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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings filed 11/10/2024 are not proper black and white line drawings. This is frequently the result of drawings which are filed in a very dark grey (so dark that it is appears black such as RGB value 37, 37, 37) instead of pure black (RGB value 0, 0, 0). While very dark grey may appear black, it causes artifacts and inconsistent line thickness. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the shock absorbers of claim 9, and the transporting and deploying steps of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. To avoid new matter, the steps of the method of claim 10 may be depicted as a flowchart.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part “A protective shield configured to an aircraft engine”. This is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 1 contains typographical errors. “A rigid or semi-rigid screen” should be “a rigid or semi-rigid screen”, “A frame outlining the screen” should be “a frame outlining the screen”, etc.
Claim 2 contains a typographical error. “heels” should be “wheels”.
Claim 4 contains a typographical error. “to serve as a interface” should be “to serve as an interface”.
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 1-10 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 recites in part “Wherein intakes that does not make contact with the engine itself, and resides on the ground, runway, tarmac, or any other surface where an aircraft resides.”. It is unclear as to what is intended to be claimed by this recitation. Please clarify.
Claims 2-10 are at least rejected for depending from rejected claim 1. Dependent claims contain all limitations of the claims from which they depend, and therefore inherit their clarity issues.
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) 1-5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. 6,598,384 – Adkins.
Regarding claim 1.
Adkins discloses a protective shield (3, fig 9; Examiner notes that the embodiment of fig 9 is relied upon. However, other figures may be referred to for illustration purposes.) configured to an aircraft engine (1, fig 9), comprising:
A rigid or semi-rigid screen (including 5a, 5b, and 25, fig 9) large enough to cover enough of the intake orifice (2, fig 9) of an aircraft engine (1, fig 9) to prevent ingestion of ground personnel (Examiner notes that this is intended use);
A frame (including 32 and 33 in fig 10, and 52 in fig 9) outlining the screen (See figs 9 and 10);
A folding stabilizer (43, fig 10; the adjustable feet are Designed to be compacted for easy storage or transport, and are hereby construed to meet a broadest reasonable interpretation of “folding stabilizer”.) coupled to the screen (See fig 10) that increase the footprint (ground contact) of the protective shield to ensure that it has adequate steadiness while in use (Column 5, lines 27-28; Adjustable feet 43 are lowered to the ground during testing in order to prevent movement of the shield);
Wherein intakes (at 25, fig 9) that does not make contact with the engine itself (See fig 9), and resides on the ground, runway, tarmac, or any other surface where an aircraft resides (See fig 9).
Regarding claim 2.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins further discloses heels, casters, or other rolling mechanisms (8, fig 9) or equipment which facilitate the transportation of the assembly (See fig 9).
Regarding claim 3.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 2.
Adkins further discloses a tow hitch (9, fig 9), arm, or other mounting point compatible with contemporary airport mobility equipment.
Regarding claim 4.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins further discloses handles, grips, pull points, or other hardware configured to serve as a interface for a human operator to grab, pull, push, position, and otherwise manipulate the assembly (See handles at tops of hitch 9, and jacks 30).
Regarding claim 5.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins further discloses lights, signals, reflectors, or other visual indicators of sufficient brightness and visibility to ensure that airport personnel, whether they be on the ground or in vehicles, can detect the assembly and avoid potential collisions (The size of the shield of Adkins serves as a visual indicator of sufficient visibility to render it visible to allow detection by personnel on the ground or in vehicles, at least during daytime operations. See fig 9).
Regarding claim 8.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins further discloses one or more collapsible arms (30, fig 9) extending between the screen (3, fig 9) and stabilizer (43, fig 10) when the shield is deployed (See fig 10).
Regarding claim 10.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins further discloses: transporting the protective shield to a location adjacent to an aircraft engine (See fig 9); and
deploying the screen in front of the aircraft engine (See fig 9).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adkins in view of US Pat. 7,775,002 – Puchniak.
Regarding claim 6.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins does not explicitly disclose the frame is made of steel tubes.
However, Puchniak teaches the frame is made of steel tubes (Column 3, lines 9-10; Alternatively, the rail 118 could be formed of a tubular material, such as a stainless steel).
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 Adkins with the steel tubes of Puchniak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of providing the frame with a good balance of strength to weight for the application.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adkins in view of US 2023/0265711 A1 – Cooper.
Regarding claim 7.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Adkins does not disclose one or more elastic ropes connecting the screen and the frame.
However, Cooper teaches one or more elastic ropes (18, fig 3) connecting the screen (14, fig 3) and the frame (16, fig 3).
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 Adkins with the one or more elastic ropes 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 providing a low-cost, easily repairable flexible attachment of the screen to the frame.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adkins in view of US 2022/0032882 A1 – Teichrob et al., hereinafter Teichrob.
Regarding claim 9.
Adkins discloses all limitations of claim 8.
Adkins does not disclose one or more shock absorbers on the one or more collapsible arms.
However, Teichrob teaches one or more shock absorbers (114, fig 1) on the one or more collapsible arms (110, fig 1).
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 Adkins with the shock absorbers of Teichrob. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of controlling vibrations in the unit during use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights