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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “that that the second shell…”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “that the second shell…”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 4, line 3 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “that is closer the second shell…”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “that is closer to the second shell…”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 11, line 2 recites “two equipment compartments” in line 2. For purposes of consistency, it is recommended that this recitation be amended to “each equipment compartment” or “the two equipment compartments”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fink (US 20150183505 A1), based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Fink discloses a structural arrangement (Fig. 4) for an elongated nose region (3 in the region of the nose of airframe 1, Fig. 1) of a rotary-wing aircraft (1, Fig. 1) defining a longitudinal axis (X axis, Fig. 2), including a nose structure (3, Fig. 2), the nose structure comprising:
an outer shell (14 and 18, Fig. 3) with a first shell section (14, Fig. 3) and a second shell section (18, Fig. 3), wherein the first shell section is located at and covers an upper portion of the nose structure (Fig. 3), and wherein the second shell section is located at a lower position of the nose structure (Fig. 3) so that that the second shell section is arranged diametrically opposed to the first shell section relatively the longitudinal axis (18 is opposed to the 14 relative to X axis, see Fig. 4, for example, additionally see 112(b) rejection above);
a first frame (see annotated Fig. 4 below);
a second frame that is longitudinally spaced apart from the first frame (see annotated Fig. 4 below);
at least two longitudinal beams which extend on the second shell section between the first frame and the second frame (20, Fig. 4);
at least one nose structure floor (23, Fig. 4) supported by the at least two longitudinal beams inside of the nose structure (23 is attached to and supported by 20, Fig. 4); and
a center wall (wall directly under 14, see Figs. 3 and 4) that is arranged between the nose structure floor and the first shell section and that extends from the first frame to the second frame (Figs. 3-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 1, wherein the center wall is attached to the nose structure floor (center wall is attached to 23, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 1, wherein the center wall forms a diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame (examiner notes “a diagonal path” is interpreted as any diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame along the center wall, for example from the rear top of the center wall to the front bottom, Fig. 3. examiner recommends more clearly defining the structure of the center wall, for example, defining the top edge of the center wall as forming the diagonal path), the center wall designed to cover the diagonal path (Fig. 3), spanning between a front frame lower section and a rear frame upper section (examiner notes “a diagonal path” is interpreted as any diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame along the center wall, for example from the rear top of the center wall to the front bottom, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 1, wherein the center wall is attached to the first frame at a first attachment region that is closer to the first shell section than to the second shell section (region of attachment between first frame and center wall at the top of the first frame, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 6, wherein the center wall is attached to the second frame at a second attachment region that is closer to the first shell section than to the second shell section (region of attachment between second frame and center wall at the top of the second frame, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 7, wherein the center wall is attached to the first frame at a third attachment region that is spaced apart from the first attachment region and closer to the nose structure floor than to the second shell section (region of attachment between center wall and first frame at the bottom of the first frame, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 1, wherein an equipment compartment (compartments defined by access openings 6, Fig. 3) is formed on each longitudinal side of the center wall between the nose structure floor, the first shell section and the center wall (Fig. 3), and wherein each equipment compartment is accessible via an associated cut-out provided in the first shell section (access openings 6, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Fink discloses he structural arrangement of claim 10, wherein the center wall separates two equipment compartments with associated cut-outs from each other (center wall is between compartments defined by access openings 6, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 10, wherein the associated cut-outs are separated from each other by a center post skin implemented as part of the first shell section (center of 14 in the location of attachment to the center wall, Fig. 3), and wherein the center wall is attached to the center post skin (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 10, further comprising an access door mounted to the associated cut-out for closing the equipment compartment (opening covers 7, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Fink discloses a rotary-wing aircraft comprising a structural arrangement according to claim 1 (rotary wing aircraft 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Frank discloses a structural arrangement (Fig. 4) for an elongated nose region (3 in the region of the nose of airframe 1, Fig. 1) of a rotary-wing aircraft (1, Fig. 1) defining a longitudinal axis (X axis, Fig. 2), including a nose structure (3, Fig. 2), the nose structure comprising:
an outer shell (14 and 18, Fig. 1) with a first shell section (14, Fig. 3) and a second shell section (18, Fig. 3), wherein the first shell section covers an upper portion of the nose structure (Fig. 3), and wherein the second shell section is located at a lower position of the nose structure (Fig. 3) spaced from and opposed to the first shell section relatively the longitudinal axis (18 is spaced from and opposed to 14, Fig. 3);
a first frame (see annotated Fig. 4 above);
a second frame longitudinally spaced apart from the first frame (see annotated Fig. 4 above);
two longitudinal beams extending on the second shell section between the first frame and the second frame (20, Fig. 4);
a nose structure floor (23, Fig. 4) supported by the two longitudinal beams inside the nose structure (23 is attached to and supported by 20, Fig. 4); and
a center wall (wall directly under 14, see Figs. 3 and 4) arranged between the nose structure floor and the first shell section, the center wall extending from the first frame to the second frame (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 18, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 16, wherein the center wall is attached to the nose structure floor (center wall is attached to 23, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 16, wherein the center wall forms a diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame (examiner notes “a diagonal path” is interpreted as any diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame along the center wall, for example a theoretical diagonal path from the rear top of the center wall to the front bottom, Fig. 3), the center wall spanning between a front frame lower section and a rear frame upper section (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 16, wherein the center wall is attached to the first frame at an attachment region closer to the first shell section than to the second shell section (region of attachment between first frame and center wall at the top of the first frame, Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (US 20150183505 A1) as applied to above, and further in view of Boehme et al. (US 20220126977 A1), hereafter Boehme.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Fink discloses the structural arrangements of claims 1 and 16.
Fink is silent about a radome that is attached to the nose structure.
Boehme teaches a radome attached to a similar nose structure (112, Fig. 3 and para. [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the nose structure of Fink with the radome as taught by Boehme, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enclose equipment in the nose region of the aircraft, such as radar antennas (Boehme, para. [0064]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (US 20150183505 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amante et al. (US 20220255159 A1), hereafter Amante.
Regarding Claim 4, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 1, wherein the center wall is attached to the first frame at a frame section that is closer the second shell section than to the first shell section (center wall is attached to 10 at a section near 18, Fig. 3).
Fink is silent about wherein the center wall is connected to an extension member that is attached to the first frame.
Amante teaches an extension member (attachment flange 176, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first frame of Fink with the extension member as taught by Amante, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a flange for more secure attachment of the wall.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (US 20150183505 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schroeder et al. (US 20170209318 A1), hereafter Schroeder.
Regarding Claim 9, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 1.
Fink is silent about wherein the center wall is adapted to support one or more equipment units.
Schroeder teaches adapting a similar vehicle wall to support one or more equipment units (para. [0212] and Fig. 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the center wall of Fink to support one or more equipment units as taught by Schroeder, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional equipment storage capacity on the wall.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (US 20150183505 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wukowitz (US 5242132 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Fink discloses the structural arrangement of claim 11, wherein the center wall is a closed wall (Fig. 4).
Fink is silent about wherein the first and second frames are closed bulkheads providing a physical segregation between the two equipment compartments.
Wukowitz teaches similar frames arranged as bulkheads (“frames or bulkheads 28”, Fig. 1, and Col. 4, line 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frames of Fink to be closed bulkheads as taught by Wukowitz, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide sealed boundaries for the equipment compartments and prevent any equipment leaks from migrating beyond the compartment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 9-10:
“Fink expressly locates subfloor structure 3 aft of the nose region rather than within the nose itself…The forward nose portion of the aircraft is a separate, unreferenced assembly…Fink cannot reasonably be interpreted as forming or belonging to the claimed nose structure….the subfloor structure 3 of Fink does not include a nose structure, since e.g. the outer bottom shell 16 does not reach the front end of the rotary wing aircraft 1…Because the subfloor assembly of Fink is positioned entirely aft of the claimed elongated nose region, it cannot anticipate the claimed structural arrangement for the nose structure…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that Fink’s subfloor structure 3 may reasonably be interpreted as forming or belonging to the claimed nose structure. 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., “the outer bottom shell 16 does not reach the front end of the rotary wing aircraft 1”) 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). Additionally, Examiner notes that Applicant’s drawings do not depict “nose structure 210” reaching the terminal front end of the aircraft (see Fig. 2, for example, which depicts another structure 220 extending from nose structure 210), similarly to the prior art. Further, the “nose structure” of an aircraft may be broadly and reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as Fink’s subfloor structure 3. In the same field of endeavor (nose structures for aircraft), Examiner notes it is common to define a “nose structure” as any portion of the front elongated nose portion of an aircraft, to include structures such as Fink’s subfloor structure 3. This is evidenced by Bernadet et al. (US 20130146710 A1), for example, which depicts a similar nose structure 1 defined as an aircraft nose structure that is not positioned at the terminal front end of the aircraft (Fig. 1 and para. [0025]-[0027]). For this reason, Examiner maintains that Fink’s subfloor structure 3 may be reasonably interpreted as a “nose structure”, and Fink anticipates Claim 1.
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, which recite “the center wall forms a diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame, the center wall spanning between a front frame lower section and a rear frame upper section”, examiner notes “a diagonal path” is interpreted as any diagonal path between the first frame and the second frame along the center wall, for example a theoretical diagonal line extending along the center wall, from the rear top of the center wall to the front bottom. To overcome the current prior art rejection, examiner recommends more clearly defining the structure of the center wall, for example, defining the top edge of the center wall as forming the diagonal path.
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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642