DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/19/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 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.
Claims 4, and 6 use the phrase “as one with” to describe the connection between elements, however the examiner finds this language to be confusing because this terminology is not a standard phrase that is used and it appears to suggest a deeper connection and integration between the two elements that from standard terms such as “connected” or “attached”, but it is not clear what the scope of this deeper connection is.
Claim 5 is rejected due to their respective dependencies on claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Journade et al. (PGPub #2019/0100324) in view of Brochard (PGPub #2018/0186462), and Thies et al. (PGPub #2013/0160459).
Regarding claim 1, Journade teaches a propulsion assembly of an aircraft, said propulsion assembly having a longitudinal axis and a vertical median plane passing through the longitudinal axis (50 as seen in figure 4), and comprising: a jet engine (52) having a front casing (62) with a rear face perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (60, and 62 as seen in figure 5); an attachment pylon (54) having a primary structure (72) with a lower surface (72 as seen in figures 4, and 5); two outer rods (84, and Paragraph 69) with an outer rod disposed on each side of the median plane (84, and Paragraph 69, this teaches that the push rods can be symmetrically placed on either sides of the median plane), wherein the two outer rods each have a rear end mounted in a manner on the lower surface (72, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69) by a first rear connection point (72, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69) and a front end mounted in a manner on the front casing (62, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69) by a first front connection point (62, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69); and two inner rods (84, and Paragraph 69, this teaches that the push rods are symmetrically placed about the median plane and that there can be more than one push rod on each side, and figure 4 shows that each side can have 2 push rods, one of which is the inner rod) with an inner rod disposed on each side of the median plane (84, and Paragraph 69, this teaches that the push rods can be symmetrically placed on either sides of the median plane), wherein the two inner rods each have a rear end mounted in a manner on the lower surface (72, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69) by a second rear connection point (72, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69) and a front end mounted in a manner on the front casing (62, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69) by a second front connection point (62, and 84 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 69). But Journade does not explicitly teach that the lower surface is a lower spar, that the connection points provide articulation, and that the front end connection points are on the rear face of the front casing.
However, Brochard teaches that the lower surface is a lower spar (38 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lower surface be a lower spar because Journade and Brochard are both mounting systems that mount engines to the bottom surface of pylons. The motivation for having the lower surface be a lower spar is that it helps to strengthen the connection between the mount and the pylon. But Brochard does not explicitly teach that that the connection points provide articulation, the front end connection points are on the rear face of the front casing.
However, Thies does teach that that the connection points provide articulation (The rods and connection points as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the ends of the rods are held in clevis mounts with a hinge axis that inherently provide articulation in the mounting_, the front end connection points are on the rear face of the front casing (54, and the rod mounts as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connection points provide articulation of the rods, and to have the front end connection points be on the rear face of the front casing because Journade and Thies are both engine mounting systems with rods mounted to the front casing. The motivation for having the connection points provide articulation of the rods is that it helps to ease the assembly process and can allow the system to better absorb the loads during use, and the motivation for having the front end connection points be on the rear face of the front casing is that it can help shorten the length of the rods to help minimize weight while maintaining a strong connection between the mount and engine.
Regarding claim 2, Journade as modified by Brochard and Thies teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, but Journade does not teach that each connection point comprises a pivot connection having an axis is perpendicular to the median plane. However, Thies does teach that each connection point comprises a pivot connection having an axis is perpendicular to the median plane (The connection points as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connection points have a pivot perpendicular to the median plane because Journade and Thies are both engine mounting systems with rods mounted to the front casing. The motivation for having the connection points have a pivot perpendicular to the median plane is that it helps to ensure that the system is capable of handling the forces generated from the engine.
Regarding claim 3, Journade as modified by Brochard and Thies teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, further comprising: an engine attachment (80 of Journade) between a frontal wall of the primary structure and the front casing (62, 80, and 92 as seen in figure 5 of Journade).
Regarding claim 7, Journade as modified by Brochard and Thies teaches an aircraft comprising: a wing (70 of Journade); and the propulsion assembly according to claim 1 (50 of Journade), wherein the primary structure is fastened beneath the wing (50, and 70 as seen in figure 5 of Journade).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights