DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a linear movement device” in claim 1
“a first swinging device” in claim 1
“a second swinging device” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In this case, the linear movement device is interpreted as guide rails 41 & 42 and drive devices 43 and 44 which are a pair of air or hydraulic cylinders and the like according to [0025] or equivalent thereof.
The first swinging device is interpreted as a pair of first swinging members 33 and 34, which are separate members or an integrated member having a rectangular frame shape according to [0022] & [0024] and a pair of first drive devices 35 and 36 according to [0022] or equivalent thereof.
The second swinging device is interpreted as a second swinging member 51, and a pair of second drive devices 52 and 53 according to ([0042]) or equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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 limitations “a first swinging device” in Claim 1 and “a second swinging device” in Claim 5 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses “a first swinging device” in claim 1 as a pair of first swinging members which are either separate members or an integrated member having a rectangular frame shape according to [0022] & [0024] and the structure of a pair of first drive devices according to [0022]. However, it still fails to disclose structure that performs the function in the claim. Similarly, the specification discloses “a second swinging device” in claim 5 as a pair of second swinging and the structure of a pair of second drive devices according to [0042]. However, it still fails to describe structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radowick (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0073535).
Regarding Claim 1, Radowick teaches a device (Fig. 1A, 11) for attaching an aircraft engine (17A, 207) ([0067]: a left-hand tilt rotor nacelle carries a rotor engine. Furthermore, examiner notes that the claim language such as “for attaching an aircraft engine” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of Radowick's device is clearly capable of performing the intended use. (see MPEP 2114)), the device comprising:
a linear movement device (Fig. 9, 171a, 171b, 179 & Fig. 11A, 191) configured to support a support frame (Fig. 1A, 15) for supporting an aircraft engine (17A, 207) along a horizontal direction to freely move along a movement direction (Fig. 1A, D) orthogonal to a rotation center axis (Fig. 17A, a rotation center axis of the nacelle (207) extends in a horizontal direction) of the aircraft engine ([0068]; A linear movement device supports a support frame (15) through a back plate component (201) having the support frame (15) mounted to a sliding plate component (191)) (Fig. 1A, the vertical movement direction D is perpendicular to the horizontal rotation center axis) (Examiner notes that the claim language such as “configured to support a support frame … of the aircraft engine” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of Radowick's linear movement device is clearly capable of performing the intended use. (see MPEP 2114)); and
a first swinging device (Fig. 8, 125, 126 & Fig. 9, 175) configured to support the support frame (Fig. 1A, 15) to freely swing about a first center axis (Fig. 1A, axis of rotation E) parallel with the rotation center axis (Fig. 17A, a rotation center axis of the nacelle (207) extends in a horizontal direction which is parallel to E). (Examiner notes that the claim language such as “configured to support the support frame … the rotation center axis” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of Radowick's first swinging device is clearly capable of performing the intended use. (see MPEP 2114))
Regarding Claim 2, Radowick teaches the device for attaching the aircraft engine according to claim 1, the device further comprising:
a traveling carrier (Fig. 19, 17), wherein
the first swinging device (Fig. 8, 125, 126 & Fig. 9, 175) is disposed on the traveling carrier (Fig. 19, 17, 61 & 91) (Fig. 8, the first swinging device is disposed on the traveling carrier through intermediate components such as 111), the first swinging device (Fig. 8, 125, 126 & Fig. 9, 175) supports the linear movement device (Fig. 9, 171a, 171b, 179, 191) (Fig. 12, the first swinging device supports the linear movement device through 161), and the linear movement device (Fig. 9, 171a, 171b, 179, 191) supports the support frame (Fig. 1A, 15) ([0068]: Attachment pads 221 allow back plate component 201 to be releasably coupled to sliding plate component 191.).
Regarding Claim 3, Radowick teaches the device for attaching the aircraft engine according to claim 2, wherein a pair of support members (Fig. 7A, 119 & 123) are disposed on one side and another side in a direction of the first center axis (Fig. 1A, axis of rotation E) of the traveling carrier (Fig. 19, 17, 61 & 91), a pair of first swinging members (Fig. 7A, 125) constituting the first swinging device (Fig. 8, 125, 126 & Fig. 9, 175) are supported by the pair of support members (Fig. 7A, 119 & 123) to freely swing ([0062]), and the linear movement device (Fig. 9, 171a, 171b, 179, 191) supports the support frame (Fig. 1A, 15) to freely move with respect to the pair of first swinging members (Fig. 8, 125, 126 & Fig. 9, 175) ([0065]).
Regarding Claim 4, Radowick teaches the device for attaching the aircraft engine according to claim 2,
wherein the traveling carrier (Fig. 19, 17, 61 & 91) includes at least three wheels (Fig. 19, 29) that is able to be steered ([0105]: four casters 29).
Regarding Claim 5, Radowick teaches the device for attaching the aircraft engine according to claim 1, the device further comprising:
a second swinging device (Fig. 13, 217) configured to support the support frame (Fig. 1A, 15) to freely swing about a second center axis (Fig. 13, 219) that is orthogonal to the first center axis (Fig. 1A, axis of rotation E) and runs along the horizontal direction ([0076]).
(Examiner notes that the claim language such as “configured to support the support frame … the horizontal direction” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the structure of Radowick's second swinging device is clearly capable of performing the intended use. (see MPEP 2114))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the above 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights