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 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are objected to because where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01.. 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 1-2 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 “several first conduits” in line 5. This is indefinite because the scope of “several” is unclear, and the disclosure does not provide an adequate definition thereof. How many is “several”? Is it more than one, more than two? Examiner notes Merriam-Webster.com defines “several” as both “more than one” and “more than two but fewer than many”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “a plurality of first conduits”. Claim 8 is similarly rejected. Claims 2-7 and 9-12 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the fuselage" and “the tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as “a fuselage” and “a tank”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the junction walls”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitations are interpreted as “junction walls”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second conduit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitations are interpreted as “a second conduit”. 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.
(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, 7-9 and 11-12 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 first (2, Fig. 5) and second elements (23, Fig. 5) spaced apart from one another (2 and 23 are spaced apart, see Fig. 5) and at least one device for absorbing energy by compression positioned between the first and second elements (14, Fig. 5) 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 device including at least one module for absorbing energy by compression (14, Fig. 5) which comprises several first conduits oriented in the compression direction (27, Fig. 5), wherein the module for absorbing energy by compression is independent of the first and second elements (14 is independent of 2 and 23, Fig. 5) and wherein the device for absorbing energy by compression comprises at least one attachment system (12, Fig. 5) removably connecting each module for absorbing energy by compression to at least one of the first and second elements (12 connects 14 to 2, Fig. 5 and Col. 7, lines 10-14).
Regarding Claim 2, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each module for absorbing energy by compression is connected to just one of the first and second elements (14 is connected only to 2, Fig. 5, Examiner notes there is a space between 14 and 23).
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 23, Fig. 5) and wherein each module for absorbing energy by compression is suspended below the first element (14 is suspended below 2, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each module for absorbing energy by compression is spaced apart from the first and second elements (14 is spaced apart from 2 and 23 via 12 and 13, for example, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each attachment system comprises a first flange pressed against the first or second element and connected to it 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 pressed against the module for absorbing energy by compression (lower part of members 15 is pressed against 14, Fig. 5) and connected by at least one second connection element (Col. 8, lines 8-13) and a web connecting the first and second flanges (15A, Fig. 5) to form a single and unique Z-shaped part (members 15 form a Z-shaped part as viewed in Fig. 5), at least one of the first and second connection elements being removable (fasteners 39 are removable, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each module for absorbing energy by compression is connected only to the fuselage (14 is connected to fuselage 2, Fig. 5) and/or to the tank.
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 the device for absorbing energy by compression comprises several modules for absorbing energy by compression positioned symmetrically with respect to the vertical longitudinal plane of symmetry of the aircraft (Col. 7, lines 55-88).
Regarding Claim 9, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the first conduits are spaced apart from one another (27 are spaced apart from one another, Fig. 5) and wherein each module for absorbing energy by compression comprises junction walls, parallel to the compression direction, connecting the first conduits to delimit at least one second conduit with the latter (walls of 24, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the module for absorbing energy by compression comprises at least one first end wall (bottom of 18, Fig. 5) configured to close the first end of at least one first conduit (bottom of 18, Fig. 5) and at least one second end wall configured to close the second end of at least one first conduit (top of 18’, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the module for absorbing energy by compression comprises at least one first end wall configured to close the first end of at least one first conduit (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 the second end of 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).
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 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 Ballestero et al. (EP 4574648 A1), hereafter Ballestero.
Regarding Claim 6, Beuck discloses the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises a fuselage (fuselage of 1, Fig. 1), a belly fairing (19, Fig. 5), and wherein the first element comprises a structure, a fuselage (fuselage 2, Fig. 5), a fairing, or a tank of the aircraft, and wherein the second element is different from the first element and spaced apart (23 is different from and spaced apart from 2, Fig. 5) and comprises a structure (outer surface cooler 23, Fig. 5), a fuselage, a fairing, or a tank of the aircraft.
Beuck is silent about at least one tank, the belly fairing spaced apart from the tank, and at least one of the devices for absorbing energy by compression interposed between the tank and the belly fairing and positioned below the tank.
Ballestero teaches at least one tank (11, Fig. 3), a similar belly fairing spaced apart from the tank (bottom surface of 2, Fig. 3), and a similar device for absorbing energy by compression (5.1, Fig. 3) interposed between the tank and the belly fairing and positioned below the tank (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the aircraft of Beuck to add the at least one tank as taught by Ballestero, whereby Ballestero’s tank is positioned above Beuck’s device for absorbing energy by compression, in order to increase fuel capacity of the aircraft while improving crashworthiness (Ballestero, Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 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 1.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tyan et al. (US 10704638 B2) teaches cellular structures with different junction wall configurations.
James (US 9163369 B2) teaches an energy absorption device for an aircraft.
Tanaka et al. (US 20120187717 A1) teaches an impact absorbing structure with spaced conduits.
Bolukbasi et al. (US 20090206202 A1) teaches an energy absorbing structure for an aircraft.
Poggi (US 20070114331 A1) teaches a collapsible deck for an aircraft.
Cronkhite et al. (US 4593870 A) teaches an energy absorbing composite structure for an aircraft with conduits.
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