DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 10/20/2025 and 01/28/2026 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a. Claim 2: “the edges of a trapezoidal cross-section which lie opposite one another around a vertical line comprise a different angular magnitude relative to the vertical line”;
b. Claim 3: “an outer edge, in particular, the outermost edge of the respective cross-section, defines a greater angle with the vertical than an inner edge, in particular, the innermost edge; and/or the external and upper corner of the cross-section is in a higher position than the internal and upper corner of the cross- section”;
c. Claim 9: “the respective flotation body comprises, in an area above the centre of the body, a width, when viewed horizontally and perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, that is greater than the width in the centre of the flotation body”;
d. Claim 10: “the width, when viewed horizontally, of the cross-sectional shape of a flotation body with a given volume increases from bottom to top over a greater height, than would be the case for a flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume”;
e. Claim 11: “the width of the cross-sectional shape increases over more than 55%, preferably more than 60%, preferably more than 70%, preferably more than 80%, more preferably more than 90% of the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape”
f. Claim 12: “in rolling states wherein the flotation bodies spaced apart are tilted out of the horizontal position by a roll angle about a rolling axis lying centrally between them and parallel to the longitudinal extension, the cross-sectional dimension of the cross-sectional shape of one of the flotation bodies, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, increases in the horizontal plane comprising the rolling axis for increasing roll angles in the angular range from 0 degrees to at least 20 degrees, preferably 0 degrees to at least 35 degrees, more preferably 0 degrees to at least 40 degrees, still more preferably 0 degrees to at least 50 degrees”;
g. Claim 14: “the cross- sections of the flotation bodies of the same group, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, comprises the same number of corners, but, in particular, are different in shape, and preferably the cross-sectional area of the rear flotation bodies in flight direction is greater than the cross-sectional area of the front flotation bodies in flight direction”;
h. Claim 15: “wherein one end of the flotation body, in particular, a front end in flight direction of a flotation body, in particular, of a flotation body lying in front in flight direction in a group, forms a tip projecting from the flotation body, in particular, is designed as a pyramid, in particular, with a pyramidal base that corresponds to the cross- sectional shape of the flotation body between its ends and with a pyramidal tip projecting from the base in flight direction”;
i. Claim 16: “a respective flotation body comprises several inflatable partial flotation bodies”;
j. Claim 17: “a respective flotation body comprises stiffening structures and/or shaping structures, in particular, along the edges and/or along the lateral surfaces of the flotation body, preferably a respective flotation body comprises struts and/or cables and/or reinforcing seams and/or internal surfaces running throughout its interior”;
k. Claim 18: “the stiffening structures and/or shaping structures are present in a collapsed state, in particular, a folded state, when the respective flotation body is uninflated and are present in an expanded state, in particular, an unfolded state, when inflated”;
l. Claim 19: “wherein stiffening struts or shaping struts are formed from partial struts which comprise a self-locking articulated connection or shaping structures form a cable arrangement or an internal surface arrangement wherein, when expanded, several cable sections and/or internal surfaces are attached by one end to surfaces and/or edge areas of the flotation body, in particular, in the circumferential direction along the cross-sectional shape, and are interconnected by another end in a common attachment area”.
m. Claim 21: “the position of the emergency flotation system relative to the aircraft may be changed, in particular, during flight, preferably the emergency flotation system may be rotated about a vertical axis relative to the aircraft”.
No new matter should be entered.
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification:
a. [0022] More preferably, in the trapezoidal embodiment of the cross-section, it is envisaged that the edges of a trapezoidal cross-section located opposite one another around a vertical line have different angular magnitudes relative to the vertical line. In particular, this means a different absolute angular magnitude without any regard to the sign of the angle. In particular, when rolling under rough sea conditions, the dynamic effect may be improved via different angles.
b. [0023] A preferred embodiment envisages that, in a horizontally aligned arrangement of the flotation bodies spaced apart in the cross-sectional shape of the flotation bodies when viewed perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, an external edge, in particular, the outermost edge of the respective cross-section, encloses a greater angle with the vertical than an internal edge, in particular, the innermost edge.
c. [0025] Alternatively or also cumulatively to said embodiment, it is also envisaged that the external and upper corner of the cross-section is located in a higher position than the internal and upper corner of the cross-section. During a rolling movement, the external lateral surface of the flotation body may thus take full effect over a greater depth of immersion.
d. [0042] Preferably, it is envisaged that the respective flotation body has, in an area above the centre of the body, a width, when viewed horizontally and perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, that is greater than the width in the centre of the flotation body.
e. [0043] Preferably, as an alternative or also cumulatively to said embodiments, it is envisaged that the width, when viewed horizontally, of the cross-sectional shape of a flotation body with a given volume increases from bottom to top over a greater height, than would be the case for a flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume.
f. [0046] It is preferably envisaged that the width of the cross-sectional shape increases over more than 55%, preferably more than 60%, preferably more than 70%, preferably more than 80%, more preferably more than 90% of the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape.
g. [0048] It is further preferably envisaged that in rolling states wherein the flotation bodies spaced apart are tilted out of the horizontal position by a roll angle about a rolling axis lying centrally between them and parallel to the longitudinal extension, the cross-sectional dimension of the cross-sectional shape of one of the flotation bodies, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, increases in the horizontal plane comprising the rolling axis or in the plane of the water line for increasing roll angles in an angular range from 0 degrees to at least 20 degrees, preferably 0 degrees to at least 25 degrees, more preferably 0 degrees to at least 30 degrees, still more preferably 0 degrees to at least 35 degrees.
h. [0050] In such an embodiment, the cross-sections of the flotation bodies of the same group, when viewed perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, may preferably have the same number of corners, but in particular, may have different shapes. Preferably, the cross-sectional area of the rear flotation body in flight direction is greater than the cross-sectional area of the front flotation body in flight direction. In this case, it may also be envisaged that the rear flotation bodies have a greater immersion depth than the front flotation bodies.
i. [0054] Preferably, it is envisaged that the part of the flotation body forming the tip, in particular, the pyramid, forms an inflatable partial flotation body of the flotation body, that has a volume separate from the remaining part of the flotation body. Preferably, it is envisaged that the part of the flotation body forming the tip, in particular, the pyramid, forms an inflatable partial flotation body of the flotation body, that has a volume separate from the remaining part of the flotation body.
j. [0055] In general, the disclosure may envisage that a respective flotation body comprises several inflatable partial flotation bodies. In such a case, the partial flotation bodies may form chambers, all of which are contained within an external casing of the flotation body having the described cross-sectional shapes. Alternatively, the individual partial flotation bodies may be formed without an external casing. In this case, an intended casing around the partial flotation bodies preferably corresponds to the cross-sectional shape as described above.
k. [0056] A further preferred embodiment envisages a respective flotation body to have stiffening structures and/or shaping structures, in particular, along the edges and/or along the lateral surfaces of the flotation body. Preferably, a respective flotation body may have struts and/or cables and/or internal surfaces and/or reinforcing seams running inside of it.
l. [0058] For example, it may be envisaged that the structures and/or shaping structures are present in a collapsed state, in particular, a folded state, when the respective flotation body is uninflated and are present in an expanded state, in particular, an unfolded state, when inflated.
m. [0060] For example, stiffening struts or shaping struts may each be formed from at least two or more partial struts which have a self-locking articulated connection. Due to the movement of the partial struts during the process of inflating a flotation body, they may take up a position wherein the automatic locking of the articulated connection is produced. Starting from this state, the struts form structures which define and/or stiffen the shape of the flotation body.
n. [0061] Shaping structures may also be formed, for example, by a cable arrangement or internal surface arrangement wherein, in the expanded state, several cable sections / internal surfaces are attached by one end to surfaces and/or edge areas or other stiffening structures/shaping structures of the flotation body, in particular, in the circumferential direction along the cross-sectional shape, and are interconnected by another end in a common attachment area. Such cable sections / internal surfaces of a cable arrangement / internal surface arrangement located inside of the cross-section thus also limit how far the lateral surfaces and/or longitudinal edges of the flotation body may expand during inflation.
o. [0062] In the case of an aircraft with such an emergency flotation system, a possible refinement may also envisage that the position of the emergency flotation system relative to the aircraft may be changed, in particular, during flight, preferably the emergency flotation system may be rotated about a vertical axis relative to the aircraft.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference numeral “1a”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
6. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the utilization of indefinite language such as “in particular” as well as grammatical and idiomatic errors. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
7. 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.
The following title is suggested: Aircraft with emergency flotation system having polygonal cross-section shaped inflatable flotation bodies.
8. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. para. [0072]: the term “Figures 1A-1C” should be replaced with “Figures 2A-2C”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
9. INDENTATION (claims 1-21)
where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-21 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.
12. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Some examples are listed below, however, this is not an all-inclusive list and all claims must be reviewed for clarity.
13. Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 13-15 and 17-21, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
14. Regarding claims 1 and 21, the phrase “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
15. Claim 1, lines 4-5, recites the limitation “each of which are extended in a direction of longitudinal extension and which are spaced apart in a horizontal direction transverse” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to the exact arrangement that is being claimed since no reference point is being claimed and the aircraft as recited is not apart of the claimed invention. What are the terms direction of longitudinal extension and the horizontal direction transverse referencing? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim 1, line 7, recites the limitation “the respective flotation bodies comprise, when inflated, a polygonal cross-sectional shape between their ends, perpendicular to their direction of longitudinal extension” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the recited shape is required by the claim due to the term “when inflated”. Further, what exactly is “their ends” in reference to and exactly what is considered to be “their direction of longitudinal extension”? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
17. Regarding claims 2, 11-12, 14, 17 and 21, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
18. Claim 2, lines 3-5, recites the limitation “wherein the edges of a trapezoidal cross-section which lie opposite one another around a vertical line comprise a different angular magnitude relative to the vertical line” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is being claimed. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
19. Claim 3, lines 1-7, recites the limitation “wherein, in a horizontally oriented arrangement of the flotation bodies spaced apart in the cross-sectional shape of the flotation bodies when viewed perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension comprises” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the horizontal oriented arrangement is different than the “spaced apart in a horizontal direction transverse” in claim 1 or is considered to be the same arrangement. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly what “comprises” the limitations following the term.
20. Claim 3, lines 5-11, recites the limitation “an outer edge, in particular, the outermost edge of the respective cross-section, defines a greater angle with the vertical than an inner edge, in particular, the innermost edge” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is being claimed. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
21. Claim 4, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “the flotation bodies comprise an outward-facing lateral surface in the direction of longitudinal extension between their ends and in elevation between a lower longitudinal edge and an upper longitudinal edge” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is being claimed. What exactly are the edges in reference to? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
22. Claim 4, lines 5-7, recites the limitation “wherein, in the event of loading of the system by an aircraft, the water line lies between the lower and upper longitudinal edge of this lateral surface” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the arrangement of the edges are a function of the event of loading of the system by an aircraft when the aircraft is not apart of the claimed invention. Further, it is unclear as to exactly what structure is being claimed by recitation “the water line lies between the lower and upper longitudinal edge of this lateral surface”. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
23. Claim 5, lines 1-4, recites the limitation “wherein the lower and upper longitudinal edges of the lateral surface on the outside of the flotation body form the lowermost and uppermost longitudinal edges of the flotation body” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the lower and upper longitudinal edges of the lateral surface on the outside of the flotation body form the lowermost and uppermost longitudinal edges of the flotation body since the claimed invention is drawn to static flotation bodies. Further stated, the aircraft and the movement of flotation bodies relative to the waterline are not a part of the claimed invention. Similarly, claim 6 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
24. Claim 7, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “the integral of the restoring torque over the roll angle, in particular during dynamic rolling movements, is greater than the same integral in a system with flotation devices of the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends” which renders the claim indefinite, since the claim is attempting to claim the behavior and the work done by the inflatable under a scenario that requires the aircraft floating on the water and thus achieving a roll angle of the flotation bodies. Further stated, the claimed invention is merely drawn to inflatable bodies, the aircraft and the manner in which the flotation bodies move based on the movement of the aircraft on the water are not a part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly how a value of the work done is being compared to another system with flotation devices that are not part of the claimed invention. Similarly, claims 8 and 12 are unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required
25. Claim 9, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “wherein the respective flotation body comprises, in an area above the centre of the body, a width, when viewed horizontally and perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, that is greater than the width in the centre of the flotation body” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to the exact configuration of the flotation body is being claimed. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the respective flotation body” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required
26. Claim 10, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “the width, when viewed horizontally, of the cross-sectional shape of a flotation body with a given volume increases from bottom to top over a greater height, than would be the case for a flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly the width is being compared to a flotation body with a given volume and a flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume that are not part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the width” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required
27. Claim 11, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “the width of the cross-sectional shape increases over more than 55%, preferably more than 60%, preferably more than 70%, preferably more than 80%, more preferably more than 90% of the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the width is increasing since the claimed invention is merely drawn to static flotation bodies. Further stated, it is not conceivable for the flotation bodies as disclosed, and without the aircraft and the position of the flotation bodies in the water, to be actively increasing in width. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the width” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
28. Claim 13, lines 16-6, recites the limitation “all of the flotation bodies form two groups of flotation bodies, wherein both of the groups are spaced apart transversally, in particular, perpendicularly, to the direction of longitudinal extension, and each group of flotation bodies comprises at least two flotation bodies arranged longitudinally one behind one other” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how many flotation bodies and the arrangement of the flotation bodies that are required by the claimed invention. Similarly claim 14 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required
29. Claim 14, lines 5-7, recites the limitation “the cross-sectional area of the rear flotation bodies in flight direction is greater than the cross-sectional area of the front flotation bodies in flight direction” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is considered to be the flight direction of flotation bodies. Further stated, the aircraft is not a part of the claimed invention. Similarly, claim 15 is unclear for the same reasons. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required
30. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the flotation body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
31. Claim 16, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “a respective flotation body comprises several inflatable partial flotation bodies” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the respective flotation body is encompassed by the flotation bodies as recited in claim 1 or is considered to be a different flotation body. Further, it is unclear as to whether the “flotation bodies” are partially inflatable or inflatable to a partial amount. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly how much inflation is required for the flotation bodies to be considered partial flotation bodies. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required
32. Claim 17, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “a respective flotation body comprises stiffening structures and/or shaping structures, in particular, along the edges and/or along the lateral surfaces of the flotation body, preferably a respective flotation body comprises struts and/or cables and/or reinforcing seams and/or internal surfaces running throughout its interiors” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the respective flotation body is encompassed by the flotation bodies as recited in claim 1 or is considered to be a different flotation body. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly what “its interior” is in reference to. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
With consideration of the substantial number and nature of the rejections above, all claims must be thoroughly reviewed and amended such that the claims confirm with 112(a) and 112(b) requirements.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner is requesting a clean copy of the claims to be made of record in response to this Office action for the purpose of clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
33. 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.
34. Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Groza (DE 102021002397 A1), cited on the IDS filed on 10/20/2025 [see attached translational document for any reference made to the text].
35. Regarding Claim 1, Groza discloses an emergency flotation system for aircrafts that, in particular, may be attached to the landing gear or fuselage of a helicopter (Abstract and pp. 1 and 6-8; external airbags 2/3 of vehicles including a helicopter as seen in FIGS. 1-4), comprising
at least two inflatable flotation bodies (2/3), each of which are extended in a direction of longitudinal extension and which are spaced apart in a horizontal direction transverse (FIGS. 3-4), in particular, perpendicular, to the direction of longitudinal extension (FIGS. 3-4),
wherein the respective flotation bodies comprise, when inflated, a polygonal cross-sectional shape between their ends, perpendicular to their direction of longitudinal extension (a cross section of airbags 2/3 having at least 4 sides which by definition is a polygona cross-sectional shape between respective ends and by are by definition perpendicular to a direction in which the airbags 2/3 extend as clearly seen in FIGS. 3-4).
36. Regarding Claim 2, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the cross- sectional shape is triangular or quadrangular, preferably trapezoidal, more preferably wherein the edges of a trapezoidal cross-section which lie opposite one another around a vertical line comprise a different angular magnitude relative to the vertical line (airbags 2/3 quadrangular as seen in FIGS. 3-4).
37. Regarding Claim 3, Groza discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein, in a horizontally oriented arrangement of the flotation bodies spaced apart in the cross-sectional shape of the flotation bodies when viewed perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension comprises:
the external and upper corner of the cross-section is in a higher position than the internal and upper corner of the cross- section (each of the upper corners are in a high position as seen in FIG. 4).
38. Regarding Claim 4, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the flotation bodies comprise an outward-facing lateral surface in the direction of longitudinal extension between their ends and in elevation between a lower longitudinal edge and an upper longitudinal edge (outward facing lateral surfaces between ends of each of the airbags 2/3 as seen in FIG. 3), in particular, wherein, in the event of loading of the system by an aircraft, the water line lies between the lower and upper longitudinal edge of this lateral surface (airbags are by definitions capable of floating on the water, with a portion of the airbags 2/3 being submerged into the water along the length of each of the airbags 2/3).
39. Regarding Claim 5, Groza discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the lower and upper longitudinal edges of the lateral surface on the outside of the flotation body form the lowermost and uppermost longitudinal edges of the flotation body (the lower and upper longitudinal edges of the lateral surface on the outside of airbags 2/3 by definition for the lowermost and uppermost longitudinal edges of the airbags 2/3 as seen in FIGS. 3-4).
40. Regarding Claim 6, Groza discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the lateral surface is orientated vertically or is inclined outwards and downwards relative to a vertical plane that is parallel to the direction of longitudinal extension (the lateral surface of each of the airbags 2/3 is oriented vertically and downwards relative to a vertical plane parallel the direction of extension of the airbags 2/3 as seen in FIG. 4).
41. Regarding Claim 7, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the integral of the restoring torque over the roll angle, in particular during dynamic rolling movements, is greater than the same integral in a system with flotation devices of the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends (with consideration of the airbags 2/3 having the polygonal cross-sectional shape between their ends as discussed above regarding claim 1, an integral of a restoring torque over a roll angle for each of the airbags 2/3, by the definition provided by the applicant’s disclosure, must be greater than the same integral in another system with flotation devices having the same volume and having a cross-sectional shape between their ends).
42. Regarding Claim 8, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the restoring torque, in particular during dynamic rolling movements, is greater than would be the case for a system with flotation bodies with the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends, in particular, the restoring torque is at its maximum at a roll angle that is greater than would be the case for a system with flotation bodies of the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends (see the discussion above regarding claim 7).
43. Regarding Claim 9, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the respective flotation body comprises, in an area above the centre of the body, a width, when viewed horizontally and perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, that is greater than the width in the centre of the flotation body (the length of the of the airbags 3/4 are greater than the widths of the airbags 2/3 as clearly seen in FIG. 3).
44. Regarding Claim 10, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the width, when viewed horizontally, of the cross-sectional shape of a flotation body with a given volume increases from bottom to top over a greater height, than would be the case for a flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume (the volume of airbags 2/3, by definition provided by the applicant’s disclosure (see para. [0086] and FIG. 5), must increase from bottom to top over a greater height in contrast to flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume).
45. Regarding Claim 12, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein in rolling states wherein the flotation bodies spaced apart are tilted out of the horizontal position by a roll angle about a rolling axis lying centrally between them and parallel to the longitudinal extension, the cross-sectional dimension of the cross-sectional shape of one of the flotation bodies, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, increases in the horizontal plane comprising the rolling axis for increasing roll angles in the angular range from 0 degrees to at least 20 degrees, preferably 0 degrees to at least 35 degrees, more preferably 0 degrees to at least 40 degrees, still more preferably 0 degrees to at least 50 degrees (spaced apart airbags 2/3 are capable of being tilted out of the horizontal position by a roll angle about a rolling axis lying centrally between them and parallel to the longitudinal extension, the cross-sectional dimension of the cross-sectional shape of one of the flotation bodies, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, increases in the horizontal plane comprising the rolling axis for increasing roll angles in the angular range from 0 degrees to at least 20 degrees as seen in FIGS. 3-4).
46. Regarding Claim 13, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein all of the flotation bodies form two groups of flotation bodies, wherein both of the groups are spaced apart transversally, in particular, perpendicularly, to the direction of longitudinal extension, and each group of flotation bodies comprises at least two flotation bodies arranged longitudinally one behind one other (airbags 2/3 spaced apart transversely and perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, airbags 2/3 are arranged behind one another as seen in FIG. 3).
47. Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 103847955 A), hereinafter “Liu”, cited on the IDS filed on 01/28/2026 [see attached translational document for any reference made to the text].
48. Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses an emergency flotation system for aircrafts that, in particular, may be attached to the landing gear or fuselage of a helicopter (Abstract and pp. 1-2; a water landing system for emergency landing including airbags 1/2 of an aircraft as seen in FIG. 1), comprising
at least two inflatable flotation bodies (1/2), each of which are extended in a direction of longitudinal extension and which are spaced apart in a horizontal direction transverse (FIG. 1), in particular, perpendicular, to the direction of longitudinal extension (FIG. 1),
wherein the respective flotation bodies comprise, when inflated, a polygonal cross-sectional shape between their ends, perpendicular to their direction of longitudinal extension (a cross section of airbags 1/2 having at least 4 sides which by definition is a polygona cross-sectional shape between respective ends and by are by definition perpendicular to a direction in which the airbags 1/2 extend as clearly seen in FIG. 1).
49. Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the cross- sectional shape is triangular or quadrangular, preferably trapezoidal, more preferably wherein the edges of a trapezoidal cross-section which lie opposite one another around a vertical line comprise a different angular magnitude relative to the vertical line (airbags 1/2 quadrangular as seen in FIG. 1).
50. Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein, in a horizontally oriented arrangement of the flotation bodies spaced apart in the cross-sectional shape of the flotation bodies when viewed perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension comprises:
the external and upper corner of the cross-section is in a higher position than the internal and upper corner of the cross- section (each of the upper corners are in a high position as seen in FIG. 1).
51. Regarding Claim 4, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the flotation bodies comprise an outward-facing lateral surface in the direction of longitudinal extension between their ends and in elevation between a lower longitudinal edge and an upper longitudinal edge (outward facing lateral surfaces between ends of each of the airbags 1/2 as seen in FIG. 1), in particular, wherein, in the event of loading of the system by an aircraft, the water line lies between the lower and upper longitudinal edge of this lateral surface (airbags are by definitions capable of floating on the water, with a portion of the airbags 1/2 being submerged into the water along the length of each of the airbags 1/2).
52. Regarding Claim 5, Liu discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the lower and upper longitudinal edges of the lateral surface on the outside of the flotation body form the lowermost and uppermost longitudinal edges of the flotation body (the lower and upper longitudinal edges of the lateral surface on the outside of airbags 1/2 by definition for the lowermost and uppermost longitudinal edges of the airbags 1/2 as seen in FIG. 1).
53. Regarding Claim 6, Liu discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the lateral surface is orientated vertically or is inclined outwards and downwards relative to a vertical plane that is parallel to the direction of longitudinal extension (the lateral surface of each of the airbags 1/2 is oriented vertically and downwards relative to a vertical plane parallel the direction of extension of the airbags 1/2 as seen in FIG. 1).
54. Regarding Claim 7, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the integral of the restoring torque over the roll angle, in particular during dynamic rolling movements, is greater than the same integral in a system with flotation devices of the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends (with consideration of the airbags 1/2 having the polygonal cross-sectional shape between their ends as discussed above regarding claim 1, an integral of a restoring torque over a roll angle for each of the airbags 1/2, by the definition provided by the applicant’s disclosure, must be greater than the same integral in another system with flotation devices having the same volume and having a cross-sectional shape between their ends).
55. Regarding Claim 8, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the restoring torque, in particular during dynamic rolling movements, is greater than would be the case for a system with flotation bodies with the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends, in particular, the restoring torque is at its maximum at a roll angle that is greater than would be the case for a system with flotation bodies of the same volume and a circular cross-sectional shape between the ends (see the discussion above regarding claim 7).
56. Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the width, when viewed horizontally, of the cross-sectional shape of a flotation body with a given volume increases from bottom to top over a greater height, than would be the case for a flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume (the volume of airbags 1/2, by definition provided by the applicant’s disclosure (see para. [0086] and FIG. 5), must increase from bottom to top over a greater height in contrast to flotation body with a circular cross-section of the same given volume).
57. Regarding Claim 12, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein in rolling states wherein the flotation bodies spaced apart are tilted out of the horizontal position by a roll angle about a rolling axis lying centrally between them and parallel to the longitudinal extension, the cross-sectional dimension of the cross-sectional shape of one of the flotation bodies, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, increases in the horizontal plane comprising the rolling axis for increasing roll angles in the angular range from 0 degrees to at least 20 degrees, preferably 0 degrees to at least 35 degrees, more preferably 0 degrees to at least 40 degrees, still more preferably 0 degrees to at least 50 degrees (spaced apart airbags 1/2 are capable of being tilted out of the horizontal position by a roll angle about a rolling axis lying centrally between them and parallel to the longitudinal extension, the cross-sectional dimension of the cross-sectional shape of one of the flotation bodies, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, increases in the horizontal plane comprising the rolling axis for increasing roll angles in the angular range from 0 degrees to at least 20 degrees as seen in FIG. 1).
58. Regarding Claim 13, Liu discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein all of the flotation bodies form two groups of flotation bodies, wherein both of the groups are spaced apart transversally, in particular, perpendicularly, to the direction of longitudinal extension, and each group of flotation bodies comprises at least two flotation bodies arranged longitudinally one behind one other (airbags 1/2 spaced apart transversely and perpendicular to the direction of longitudinal extension, airbags 1/2 are arranged behind one another as seen in FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
59. 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.
60. Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza (DE 102021002397 A1), in view of Mears et al. (US 2004/0226498 A1), hereinafter “Mears”.
61. Regarding Claim 11, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1,
Groza is silent regarding the width of the cross-sectional shape increases over more than 55%, preferably more than 60%, preferably more than 70%, preferably more than 80%, more preferably more than 90% of the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape.
Mears discloses an aircraft flotation device (Mears Abstract and paras. [0031]-[0032]) wherein the width of the cross-sectional shape is greater than the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape (para. [0034]; width of bladders 28 clearly greater than the total height of cross-sectional shape of bladders 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Groza as taught by Mears such that the width of the cross-sectional shape is greater than the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape in order to provide necessary stability for maintaining the flotation bodies in the required orientation when floating on water.
Modified Groza is silent regarding the width of the cross-sectional shape specifically increases over more than 55% of the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Groza such that the width of the cross-sectional shape increases over more than 55% of the total height of the respective cross-sectional shape, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation for doing so to utilize flotation bodies having a certain shape/dimensions that prevent tipping, specifically preventing localized submersion or tilting when the flotation bodies are on a surface of the water while supporting a mass thereon as well as improving the mass distribution on the top surface of the flotation bodies when supporting a mass thereon which allows for the flotation bodies to further resist instability under external forces.
62. Regarding Claim 16, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1.
Groza is silent regarding wherein a respective flotation body comprises several inflatable partial flotation bodies.
Mears discloses an aircraft flotation device (Mears Abstract and paras. [0031]-[0032]) wherein a respective flotation body comprises several inflatable partial flotation bodies (para. [0034]; flotation device 10 comprising flotation bladders 28 as seen in FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Groza as taught by Mears such that a respective flotation body comprises several inflatable partial flotation bodies in order to increase the safety redundancy provided by the inflatable flotation bodies to the intended application of the emergency flotation system.
63. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza (DE 102021002397 A1).
64. Regarding Claim 14, Groza discloses the system according to claim 13, wherein the cross- sections of the flotation bodies of the same group, when viewed perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, comprises the same number of corners, but, in particular, are different in shape (with consideration of the airbags 2/3 having the same number of corners, than by definition provided by the applicant (para. [0050] and FIG. 3C), the airbags 2/3 must also be different in shape).
Groza is silent regarding the cross-sectional area of the rear flotation bodies in flight direction is greater than the cross-sectional area of the front flotation bodies in flight direction. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Groza such that the cross-sectional area of the rear flotation bodies in flight direction is greater than the cross-sectional area of the front flotation bodies in flight direction. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In doing so, the system is capable of providing increased stability and buoyancy for applications having greater mass in the rear.
65. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza (DE 102021002397 A1), in view of Willford (US 11498674 B2).
66. Regarding Claim 15, Groza discloses the system according to claim 13,
Groza is silent regarding one end of the flotation body, in particular, a front end in flight direction of a flotation body, in particular, of a flotation body lying in front in flight direction in a group, forms a tip projecting from the flotation body, in particular, is designed as a pyramid, in particular, with a pyramidal base that corresponds to the cross- sectional shape of the flotation body between its ends and with a pyramidal tip projecting from the base in flight direction.
Willford discloses aircraft flotation bodies (Willford Abstract and FIG. 1A) wherein one end of the flotation body, in particular, a front end in flight direction of a flotation body, in particular, of a flotation body lying in front in flight direction in a group, forms a tip projecting from the flotation body, in particular, is designed as a pyramid, in particular, with a pyramidal base that corresponds to the cross- sectional shape of the flotation body between its ends and with a pyramidal tip projecting from the base in flight direction (col. 4, ll. 31-48; Floats 120/122 each including a front end in a flight direction of aircraft 100 forming a tip projecting a body of each of the floats 120/122, each of the floats 120/120 having a pyramidal base corresponding to the cross-sectional shape of each floats between the forward and aft ends and a pyramidal tip projecting from the base of each float 120/122 as seen in FIGS. 1C-1D and 2A-2F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Groza as taught by Willford such that one end of the flotation body, in particular, a front end in flight direction of a flotation body, in particular, of a flotation body lying in front in flight direction in a group, forms a tip projecting from the flotation body, in particular, is designed as a pyramid, in particular, with a pyramidal base that corresponds to the cross- sectional shape of the flotation body between its ends and with a pyramidal tip projecting from the base in flight direction in order to reduce drag while in the water, and provide lift out of the water on a takeoff (Willford col. 4, ll. 31-48).
67. Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groza (DE 102021002397 A1), in view of Brown (US 6199797 B2).
68. Regarding Claim 17, Groza discloses the system according to claim 1.
Groza is silent regarding wherein a respective flotation body comprises stiffening structures and/or shaping structures, in particular, along the edges and/or along the lateral surfaces of the flotation body, preferably a respective flotation body comprises struts and/or cables and/or reinforcing seams and/or internal surfaces running throughout its interior.
Brown discloses an aircraft float (Brown Abstract and FIGS. 1-3) wherein a respective flotation body comprises stiffening structures and/or shaping structures (col. 3, ll. 29-34 and col. col. 4, ll. 4-10; aircraft float 10 including reinforcing structures 14/16 as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Groza as taught by Brown such that a respective flotation body comprises stiffening structures and/or shaping structures in order to allow the flotation bodies to maintain their structural integrity during use.
69. Regarding Claim 18, modified Groza discloses (see Brown) the system according to claim 17, wherein the stiffening structures and/or shaping structures are present in a collapsed state (FIGS. 1-2), in particular, a folded state, when the respective flotation body is uninflated and are present in an expanded state, in particular, an unfolded state, when inflated.
70. Regarding Claim 19, modified Groza discloses (see Brown) the system according to claim 17, wherein stiffening struts or shaping struts are formed from partial struts which comprise a self-locking articulated connection or shaping structures form a cable arrangement or an internal surface arrangement wherein, when expanded, several cable sections and/or internal surfaces are attached by one end to surfaces and/or edge areas of the flotation body (reinforcing structures attached to surfaces of float 10 as seen in FIGS. 1-3), in particular, in the circumferential direction along the cross-sectional shape, and are interconnected by another end in a common attachment area.
71. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 103847955 A), in view of Mears et al. (US 2004/0226498 A1).
72. Regarding 20, Liu discloses an aircraft, in particular a helicopter (pp. 1-2; an aircraft as seen in FIG. 1) comprising an emergency flotation system according to claim 1 (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1), in particular, wherein the direction of longitudinal extension of the flotation bodies is orientated in parallel to the axis of longitudinal extension or transversally, in particular, perpendicularly, to the axis of longitudinal extension of the aircraft (as seen in FIG. 1).
Liu is silent regarding an emergency flotation system on its landing gear or fuselage.
Mears discloses an aircraft (Mears Abstract and para. [0031]) comprising an emergency floating system on its fuselage (para. [0032]; flotation device mounted on the exterior fuselage 16 of aircraft 12 as seen in FIGS. 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu as taught by Mears such that the aircraft comprises the emergency flotation system according to claim 1 on its fuselage in order to increase the safety of passengers when departing the aircraft when the aircraft is in the state of emergency and floating on water.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Delorme et al. (US 11028829 B2) an Rivault (US 2015/0360758 A1) individually disclose a helicopter comprising an emergency flotation system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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 number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights