DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-13, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page et al. (US 2002/0145075 A1) in view of Crawford (US 2019/0039717 A1) and Chouard et al. (US 2014/0130512 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Page teaches an aircraft (Fig. 1, “aircraft”, 10) with an engine support structure (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36), the aircraft comprising: at least an engine (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, “propulsion system”, 16); a main body (Fig. 1, “body” 12); and at least an engine support structure mounted on top of the main body of the aircraft (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “body” 12) comprising a plurality of support structures (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36, at least two shown), wherein each support structure of the plurality of support structures are configured to provide a vertical engine mount supporting the at least an engine atop the main body of the aircraft (As shown in Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons vertically support “propulsion system” 16 above “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “body” 12).
Page does not expressly disclose a plurality of hoop structures.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Crawford teaches an engine support structure comprising a plurality of hoop structures (Fig. 9, “cowling internal sub-structure”, 29; “As shown in FIG. 6, the engine nacelle 13 is an independent structure distinct and separate from the common fuselage and central wing structure.”, Para. [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page further including a plurality of hoop structures, as taught by Crawford, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “[t]he nacelle and the fuselage body are arranged to provide a contiguous aerodynamic surface.”, as discussed by Crawford, Para. [0114].
Page as modified by Crawford does not expressly disclose wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures comprises: a horseshoe structure, wherein the one or more horseshoe structures are configured to provide a vertical engine mount supporting the at least an engine between a left end and a right end of the one or more horseshoe structures, each of the left and right ends supported atop the main body of the aircraft.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Chouard teaches wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A, “frames” 202, 204, & 206) comprises: a horseshoe structure (“the first, second, and third frames are of respective horseshoe-like shapes”, Para. [0023]), wherein the one or more horseshoe structures are configured to provide a vertical engine mount supporting the at least an engine between a left end and a right end of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures), each of the left and right ends supported atop the main body of the aircraft (Note, Page above is relied upon for teaching the engine support is provided above the aircraft body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page as modified by Crawford wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures comprises: a horseshoe structure wherein the one or more horseshoe structures are configured to provide a vertical engine mount supporting the at least an engine between a left end and a right end of the one or more horseshoe structures, each of the left and right ends supported atop the main body of the aircraft, as taught by Chouard, with a reasonable expectation for success, “[i]n order to enable forces to be taken up in the structure and in order to increase their second moments of area” as discussed by Chouard (Chouard, Para. [0023]). Further, since it would have been an obvious to make the different portions of the hoop structures of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Page teaches wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft (“the present invention provides a blended wing body aircraft”, Para. [0006], and as seen in Figs. 1-14), wherein the at least an engine is shrouded above the blended wing body aircraft (As shown in Figs. 1-14, the engines are all shrouded or closed turbines).
Regarding claim 3, Page teaches wherein the engine is located aft of a rear spar of the aircraft (Fig. 2 shows “propulsion system” 16 located aft “rear spar” 70).
Regarding claim 4, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine comprises a first engine and a second engine (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14 show at least two engines, or at least a first and a second engine).
Regarding claim 5, Page teaches wherein the first engine and the second engine are located aft of a rear spar of the aircraft (Fig. 2 shows “propulsion system” 16 comprising three engines located aft “rear spar” 70).
Regarding claim 6, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine support structure comprises a first engine support structure configured for the first engine and a second engine support structure configured for the second engine (Fig. 2 shows each respective engine of “propulsion system” 16 is supported by a respective pylon).
Regarding claim 7, Page as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Chouard teaches wherein the at least an engine support structure is suspended from a beam (Fig. 2, “central longitudinal beam” 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page wherein the at least an engine support structure is suspended from a beam, as further taught by Chouard, with a reasonable expectation for success, “[i]n order to enable forces to be taken up in the structure and in order to increase their second moments of area” as discussed by Chouard (Chouard, Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine is top mounted to the aircraft (As shown in Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons vertically support “propulsion system” 16 on top of “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “aircraft” 10).
Further, Chouard teaches as is relied upon above for teaching at least an engine mounted between the left and right ends of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures), see claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine support structure is mounted to a top surface of a fuselage of the aircraft (As shown in Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons vertically support “propulsion system” 16 on top surface of “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “aircraft” 10).
Further, Chouard teaches as is relied upon above for teaching at least an engine mounted between the left and right ends of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures), see claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine support structure is mounted to at least one rib of the aircraft (Fig. 14 shows pylons of “propulsion system” 16 are mounted to “ribs” 504 and 512 via ribs and spars of “aft centerbody cabin” 36).
Further, Chouard teaches as is relied upon above for teaching at least an engine mounted between the left and right ends of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures), see claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Page as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Chouard teaches wherein at least one horseshoe structure of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A, three “frames” shown 202, 204, & 206) is located forward of the center of gravity of an engine assembly of the at least an engine (Fig. 4 “front frame” 202 at the front of the engine, thus forward the center of gravity of the engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Crawford as modified by Page and Chouard wherein at least one horseshoe structure of the plurality of horseshoe structures is located forward of the center of gravity of an engine assembly of the at least an engine, as further taught by Chouard, with a reasonable expectation for success, “[i]n order to enable forces to be taken up in the structure and in order to increase their second moments of area” as discussed by Chouard (Chouard, Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine is ducted (Figs. 1-14 show every engine as ducted or shrouded).
Further, Chouard teaches as is relied upon above for teaching at least an engine mounted between the left and right ends of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures), see claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Page teaches an aircraft (Fig. 1, “aircraft”, 10) with an engine support structure (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36), the aircraft comprising: at least an engine (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, “propulsion system”, 16) suspended above a main body of the aircraft (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “body” 12); the main body(Fig. 1, “body” 12); and at least an engine support structure mounted on top of the main body of the aircraft (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “body” 12) comprising a plurality of support structures (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons under “propulsion system” 16 and above “aft centerbody cabin” 36, at least two shown), wherein the one or more support structures are configured to provide a vertical engine mount for the at least an engine atop the aircraft (As shown in Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons vertically support “propulsion system” 16 above “aft centerbody cabin” 36), and wherein at least a partial weight of the at least an engine is transferred to a rear spar of the aircraft (Fig. 2 shows “propulsion system” 16 located aft “rear spar” 70, thus implicitly disclosing the weight of the “propulsion system” 16 is transferred and supported by “rear spar” 70 of “aft centerbody cabin” 36).
Page does not expressly disclose a plurality of hoop structures.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Crawford teaches an engine support structure comprising a plurality of hoop structures (Fig. 9, “cowling internal sub-structure”, 29; “As shown in FIG. 6, the engine nacelle 13 is an independent structure distinct and separate from the common fuselage and central wing structure.”, Para. [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page further including a plurality of hoop structures, as taught by Crawford, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “[t]he nacelle and the fuselage body are arranged to provide a contiguous aerodynamic surface.”, as discussed by Crawford, Para. [0114].
Page as modified by Crawford does not expressly disclose wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures comprises: a horseshoe structure, wherein at least a partial weight of the at least an engine is supported by the one or more horseshoe structures, on both a left side and a right side of the engine.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Chouard teaches wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A, “frames” 202, 204, & 206) comprises: a horseshoe structure (“the first, second, and third frames are of respective horseshoe-like shapes”, Para. [0023]), wherein at least a partial weight of the at least an engine is supported by the one or more horseshoe structures, on both a left side and a right side of the engine (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures comprises: a horseshoe structure, as taught by Chouard, with a reasonable expectation for success, “[i]n order to enable forces to be taken up in the structure and in order to increase their second moments of area” as discussed by Chouard (Chouard, Para. [0023]). Further, since it would have been an obvious to make the different portions of the hoop structures of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 14, Page teaches wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft (“the present invention provides a blended wing body aircraft”, Para. [0006], and as seen in Figs. 1-14).
Regarding claim 15, Page teaches wherein the engine is located aft of the rear spar of the aircraft (Fig. 2 shows “propulsion system” 16 located aft “rear spar” 70).
Regarding claim 16, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine comprises a first engine and a second engine (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14 show at least two engines, or at least a first and a second engine).
Regarding claim 17, Page teaches wherein the first engine and the second engine are located aft of a rear spar of the aircraft (Fig. 2 shows “propulsion system” 16 comprising three engines located aft “rear spar” 70).
Regarding claim 18, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine support structure comprises a first engine support structure configured for the first engine and a second engine support structure configured for the second engine (Fig. 2 shows each respective engine of “propulsion system” 16 is supported by a respective pylon).
Regarding claim 19, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine is top mounted to the aircraft (As shown in Figs. 1-3, 5A-5D, 8, & 9A-14, pylons vertically support “propulsion system” 16 on top of “aft centerbody cabin” 36 of “aircraft” 10).
Further, Chouard teaches as is relied upon above for teaching at least an engine mounted between the left and right ends of the one or more horseshoe structures (Figs. 2 & 4-4A shows engine supported between the left and right ends of the horseshoe structures), see claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 20, Page teaches wherein the at least an engine support structure is mounted to and spans at least two ribs of the aircraft (Fig. 14 shows pylons of “propulsion system” 16 are mounted to two “ribs” 504 and 512 via ribs and spars of “aft centerbody cabin” 36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Page is relied upon above for teaching an engine support structure supporting the ducted or shrouded engine above the main body of the aircraft and transferring the weight through ribs and spars; Crawford is relied upon above for teaching the engine support structure being a plurality of hoop structures; and Chouard is relied upon above for teaching the plurality of hoop structures may be horseshoe shaped supporting the engine between the left and right ends of the horseshoe shaped engine support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page further including a plurality of hoop structures, as taught by Crawford, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “[t]he nacelle and the fuselage body are arranged to provide a contiguous aerodynamic surface.”, as discussed by Crawford, Para. [0114].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Page as modified by Crawford wherein each hoop structure of the plurality of hoop structures comprises: a horseshoe structure wherein the one or more horseshoe structures are configured to provide a vertical engine mount supporting the at least an engine between a left end and a right end of the one or more horseshoe structures, each of the left and right ends supported atop the main body of the aircraft, as taught by Chouard, with a reasonable expectation for success, “[i]n order to enable forces to be taken up in the structure and in order to increase their second moments of area” as discussed by Chouard (Chouard, Para. [0023]). Further, since it would have been an obvious to make the different portions of the hoop structures of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
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 STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights