm (28, fig 4) to fold to the side (See fig 4);
wherein the arms (28, fig 4) are made from a single piece without a joint in the middle (See fig 4);
wherein the engine guard (12, fig 6) folds down while in use (as in fig 7) and folds up for transport (as in fig 6) and storage to minimize footprint; and
a tow hitch (47, fig 9) extending from the front of the screen (extending laterally from the front of the screen, as in fig 9) configured to allow for transport using other airport equipment (Paragraph [0060]; Coupling means 47 has proven very versatile in allowing the movement of a plurality of interconnected fence units 12 together, for example, using a tow vehicle)
Gentry does not disclose a soft and strong textile material;
a traffic reflector provided for ease of visibility particular in dark conditions;
an elastic rope connecting the net and screen frame, with elasticity reducing impact force;
However, Cooper teaches a soft and strong textile material (Paragraph [0028]; In an exemplary embodiment, the pest/debris infiltration prevention device may be made or fabricated as follows. the mesh/net may be made by using industrial sewing machines and techniques.); and
an elastic rope (18, fig 3) connecting the net (14, fig 3) and screen frame (16, fig 3), with elasticity reducing impact force (paragraph [0027]; the elastic cord 18 may act as an elastic/spring allows for the upper portion of the netting 14 to rotate in the direction of travel);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shield of Gentry with the net and rope of Cooper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of reducing the risk of injury due to impact of a person with the guard.
Also, Graham teaches a traffic reflector (28, fig 4) provided for ease of visibility particular in dark conditions (Page 3, lines 18-24; The signal may indicate from the front, rear or any other position, for instance, where a truck carries a trailer, the rear signal or additional rear signal could be placed at the rear and in a position suitable for visibility on the trailer, though perhaps only a temporary position for the time being.);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modify the shield of Gentry with the traffic reflector of Graham. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of enhancing visibility of the shield during periods of limited visibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11 and 12 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.
Conclusion
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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/J.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/Johnnie A. Shablack/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights