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 .
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) 1-8, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Piehl et al. (US 20090184204).
Piehl discloses:
1. A forward fairing 20 for an aircraft, the forward fairing comprising: a fairing shell 22; and, an attachment device 48 and 26, the attachment device comprising: a protrusion 48a integrally formed with the fairing shell (Fig. 5); and, a spigot 46 coupled to the protrusion.
2. The forward fairing according to claim 1, wherein the protrusion has a substantially cylindrical form (Clearly shown in Fig. 5) with a base (see bottom near 48) and an end face (where the opening for 46 is), wherein the base of the protrusion protrudes from an inner surface of the fairing shell (See fig. 5).
3. The forward fairing according to claim 2, wherein the base of the protrusion comprises a skirt (flared out skirt 48) that merges into the inner surface of the fairing shell (See fig 5).
4. The forward fairing according to claim 2, wherein the protrusion comprises a recess formed in the end face (recess hole for 46), the recess comprising an inner thread (paragraph 21 of the description), wherein a shaft of the spigot 46 comprises an external thread (paragraph 21).
5. The forward fairing according to claim 2, wherein the spigot is integral with the protrusion and comprises a neck and a head protruding from the end face of the protrusion (Clearly shown in Fig. 5).
6. The forward fairing of claim 1, wherein the spigot has a shaft 46, a neck (transition to clevis element), and a head (clevis type connector on top of 46) wherein the head is laterally larger than the shaft and the neck, and wherein the neck is laterally smaller than the shaft and the head (See side profile in Fig. 7).
7. The forward fairing according to claim 6, wherein the shaft, the neck, and the head are each substantially cylindrical and the head protrudes radially from the neck (show in Fig. 7 to be cylindrical albeit not concentrically).
8. An aircraft structure comprising: the forward fairing of claim I; and
a support structure comprising a key slot (See 48c Fig. 14).
13. The aircraft structure according to claim 8, wherein the key slot 48c is located such that the fairing shell 22 is configured to engage with the support structure sleeve or element 48 by forward and aft movement of the fairing shell relative to the support structure (“engaging” as it is integral therewith).
15. An aircraft (abstract) comprising: the aircraft structure of claim 8.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piehl et al. (US 20090184204).
I 0. Piehl discloses the key hole but does not specifically disclose the shape as in claim 10 The aircraft structure according to claim 8, wherein the key slot is elongated and comprises a first enlarged aperture at a first end and a second enlarged aperture at a second end opposing the first end, wherein the first enlarged aperture has a greater diameter than the second enlarged aperture.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to make the different portions of the key 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. In this case the key hole would simply be sized and shaped to retain the elements and prevent separation, any shape that was complimentary to the opposite part would suffice.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piehl et al. (US 20090184204) in view of Gruner US 20190389560.
14. Gruner teaches what Piehl does not A flap support structure (101, 110) comprising: the aircraft structure of claim 8. (the teaching in Gruner using attachment elements 120 and 130 are analogous to the invention of Piehl.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to provide any fairing such as the flap fairing of Gruner using the invention of Piehl in order to as stated in piehl resulting in less deflection or pillowing of the panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 12 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.
The prior art alone or in combination do not teach the specific structure of the U shaped support structure or the specifics of the key hole and its configuration and relationship with the spigot. The closest art teaches the spigot and protrusion but in modifying the reference it would be destroyed and in hindsight to do so.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are related to fairing attachments and their structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642