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 Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim states, “the pivot point is further after than the wing”. This appears to be a minor informality with the intended statement to read, “the pivot point is further aft than the wing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 33-35 are objected to as above due to dependency on Claim 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley (US 1911431 A) in view of Benedik (US 9957047 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Cawley teaches a firefighting float plane comprising a fuselage, a wing (Fig. 1), first and second floats (Fig. 1 elements P), and a water tank, the water tank having both a fore compartment and an aft compartment (Fig. 1 fore and aft elements T).
Cawley fails to explicitly teach s a single scoop assembly, the single scoop assembly being adjustable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration, such that the single scoop assembly when in the extended configuration extends downwardly between the first and second floats and is configured to: (a) scoop water from a body of water while the float plane is moving along a surface of the body of water with the first and second floats skimming across the surface, and (b) deliver the water scooped from the body of water to both the fore compartment and the aft compartment of the water tank.
However, Benedik teaches a single scoop assembly (Fig. 1 element 2), the single scoop assembly being adjustable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration (Shown in transition between Fig. 1 - Fig. 2), such that the single scoop assembly when in the extended configuration extends downwardly between the first and second floats and is configured to: (a) scoop water from a body of water while the float plane is moving along a surface of the body of water with the first and second floats skimming across the surface, and (b) deliver the water scooped from the body of water to both the fore compartment and the aft compartment of the water tank (“Once the floater 7 with intake-opening enters the water-surface 9 the water will pass through the intake opening and enter the said water tanks under high pressure, as shown in FIG. 1” Col. 5 lines 38-41).
Cawley and Benedik are considered analogous to the claims invention as they are in the same field of water collecting aircraft. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water collecting system of Cawley with the single scoop system as disclosed by Benedik. Doing so would reduce the weight of the system by only having a single scoop while also simplifying the manufacturing of the system.
Regarding Claim 4, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Cawley further discloses the fore compartment and the aft compartment of the water tank are both inside the fuselage (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Benedik further discloses the single scoop assembly comprises an elongated scoop tube having a pivot point about which the elongated scoop tube is pivotable between a retracted position and an extended position, the firefighting float plane configured such that the pivot point is further after than the wing (Fig. 1 shows the pivotable scoop tube further aft than the wing).
Regarding Claim 8, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Benedik further discloses the single scoop assembly comprises an elongated scoop tube having a pivot point about which the elongated scoop tube is pivotable between a retracted position and an extended position, the elongated scoop tube having a length extending between a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end being:(i) arcuate or otherwise bent, curved, or angled so as to face substantially in a direction of movement of the float plane (Curved scoop shown in Fig. 4), and/or (ii) equipped with a water scooping apparatus having an inlet facing substantially in the direction of movement of the float plane, at least 50% of the length of the elongated scoop tube being directly below a cockpit of the float plane when the elongated scoop tube is in the retracted position.
Regarding Claim 9, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Benedik further discloses the single scoop assembly comprises an elongated scoop tube having a length, with at least 50% of the length of the elongated scoop tube being external to the fuselage, and the firefighting float plane configured such that a flow path along which the water scooped from the body of water, using only the single scoop assembly, travels before reaching the water tank does not turn so much that any portion of the flow path is located between lateral sidewalls of the water tank and a skin of the fuselage (Fig. 1 shows the elongated scoop tube external to the fuselage and the flow path of the water to the tank).
Regarding Claim 10, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Benedik further discloses an entirety of the length of the elongated scoop tube is external to the fuselage (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Cawley further discloses the fuselage has a fuselage centerline, which extends longitudinally and is midway between left and right sides of the fuselage, and the elongated scoop tube has a water flow path in a plane that passes through the fuselage centerline (“[…] both are located in the center line of the plane” Page 3 lines 111-112).
Regarding Claim 12, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Benedik further discloses the single scoop assembly comprises an elongated scoop tube, such that the elongated scoop tube is the only scoop tube of the firefighting float plane that projects into the body of water when the single scoop assembly scoops water from the body of water while the float plane is moving along the surface of the body of water with the first and second floats skimming across the surface (Fig. 1 shows single scoop tube).
Regarding Claim 13, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Cawley further discloses the firefighting float plane has only a single propeller (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Cawley further discloses the first and second floats include front wheels that are substantially aligned with, or located fore of, the propellor along a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 13.
Cawley further discloses each of the first and second floats have a front end that is substantially aligned with, or located fore of, the propellor along a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Cawley further discloses the fuselage extends further aft than does the first and second floats (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Cawley further discloses the firefighting float plane has a cockpit, and at least part of the elongated scoop tube is directly below the cockpit (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the fore compartment and the aft compartment together have a capacity of 800 - 900 gallons.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water collection structure of Cawley in view of Benedik to have the fore and aft compartment capacities within the range of the claim. Doing so would allow the aircraft used to hold the maximum amount of water while maintaining the weight/flight range requirements. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 19, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the firefighting float plane has an engine power of between 1,400 horsepower and 2,500 horsepower.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engine of Cawley in view of Benedik to have power within the range of the claim. Doing so would allow the aircraft used to hold the maximum amount of water while maintaining the weight/flight range requirements based on the size of the aircraft. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 20, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 19.
Cawley further discloses the firefighting float plane has only a single propeller (Single propeller shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 21-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley (US 1911431 A) in view of Benedik (US 9957047 B2).
Regarding Claim 21, Cawley teaches a firefighting float plane comprising a fuselage, a wing (Fig. 1), first and second floats (Fig. 1 elements P), a water tank (Fig. 1 fore and aft elements T), and a scoop assembly (Fig. 1 element 1), the scoop assembly when in the extended configuration extends downwardly between the first and second floats and is configured to project into a body of water when the float plane is moving along a surface of the body of water with the first and second floats skimming across the surface (Shown in Fig. 1), and
Cawley fails to explicitly teach the scoop assembly being adjustable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration.
However, Benedik teaches the scoop assembly being adjustable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration (Shown in transition between Fig. 1 - Fig. 2).
Cawley and Benedik are considered analogous to the claims invention as they are in the same field of water collecting aircraft. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water collecting system of Cawley with the retractable scoop system as disclosed by Benedik. Doing so would reduce the drag of the system while in flight as they scoop would be retracted, improving the fuel efficiency of the aircraft.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the scoop assembly produces a pitch-down moment of less than 10,000 foot pounds during a filling operation in which the float plane is moving along the surface of the body of water with the first and second floats skimming across the surface while the scoop assembly projects into the body of water to scoop water and deliver the water scooped from the body of water to the water tank.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum moment of Cawley in view of Benedik to be in the range disclosed by the claim. Doing so would provide the aircraft with the ability to obtain water from a water source without the scoop assembly failing and breaking off the aircraft. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 22, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Cawley further discloses the firefighting float plane has only a single propeller (Fig. 1 shows a single propeller).
Regarding Claim 23, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the firefighting float plane has an engine power of between 1,300 horsepower and 4,000 horsepower.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engine of Cawley in view of Benedik to have power within the range of the claim. Doing so would allow the aircraft used to hold the maximum amount of water while maintaining the weight/flight range requirements based on the size of the aircraft. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 24, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the firefighting float plane has an engine power of between 1,400 horsepower and 2,500 horsepower.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engine of Cawley in view of Benedik to have power within the range of the claim. Doing so would allow the aircraft used to hold the maximum amount of water while maintaining the weight/flight range requirements based on the size of the aircraft. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 25, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the pitch-down moment is in a range of 100 - 7,500 foot pounds during the filling operation.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum moment of Cawley in view of Benedik to be in the range disclosed by the claim. Doing so would provide the aircraft with the ability to obtain water from a water source without the scoop assembly failing and breaking off the aircraft. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 26, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the pitch-down moment is less than 5000 foot pounds during the filling operation.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum moment of Cawley in view of Benedik to be in the range disclosed by the claim. Doing so would provide the aircraft with the ability to obtain water from a water source without the scoop assembly failing and breaking off the aircraft. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 27, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Cawley further discloses a tail with a horizontal stabilizer equipped with an elevator, the tail configured to produce a downward neutralizing force creating a pitch-up moment that offsets the pitch-down moment produced by the scoop assembly during the filling operation (Shown on tail in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 28, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 27.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the downward neutralizing force is less than 500 pounds.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the downward neutralizing force of Cawley in view of Benedik to be in the range disclosed by the claim. Doing so would provide the aircraft with the ability to obtain water from a water source while maintaining level flight. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 29, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 27.
Cawley and Benedik fail to explicitly teach the downward neutralizing force is in a range of 25 - 350 pounds.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the downward neutralizing force of Cawley in view of Benedik to be in the range disclosed by the claim. Doing so would provide the aircraft with the ability to obtain water from a water source while maintaining level flight. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 30, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 21.
Benedik further discloses the scoop assembly comprises an elongated scoop tube, and the elongated scoop tube is the only scoop tube of the firefighting float plane that projects into the body of water during the filling operation (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 31, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 22.
Cawley further discloses the first and second floats include front wheels that are substantially aligned with, or located fore of, the propellor along a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (Shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cawley (US 1911431 A) in view of Benedik (US 9957047 B2).
Regarding Claim 32, Cawley teaches a firefighting float plane comprising a fuselage, a propellor, a wing (Fig. 1), first and second floats (Fig. 1 elements P), a water tank (Fig. 1 fore and aft elements T), and a scoop assembly (Fig. 1 element 1), the scoop assembly configured to: (a) scoop water from a body of water while the float plane is moving along a surface of the body of water with the first and second floats skimming across the surface, and (b) deliver the water scooped from the body of water to the water tank, the scoop assembly when in the extended configuration extends downwardly between the first and second floats and is configured to project into the body of water (Shown in Fig. 1).
Cawley fails to explicitly teach the scoop assembly being adjustable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration, the scoop assembly comprising an elongated scoop tube having a pivot point about which it is pivotable between a retracted position and an extended position, and the firefighting float plane is configured such that the pivot point is further after than the wing.
However, Benedik teaches the scoop assembly being adjustable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration (Shown in transition between Fig. 1 - Fig. 2), the scoop assembly comprising an elongated scoop tube having a pivot point about which it is pivotable between a retracted position and an extended position, and the firefighting float plane is configured such that the pivot point is further after than the wing (Shown in Fig. 1).
Cawley and Benedik are considered analogous to the claims invention as they are in the same field of water collecting aircraft. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water collecting system of Cawley with the retractable scoop system as disclosed by Benedik. Doing so would reduce the drag of the system while in flight as they scoop would be retracted, improving the fuel efficiency of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 33, Cawley and Benedik teach the limitations set forth in Claim 32.
Benedik further discloses the single scoop assembly comprises an elongated scoop tube having a pivot point about which the elongated scoop tube is pivotable between a retracted position and an extended position, the elongated scoop tube having a length extending between a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end being:(i) arcuate or otherwise bent, curved, or angled so as to face substantially in a direction of movement of the float plane (Curved scoop shown in Fig. 4), and/or (ii) equipped with a water scooping apparatus having an inlet facing substantially in the direction of movement of the float plane, at least 50% of the length of the elongated scoop tube being directly below a cockpit of the float plane when the elongated scoop tube is in the retracted position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 34-35 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights