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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cottet et al., U.S. 2015/0336654
1. "A protective insert for a tail area of an aircraft" Cottet discloses energy-absorbing rub strip 30 connected to fuselage 25 near tail 5 and positioned along the bottom exterior of the fuselage over expected landing and takeoff ground-contact points 26 and 27. Cottet paras. [0019]-[0021]; Figs. 1-3.
"a protective panel" The abrasion-resistant outer fairing 34 is the claimed protective panel. It covers the exterior of core material 33 and is the ground-facing component. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0022], [0024]; Figs. 3, 4, and 7.
"an absorption body supporting the protective panel" Crushable core material 33 is the absorption body. Fairing 34 covers the core, and core 33 conforms to the fairing's shape. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0022]; Figs. 3, 4, and 7.
"a force transmission device holding the absorption body" Support members 37, mounting rails 35, and the associated fastener arrangement retain the rub-strip assembly and transmit load to aircraft structural members. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0022], [0024]; Figs. 3, 4, and 7.
"the protective panel is configured for pressure-loaded sliding contact with a runway upon a tail impact" Rub strip 30 is positioned at the underside tail contact path for takeoff and landing ground strikes, and fairing 34 is expressly abrasion resistant. During the disclosed ground contact of a forward-moving aircraft, the ground-facing fairing necessarily rubs or slides relative to the runway under contact load. Cottet paras. [0019]-[0022]; Figs. 1-4.
"the protective panel transfers a pressure force acting during the tail impact to the absorption body" Fairing 34 surrounds/covers core 33, and the applied ground-contact force causes core 33 to buckle or collapse. The disclosed arrangement therefore transmits the contact force from fairing 34 into core 33. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0022], [0024]; Figs. 4 and 7.
"the absorption body is configured to absorb a compressive force in a force-damping manner" Core 33 is selected and dimensioned to buckle or be crushed upon force from a touchdown/ground-contact event so as to protect fuselage 25. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0023]; Figs. 3-5.
"a portion of an energy due to the acting compressive force can be converted into at least one of an elastic or plastic deformation of at least a portion of the absorption body" Cottet's honeycomb core buckles, crushes, and remains measurably buckled after the event, thereby converting impact energy into at least plastic deformation. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0023]; Fig. 5.
"the force transmission device is configured to hold the protective insert to an underside of the tail area of the aircraft and has a plurality of fastening areas" Rub strip 30 is secured at the bottom exterior near tail 5 by a plurality of fasteners, support members 37, and two mounting rails 35 connected to the fuselage/structural members. Cottet paras. [0019]-[0022], [0024]; Figs. 1-4 and 7.
2. Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends from claim 1. Cottet additionally discloses core 33 as an energy-absorbing insert made of aluminum honeycomb having a plurality of connected hexagonal tubes or cells. The cells are cavities, and the interconnected cell walls form a grid structure. The core buckles or crushes to absorb impact energy. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0023]; Figs. 3, 5, and 7. Cottet also discloses dual-density honeycomb core 133 with differently sized cells. Cottet para. [0025]; Fig. 8.
4. Regarding claim 4, Cottet's core 33 is an absorption filling. Core 33 receives compressive force through fairing 34 and buckles/crushes, with the permanently buckled condition shown after impact. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0023]; Figs. 4, 5, and 7. Accordingly, at least part of the impact energy is absorbed by plastic deformation of the absorption filling.
5. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends from claim 4. Cottet's absorption filling/core 33 is an insert having plural cavities in the form of connected honeycomb cells, and the cell-wall grid plastically buckles/crushes under the acting compressive force. Cottet paras. [0021]-[0023]; Figs. 3, 5, and 7. Dual-density core 133 likewise uses differently sized cells. Cottet para. [0025]; Fig. 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottet in view of Roebroeks et al., U.S. 2010/0133380
Regarding claim 7, Cottet discloses every limitation of claim 1 as set forth above, including protective fairing 34, but does not disclose that the fairing uses S-glass reinforcement fibers embedded in a matrix.
"the protective panel comprises a composite material comprising a matrix and reinforcement fibers embedded in the matrix" Roebroeks discloses aircraft skin panels and tail panels formed from fiber-metal laminates and teaches fiber-reinforced polymer layers that are light and strong, with reinforcing fibers embedded in a polymer matrix. Roebroeks paras. [0001]-[0002], [0014]; Fig. 1.
"at least a part of the reinforcement fibers comprise S-glass" Roebroeks expressly identifies S-glass fibers and discloses skin sheet 11 made of GLARE fiber-metal laminate based on S-glass fibers. Roebroeks paras. [0006], [0028]; Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to form Cottet's fairing 34 from, or include in it, Roebroeks's S-glass fiber-reinforced polymer laminate. Cottet expressly contemplates various abrasion-resistant fairing materials (para. [0021]), while Roebroeks teaches the use of the laminate in aircraft fuselage and tail panels for lower weight, fatigue resistance, and damage tolerance (paras. [0002], [0005]). This is the simple substitution of a known aircraft-panel material for another to obtain the predictable benefits taught by Roebroeks.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottet in view of Rawdon et al., U.S. 2009/0236473
Regarding claim 8, Cottet discloses every limitation of claim 1 as set forth above but does not expressly identify thermal insulation reducing heat transfer from fairing 34 toward the fuselage interior.
"thermal insulation for reducing heat input from the outer protective panel toward an interior area of an aircraft fuselage" Rawdon discloses, in an aircraft fuselage skin, outer membrane 508, inner membrane 520, and insulation material 528 in cavities 532, providing nearly complete insulation of the inside from the outside; the insulation may be glass wool or foamed plastic. Rawdon para. [0055]; Fig. 11. Rawdon also teaches a sandwich panel having outer and inner face sheets 702/704 and a honeycomb or plastic-foam core 706, and states that the core provides insulation value. Rawdon paras. [0066]-[0067]; Fig. 14.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Rawdon's known fuselage-panel insulation inward of Cottet's outer fairing 34, or to select an insulating core/layer in the rub-strip assembly, to reduce heat transfer from the exterior contact panel toward the fuselage interior. Rawdon expressly teaches this inside-to-outside thermal-isolation function, and locating insulation between an external aircraft panel and the interior is the predictable use of a known technique in the same field.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottet in view of Mertes et al., EP 4 296 157
Regarding claim 9, Cottet discloses the protective insert of claim 1 and further teaches support members 37 connecting the rub strip to aircraft structural members, rapid removal/replacement, and mounting rails 35. Cottet paras. [0022]-[0024]; Figs. 4, 5, and 7. Cottet does not expressly identify the surrounding mounting structure as a receiving frame having a receptacle for the entire insert.
"a receiving frame configured to receive the protective insert" Mertes discloses fuselage opening 124 bounded by fuselage beams/stringers 110 and 122, with removable structural panel 104 received in and closing the opening. Mertes paras. [0014]-[0026]; Figs. 1-3. Female fittings 152 include receptacles 404 that receive male elements 504 of the removable panel. Mertes paras. [0029]-[0036]; Figs. 3-6.
"to transfer forces acting on the receiving frame via the protective insert into a fuselage of the aircraft"Mertes's panel beams 120 bridge aligned fuselage beams 110 across opening 124, and fixing means 150 connect those structural members so that structural continuity is maintained. Mertes paras. [0003]-[0005], [0018]-[0027]; Figs. 1-3. Cottet likewise transmits rub-strip load through support members 37 into fuselage structural members. Cottet para. [0022]; Fig. 4.
"the receiving frame has a receptacle for the protective insert and a plurality of connection points for attachment to supporting elements of the fuselage structure" Mertes's opening-bounding structure and female fittings 152/receptacles 404 receive panel 104/male elements 504. A plurality of fixing means 150 and bolts 202 connect the panel beams/stringers to fuselage beams/stringers. Mertes paras. [0023]-[0036]; Figs. 3-6.
It would have been obvious to mount Cottet's rub-strip insert on, or as part of, Mertes's removable panel and to receive that assembly in Mertes's opening-bounding frame. Cottet expressly seeks rapid removal and replacement after a contact event (para. [0023]); Mertes expressly provides easy assembly/disassembly while maintaining fuselage structural continuity (paras. [0003]-[0004]). The combination therefore applies a known structural receiving-frame technique to Cottet's replaceable insert for the predictable result of a modular, load-transferring tail-strike assembly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottet in view of Mertes as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Gaudreau et al., U.S. 2016/0009358
Regarding claim 10, Mertes teaches that removal of panel 104 from opening 124 provides access to the fuselage interior for maintenance of a hydrogen tank and other maintenance. Mertes para. [0027]; Figs. 1-2. Thus, Mertes teaches the recited access-opening function under the “removed” alternative. To the extent “openable” is construed to require an insert that pivots while remaining attached, Gaudreau supplies that feature.
"the protective insert is openable when the receiving frame is mounted" Gaudreau discloses APU access door 60 on lower side 62 of aircraft tail cone 52. Door 60 is typically hinged and pivots between open and closed positions while the surrounding tail-cone structure remains mounted. Gaudreau para. [0019]; Figs. 2-4.
"the receiving frame is configured to form an access opening to the interior of the aircraft fuselage when the protective insert is opened or removed for at least one of inspection, maintenance, or repair purposes" Gaudreau states that opening door 60 permits access to APU 58 and the tail-cone interior. Gaudreau para. [0019]; Figs. 2-4. Mertes independently discloses opening 124 and access to the fuselage interior for hydrogen-tank and other maintenance when panel 104 is removed. Mertes paras. [0015], [0027]; Figs. 1-2.
It would have been obvious to hinge the protective/removable panel of the Cottet-Mertes combination in the manner taught by Gaudreau and applied to Cottet, so the panel can be opened repeatedly without complete handling or removal. Both Mertes and Gaudreau address access to aircraft-fuselage interiors for maintenance. Applying Gaudreau's known hinged-door technique to Mertes's access opening would predictably improve maintenance access while retaining the receiving frame in place.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottet in view of Mertes as applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Mertes additionally teaches the following limitations.
"the receiving frame is provided in a fuselage panel that is configured as a removable structural panel"Mertes discloses removable panel 104 with skin 118, beams 120, and boundary stringers 132. The panel bridges interrupted fuselage beams 110 and is connected through plural fixing means 150, thereby maintaining structural continuity. Mertes paras. [0003]-[0005], [0014]-[0027]; Figs. 1-3.
"to enable an installation and removal of larger components, including hydrogen tanks, segments of hydrogen tanks, and systems and components of systems for hydrogen tanks and hydrogen propulsion within the aircraft fuselage" Mertes explains that hydrogen tanks are housed in the fuselage and must be readily accessible and potentially removed; this creates the need for an easily installed/removed structural panel. Mertes paras. [0002]-[0004]. Removing panel 104 exposes the fuselage interior for hydrogen-tank maintenance. Mertes para. [0027]; Figs. 1-2.
The recited purpose does not require a different structural result beyond a removable structural panel and opening capable of passing the selected component. Mertes expressly contemplates removal of a fuselage hydrogen tank through the access enabled by its panel. To the extent a particular hydrogen-tank segment or propulsion component requires a different opening dimension, selecting the panel/opening size to accommodate the known component would have been an obvious dimensional design choice with predictable results. See rationale to combine above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottet in view of Mertes as applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Cottet and Mertes additionally teach the following limitations.
"an aircraft fuselage; wings attached to the aircraft fuselage; and a tail unit attached to the aircraft fuselage"Mertes Fig. 1 shows aircraft 100 with fuselage 102, wings, and a tail unit. Mertes paras. [0013]-[0014]; Fig. 1. Cottet likewise discloses aircraft 100 with fuselage 25 and tail 5. Cottet paras. [0019]-[0020]; Figs. 1-2.
"the fuselage has a tail area" Cottet identifies tail 5 and locates rub strip 30 near that tail. Cottet paras. [0019]-[0020]; Figs. 1-2.
"a protective system according to claim 9 is provided on an underside of the tail area" Cottet positions rub strip 30 along the botto m exterior of fuselage 25 near tail 5 over takeoff and landing contact points 26/27. Cottet paras. [0019]-[0021]; Figs. 1-3. The receiving-frame features are supplied by Mertes for the reasons stated for claim 9.
It would have been obvious to implement the Cottet-Mertes protective system on the conventional aircraft shown by the references, at Cottet's expressly taught underside-tail location, to protect the fuselage from tail-strike ground contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of claim 1 and the respective additional limitations.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed combination in which the absorption body is cushion-like and has an envelope containing a filling; the envelope is held on the force transmission device and has a first side abutted by the protective panel and a second opposite side; and the filling transfers compression from the first side to the second side so that the second side transfers the force as a tensile force to the force transmission device.
Cottet uses crushable core 33 directly under fairing 34 and transmits load through support members/rails; it does not use the opposite envelope wall as a tension-loaded membrane. Rawdon's membranes 508 and 520 protect insulation 528, while corrugated structural sheet 504 provides strength; Rawdon expressly describes the membranes as non-structural. Rawdon paras. [0055], [0060]; Fig. 11. None of the other references teaches the specific compression-through-filling to opposite-membrane-tension load path.
Using the specification's express definition of "bulgy" as convex on both opposed sides, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim 1 protective insert in which the absorption body has that two-sided convex cross-sectional shape in the vertical direction and also has a rounded shape in the horizontal direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include foam crash absorption, crushable lattice impact structures, composite skins, friction plates and similar protection devices. CN 101596933, US 2020/0346737, DE 19648122. See also foreign references provided by applicant.
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
Prosecution Insights