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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “a first element, in a form of a fuselage, a fairing, or a tank of the aircraft” and “a second element that is spaced apart from the first element, the second element being in a form of a fuselage, a fairing, or a tank of the aircraft”. The specification fails to provide an adequate written description thereof. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. For example, due to the wording of these limitations, examiner notes that the first element could be in a form of a fuselage, AND the second element could also be in the form of a fuselage. The specification does not disclose a configuration of two fuselages spaced apart from each other, which a device for absorbing energy positioned between the two fuselages. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5 and 7-21 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 the limitation “first conduits oriented in the compression direction; and at least one second conduit” This is indefinite because the number of conduits claimed is unclear. The use of the plural term “first conduits” implies at least two conduits (which may be considered a first and second conduit). The addition of “at least one second conduit” renders the limitation unclear as to how many conduits are being claimed. Are there at least three conduits, for example? Or are there two? Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “…so as to be subjected to compressive forces…” in line 9. The use of “so as to be” causes a lack of clarity as to whether this limitation is infringeable when the apparatus is not in operation. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “configured to be subjected to compressive forces…”. Claim 17 is similarly rejected. Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a form of a fuselage, a fairing, or a tank of the aircraft” in lines 2 and 5. This is indefinite because the scope of a “form” of these elements is unclear. Are the first and second element required to be a fuselage, fairing, or tank, or are they simply required to be in the form or shape of a fuselage, fairing, or tank, for example? Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is similarly rejected. Claims 2-5, 7-16, and 18-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
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, 3, 5, 8-9, 11-12, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Beuck et al. (US 5542626 A), hereafter Beuck.
Regarding Claim 1, Beuck discloses an aircraft (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first element in a form of a fuselage (2, Fig. 5), a fairing or a tank of the aircraft;
a second element (19, Fig. 5) that is spaced apart from the first element (Fig. 5), the second element being in a form of a fuselage, a fairing (19, Fig. 5), or a tank of the aircraft; and
at least one device for absorbing energy by compression (14, Fig. 5);
wherein the at least one device is positioned between the first and second elements (Fig. 5) so as to be subjected to compressive forces oriented in a compression direction (Col. 7, lines 46-52, “14…serves to absorb the major portion of impact energy in the load directly approximately perpendicular to the lengthwise axis of the aircraft”), the at least one device comprising one or more modules for absorbing energy by compression (first module is interpreted as the three absorber elements on the left half of Fig. 5 and their corresponding hollow spaces 27, a second module is interpreted as the three absorber elements on the right half of Fig. 5 and their corresponding hollow spaces 27) and one or more attachment systems that removably connects each of the one or more modules to at least one of the first element and second element (39, Fig. 5);
wherein the one or more modules each comprise:
first conduits oriented in the compression direction; and at least one second conduit (examiner notes each module as disclosed above includes at least 3 total conduits, which may be considered the first conduits and the second conduit, Fig. 5); and
wherein the one or more modules are independent of the first element and the second element (24 are independent of 2 and 19, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the first element is offset upwards from the second element (2 is offset upwards of 19, Fig. 5); and each of the one or more modules is suspended below the first element (14 is suspended below 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more attachment systems comprises:
a first flange that is pressed against and connected to the first element or the second element by at least one first connection element (upper part of members 15 is pressed against 2 and connected by 39, Fig. 5), a second flange that is pressed against and connected to the one or more modules (lower part of members 15 are pressed against 24, Fig. 5) and connected, by at least one second connection element (Col. 8, lines 8-13) and a web connecting the first flange and the second flange (15A, Fig. 5), to form a single and unique Z-shaped part (members 15 form a Z-shaped part as viewed in Fig. 5);
wherein at least one of the first connection element and the second connection element is removable (fasteners 39 are removable, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, comprising:
a vertical longitudinal plane of symmetry (Col. 7, lines 55-58, “centerline of the aircraft”);
wherein, for each of the one or more devices, the one or more modules are a plurality of modules that are positioned symmetrically with respect to the vertical longitudinal plane of symmetry (Col. 7, lines 55-88).
Regarding Claim 9, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein:
the one or more modules further comprise junction walls (25, Fig. 5);
the first conduits are spaced apart from one another (27 are spaced apart from one another, Fig. 5);
the junction walls are oriented parallel to the compression direction (25, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the one or more modules each comprise:
at least one first end wall (bottom of 18, Fig. 5) configured to close a first end of at least one first conduit of the first conduits (bottom of 18, Fig. 5); and
and at least one second end wall configured to close a second end of the at least one first conduit (top of 18’, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the one or more modules each comprise:
at least one first end wall configured to close a first end of at least one first conduit of the first conduits (far left conduit 27 is closed by the bottom portion of 15, Fig. 5) and to leave the second conduit at least partially open (the second conduit 27 from the left is not closed by the bottom portion of 15, and is therefore at least partially open, Fig. 5);
and at least one second end wall configured to close a second end of the at least one first conduit (far left conduit 27 is closed by the top portion of 15’, Fig. 5) and to leave the second conduit at least partially open (the second conduit 27 from the left is not fully closed by a top portion of 15’, and is therefore at least partially open, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Beuck discloses an aircraft (1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first element, in a form of a fuselage (2, Fig. 5) or a tank of the aircraft;
a second element (19, Fig. 5) that is spaced apart from the first element (Fig. 5), the second element being in a form of a belly fairing of the aircraft (19, Fig. 5); and
at least one device for absorbing energy by compression (14, Fig. 5);
wherein the at least one device is positioned between the first and second elements (Fig. 5), so as to be subjected to compressive forces oriented in a compression direction (Col. 7, lines 46-52, “14…serves to absorb the major portion of impact energy in the load directly approximately perpendicular to the lengthwise axis of the aircraft”), the at least one device comprising one or more modules for absorbing energy by compression (first module is interpreted as the three absorber elements on the left half of Fig. 5 and their corresponding hollow spaces 27, a second module is interpreted as the three absorber elements on the right half of Fig. 5 and their corresponding hollow spaces 27) and one or more attachment systems that removably connects each of the one or more modules to at least one of the first element and the second element (39, Fig. 5);
wherein the one or more modules each comprise:
first conduits oriented in the compression direction (examiner notes each module as disclosed above includes at least 3 total conduits, which may be considered the first conduits and the second conduit, Fig. 5), each of the first conduits being defined by a side wall that laterally encloses the first conduit and extends between first and second ends of the first conduit (each 25 on left side of each conduit 27, Fig. 5);
junction walls, each of which extends between at least two of the first conduits (17, 18 and each 25 on right side of each conduit 27, Fig. 5); and
at least one second conduit (examiner notes each module as disclosed above includes at least 3 total conduits, which may be considered the first conduits and the second conduit, Fig. 5), which is defined and laterally enclosed by a subset of the junction walls (Fig. 5); and
wherein the one or more modules are independent of the first element and the second element (24 are independent of 2 and 19, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 19, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein:
the first element is offset upwards from the second element (2 is offset upwards of 19, Fig. 5); and
each of the one or more modules is suspended below the first element (14 is suspended below 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 21, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more attachment systems comprises:
a first flange that is pressed against and connected to the first element or the second element by at least one first connection element (upper part of members 15 is pressed against 2 and connected by 39, Fig. 5); and
a second flange that is pressed against at least one of the one or more modules (lower part of members 15 are pressed against 24, Fig. 5) and connected, by at least one second connection element (Col. 8, lines 8-13) and a web connecting the first flange and the second flange, to form a single and unique Z- shaped part (members 15 form a Z-shaped part as viewed in Fig. 5);
wherein at least one of the first connection element and the second connection element is removable (fasteners 39 are removable, Fig. 5).
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) 10 and 13-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beuck et al. (US 5542626 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (US 20050001093 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 9.
Beuck is silent about wherein the junction walls are oriented in two or three directions to obtain an orthogrid or isogrid network.
Hayashi teaches similar conduits with junction walls that are bundled into groups and oriented in two or three directions to obtain an orthogrid or isogrid network (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conduits and junction walls of Beuck wherein the junction walls are oriented in two or three directions to obtain an orthogrid or isogrid network, with a reasonable expectation of success. As taught by Hayashi, it is known in the art to orient junction walls and conduits in orthogrid or isogrid networks, in order to enhance the strength of the device and adapt to different aircraft structures.
Regarding Claim 13, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1.
Beuck is silent about wherein each of the first conduits is defined by a side wall that laterally encloses the first conduit and extends between first and second ends of the first conduit.
Hayashi teaches conduits defined by a side wall that laterally encloses the conduit and extends between first and second ends (side walls of each 10, Figs. 7 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conduits and junction walls of Beuck wherein the conduits are defined by a side wall that laterally encloses the conduit and extends between first and second ends, as taught by Hayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. As taught by Hayashi, it is known in the art to orient junction walls and conduits in orthogrid or isogrid networks, in order to enhance the strength of the device and adapt to different aircraft structures.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Beuck teaches the aircraft according to claim 13.
Modified Beuck is silent about wherein the one or more modules each further comprise junction walls.
Hayashi teaches similar modules (14, Figs. 7 and 10) each further comprise junction walls (side walls of each 14, Figs. 7 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the one or more modules of modified Beuck with junction walls, as taught by Hayashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. As taught by Hayashi, it is known in the art to orient junction walls and modules in orthogrid or isogrid networks, in order to enhance the strength of the device and adapt to different aircraft structures.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Beuck teaches the aircraft according to Claim 14, wherein each of the junction walls extends between at least two of the first conduits (Hayashi, Figs. 7 and 10).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Beuck teaches the aircraft according to claim 15, wherein the at least one second conduit is defined and laterally enclosed by a subset of the junction walls (Hayashi, Figs. 7 and 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 7, 18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of Claims 2, 4, 7, 18, or 20. The closest prior art of record is Beuck, which discloses an aircraft, a first element in a form of a fuselage, a second element spaced apart from the first element in the form of a fairing, and at least one device for absorbing energy by compression positioned between the first and second elements. However Beuck’s device is connected to both the first and second element (Fig. 5), and the prior art of record does not appear to teach wherein each of the one or more modules is only connected to the second element (Claims 2 and 18) or first element (Claim 7), wherein each of the one or more modules is spaced apart from the first element and the second element (Claims 4 and 20), and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection applies a new interpretation of the prior art (Beuck), and does not rely on any interpretation of the references 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 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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights