DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 14 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2314159 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11 December 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, the hyphen between “rod” and “is” should be removed.
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 1-9 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the “pin is cylindrical with the first end as one with the frontal wall” in lines 7-8. It is unclear as to what “as one with” refers, e.g. integral, joined, etc.
Similarly for lines 14-15, 18, and 20, and claim 8.
Claim 1 recites “the blade is fastened […] to the casing via a point of connection to a front fitting as one with the casing” in lines 13-15. It is unclear as to which component is “as one with” the casing (e.g. the blade, point of connection, fitting).
Similarly for lines 18 and 20.
Claim 4 recites each connection point ensures a ball joint connection, however it is uncelar as to what this “ensuring” refers.
Further, it is unclear whether the claim is requiring a ball joint connection, or the capability of providing one.
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not render obvious a front engine attachment with a longitudinally-aligned pin “as one with” the front wall of the pylon and a blade with articulated connections on either side of the median plane, and a second connection having a longitudinally-aligned central rod in the median plane and fastened in an articulated manner with fitting “as one with” the lower wall of the pylon and the casing, respectively, in combination with the other limitations of the claim(s).
The prior art generally provides for each of these features. However, the prior art having pins generally lack the lower connection rods and/or the articulated blade connections on either side of the median plane, and the prior art having the lower connections and/or side articulated connections lack the pin arrangements. The provided arrangements of the prior art would not generally lead one of ordinary skill to combine these teachings without impermissible hindsight, and would generally require a substantial change of the disclosed arrangements and operations of the prior art. For example, to provide side articulated connections to the blade (40) of Brooks (US 4 065 077) would alter the operation of the spherical sleeve (40), which provides for the articulation itself.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619