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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 2/22/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2401735 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 states “comprising at least”. “at least” should be removed as “comprising” already encompasses this meaning and it may lead to uncertainty as to how “as least” should be interpreted.
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 8-10 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 8 states “The fuselage portion according to claim 7, wherein it corresponds to a nose cone of the aircraft”. What is “it”? Is it the fuselage portion? And how does it correspond? For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “The fuselage portion according to claim 7, wherein the fuselage portion is a nose cone of the aircraft”.
Claim 9 states “the fuselage body of the fuselage portion”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this.
Claims 9-10 are method claims but it is unclear what steps are positively recited. The steps are recited seemingly with functional language such as “a preliminary step to connect” and “an incorporation step to incorporate”. That is phrased as an intended outcome of this step but is not necessarily required. This is in contrast to an active step such as “connecting” or “introducing”. For examination purposes, these will be interpreted as functional limitations of the structure.
Claim 10 states “a series of assembly steps” but does not state what these steps are.
Claim 10 states “A process for assembling a fuselage portion of an aircraft, or a nose cone” but claim 9 is only for a fuselage portion. For examination purposes, “or a nose cone” will be removed.
Claim 10 states “wherein the incorporation step corresponds to the method according to claim 9”. How does it correspond. It is not clear what is encompassed by this. This will be interpreted as “wherein the incorporation step comprises the method steps according to claim 9”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vetillard et al (US 20060006284 A1).
For claim 1, Vetillard discloses a floor module Fig. 6 for a fuselage section of an aircraft, or for a nose cone, the floor module having a longitudinal direction, and comprising:
at least one forward sub-module 68, including supports 70 and one aft sub-module floor section 4 arranged longitudinally relative to each other 70 forward of 4, forward and aft being defined in opposite senses in the longitudinal direction of the floor module, the sub-modules being connected together by a plurality of connecting elements 64 configured to allow relative movement between the sub-modules at least in the longitudinal direction Fig. 7 and to allow transmission of forces between the sub-modules in a vertical direction substantially orthogonal to the floor module, without generating relative movement between the sub-modules Para 0068: resists movement in Z direction and allows movement in X direction.
For claim 2, Vetillard discloses the floor module according to claim 1, wherein each of the connecting elements comprises at least two fastening lugs arranged respectively at a forward end of the aft sub-module and at an aft end of the forward sub-module, and a link provided with two articulations, the link being arranged between the fastening lugs and connected to each of them by one of its articulations.
Vetillard discloses that the connecting elements comprise a link 80 with articulations at each end which engage with the lugs 76 and 78. However, the connection type is reversed from that in the claims – the lugs have one piece which is between the two pieces of the link.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the configuration such that the link had one piece which is arranged between two lugs on each end in order to simplify installation such that only one piece needs to be installed between the sub-modules rather than two, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
For claim 3, Vetillard discloses the floor module according to claim 2, wherein, for each of the connecting elements, one of the fastening lugs is rigidly connected to one end of a rail of the aft sub-module forward end of rails 48/49 and another fastening lug is rigidly connected along an aft cross-beam of the forward sub-module cross-beam 70.
For claim 4, Vetillard discloses the floor module according to claim 2, wherein each of the articulations of the link of each of the connecting elements comprises at least one articulation pin hinge pins 84/88 arranged in a corresponding fastening lug and on which the link is mounted to form at least one simple hinged connection between the link and the corresponding fastening lug Fig. 7.
For claim 9, Vetillard discloses a method for incorporating the floor module according to claim 1 into a fuselage portion of an aircraft, comprising:
a preliminary assembly step to connect together the forward sub-module and the aft sub-module using a plurality of connecting elements to obtain the floor module Fig. 6;
a mounting step to introduce the floor module obtained in the preliminary assembly step into a fuselage body of the fuselage portion Fig. 1: floor module shown as introduced into a fuselage body; and
a fastening step to fasten the floor module to the fuselage body, the forward sub-module and the aft sub-module each being fastened to different fuselage parts Fig. 1: connected to 7 at different points.
For claim 10, Vetillard discloses a process for assembling a fuselage portion of an aircraft comprising at least:
a series of assembly steps to assemble a plurality of fuselage parts of the fuselage portion to obtain a fuselage body Fig. 1: assembled fuselage body from parts; and
an incorporation step to incorporate at least one floor module into the fuselage body obtained in the series of assembly steps Fig. 1,
wherein the incorporation step comprises the method steps according to claim 9 see claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetillard in view of
Gardner (US 20200023936 A1).
For claim 5, Vetillard discloses the floor module according to claim 4, but fails to disclose that the connecting elements are configured to also allow relative movement between the sub-modules in a transverse direction substantially orthogonal to the longitudinal direction and substantially parallel to the floor module.
However, Gardner teaches a floor module that has connecting elements Figs. 6-11: 94 that use spherical bearings at both ends to allow for movement in both directions of the horizontal plane (longitudinally and laterally) Para 0015: “a linkage having a spherical bearing at each end, which allow the joint to react to loads in the vertical direction and allow the floor to move in the inboard-outboard and forward-aft directions”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Vetillard by using spherical bearings on both ends of the link in order to allow movement in both directions as disclosed by Gardner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce “dimensional accuracy requirements of the interfaces” (Gardner, Para 0048), and to prevent damage during shifting of components, perhaps due to temperature changes.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetillard in view of Gardner, further in view of Brindeau et al (US 20200088225 A1).
For claim 6, Vetillard as modified discloses the floor module according to claim 5, wherein each of the articulations of the link of each of the connecting elements comprises at least one ball joint mounted on the articulation pin as modified but fails to disclose that they are gripped between two spacers having a suitable shape to form a ball joint connection between the link and the corresponding fastening lug.
However, Brindeau teaches a connecting device Fig. 2 for “the attachment of a floor module in the fuselage of an aircraft” (Para 0005) with a ball joint 9 mounted on the articulation pin 2 and gripped between two spacers 10A/B having a suitable shape to form a ball joint connection between the link P2 and the corresponding fastening lug F1/2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Vetillard by mounting the ball joint on a pin between two spacers as disclosed by Brindeau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to retain the ball joint in position and to prevent wearing of components that are harder to replace.
For claim 7, Vetillard as modified discloses a fuselage portion of an aircraft comprising at least one fuselage body formed by a plurality of fuselage parts Fig. 1, comprising at least one floor module according to claim 6, arranged inside the fuselage body, the forward sub-module and the aft sub-module of the floor module each being fastened to different fuselage parts Fig. 6.
For claim 8, Vetillard as modified discloses the fuselage portion according to claim 7, wherein it corresponds to a nose cone of the aircraft Fig. 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642