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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the attaching fastener" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the abuts a lower outer surface of the fuel tank along the entire length of the tank. However, the disclosure provides for no such arrangement, depicting the cushion only extending along the floor and not up along the lower surface of the tank near each end. The arrangement of the cushion is thus unclear as the claim and the specification do not agree on the length of the tank covered. See MPEP 2173.03.
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) 1-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (US 2013/0112811) in view of Harr (US 3 480 058).
Regarding independent claims 1, 16, and 17, and claims 2 and 4:
Mayer discloses an aircraft fuselage comprising:
a skin (16) and frames (10) extending around the interior, the frames perpendicular to the aircraft longitudinal axis (Fig 1);
a floor (3) supported by the frames;
a crash absorption assembly between the frames and floor with first elements (6) corresponding to respective frames ([0042]) and second elements (22) in between the frames.
Mayer does not disclose a fuel tank and a deformable cushion extending along the floor and an “entire” length of the tank lower surface.
Harr teaches a fuel tank (10) and cushion (46, 24) with protective layer (26) therebetween along the length of the tank along the floor (Fig 1) to carry fuel for transport or increasing range and protect the fuel tank from projectile damage (col 3, lines 4-7); col 6, lines 28-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Mayer to use a fuel tank and cushion as taught by Harr for the predictable advantage of transporting fuel and/or increasing aircraft range with extra fuel, and protecting the fuel from loss due to projectiles.
Regarding claim 3:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Mayer as modified renders a gap (40, Harr) between the tank and cushioning element.
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Mayer as modified renders the protective layer as an elastomeric material (soft natural or butyl rubber).
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Mayer as modified renders a fuel tank, but does not specifically disclose an attaching fastener, particularly lugs, fittings, rods, band-clamps, or straps, configured to attach the tank to the fuselage structure.
The examiner takes Official Notice that attaching tanks with such fasteners is well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Mayer to use fasteners as the examiner takes Official Notice that attaching tanks with such fasteners is well known in the art, for the predictable advantage of preventing movement of the tank with the fuselage, to ensure proper operation (in the case of the extra fuel source, to avoid pipes, etc. from detaching and leaking) and/or damage to the structures (e.g. preventing the tank from hitting the sidewalls and damaging either structure).
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mayer discloses the second absorption elements made of a composite material ([0049]) and configured to collapse during a crash ([0021]).
Regarding claim 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mayer discloses the floor comprising a panel (34) and longitudinal (30) and transversal (32) beams) connected to the fuselage structure (e.g. Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mayer discloses various components of the system made of metals or composites ([0034]; [0049]-[0051]), but does not specifically disclose the floor made of metal or composite.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Mayer to use metal or composite for the floor for the predictable advantage of reducing weight ([0034] notes titanium use reduces weight of components; carbon fiber noted in the art for its high strength-to-weight ratio) or ease of manufacturing (metal components being generally easier to manufacture than composites), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mayer as modified renders the cushioning element comprising a plurality of cushioning portions (24, 46, Harr) configured to be assembled with each other.
Regarding claim 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mayer as modified renders the cushioning element as concaved shape (Fig 3 of Harr).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Mayer discloses upper and lower cylindrical shells (upper and lower sections of the fuselage section, e.g. Fig 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al. (‘811) in view of Harr (‘058) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore (US 3 687 401).
Mayer as modified renders a cushioning element made of natural or butyl rubber, but does not disclose a foam.
Moore teaches a protective layer made of foam rubber (col 3, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Mayer to use foam rubber as taught by Moore for the predictable advantage of reducing the weight of the cushion (more air within the material rather than a sold material) and/or increasing the thermal aspects for the fuel tank (air within provides more insulation), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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
Prosecution Insights