Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-01-23)

CLAIMS:
Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

1\. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) An aircraft pylon fairing extending along a longitudinal axis, the aircraft pylon fairing comprising:a wall having at least two opposite flanks oriented respectively one on each side of said longitudinal axis,
a central interior cavity, the at least two opposite flanks meeting in a lower or upper part of said fairing,
a front transverse rib securely fixed to said wall and extending perpendicularly on each side of said longitudinal axis, said front transverse rib comprising a through opening configured to accept a peg of an exterior structure by push-fitting in a direction parallel to said longitudinal axis, and comprising two yokes each having bores along an axis oriented perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of the fairing and arranged facing a through opening in one of said opposing flanks, and
a rear transverse rib securely fixed to said wall and extending perpendicularly on each side of said longitudinal axis and comprising two yokes each having bores along a an axis oriented perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of the fairing and arranged facing a through opening in one of said opposing flanks,
wherein the aircraft pylon fairing is a secondary structure which contributes to the aerodynamic performance for flight, and
wherein the exterior structure is a structure indispensable for flight.

2\. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) An aircraft pylon fairing assembly comprising:the aircraft pylon fairing according tothe aircraft pylon fairing according to

four fixing elements which are configured to each be inserted into and held in position in \[\[a\]\] the bore of one of said yokes.

3\. (ORIGINAL) An aircraft pylon comprising:the fairing assembly according tothe fairing assembly according to
an aircraft primary structure, said aircraft primary structure comprising a peg oriented along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fairing and configured to be inserted into said through opening of said front transverse rib, and four fittings which are respectively arranged in such a way as to each be inserted into one of said yokes and each having a through opening configured to be arranged facing said bore of said yoke and configured to receive a portion of one of said four fixing elements which is inserted into said bore of said yoke, said openings in the fittings which are configured to be inserted into the yokes of the front transverse rib of said fairing having an oblong shape extending in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fairing, and said openings in the fittings that are configured to be inserted into the yokes of the rear transverse rib of said fairing having an oblong shape extending along an axis parallel to said longitudinal axis of said fairing, or vice versa.

4\. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) The aircraft pylon according to claim 3, wherein said openings in the fittings configured to be inserted into the yokes of the front transverse rib of said fairing have \[\[an\]\] the oblong shape extending in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fairing, andwherein said openings of the fittings configured to be inserted into the yokes of the rear transverse rib of said fairing have \[\[an\]\] the oblong shape extending along an axis parallel to said longitudinal axis of said fairing.

5\. (ORIGINAL) The aircraft pylon according to claim 3, wherein said openings in the fittings configured to be inserted into the yokes of the front transverse rib of said

fairing have an oblong shape extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the fairing, andwherein said openings of the fittings configured to be inserted into the yokes of the rear transverse rib of said fairing have an oblong shape extending along an axis perpendicular to said longitudinal axis of said fairing.

6\. (ORIGINAL) The aircraft pylon according to claim 3, wherein the peg has a conical or frustoconical shape.

7\. (ORIGINAL) The aircraft pylon according to claim 3, wherein the fixing elements are countersunk screws, andwherein all or part of each of said bores comprises an internal screw thread of a shape that complements a screw thread of said screws.

8\. (CANCELLED)

9\. (ORIGINAL) An aircraft comprising the aircraft pylon fairing according to claim 1.

10\. (CURRENTLY AMENDED) A method for assembling the aircraft pylon according to claim 3, the method comprising:push-fitting the fairing onto the peg of the primary structure of \[\[an\]\] the aircraft pylon, then positioning said yokes of the fairing around the four fittings of the primary structure in such a way as to align said bores of said yokes with said oblong openings of said fittings, said fittings each being inserted into one of said yokes, and then inserting each of the four fixing elements into \[\[a\]\] the bore of a yoke into which a fitting has been inserted and into the oblong opening in said fitting so as to hold the fairing of said aircraft pylon in position on said primary structure in a statically determinate manner.

OFFICE 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 .
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Peter M. Klobuchar on 24th December 2024.
The application has been amended as shown in the attached “Proposed Examiner’s Amendments” document.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claim 1 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The structural features of the pylon fairing e.g., a front transverse rib with yokes and a through opening to accept a peg, and a rear transverse rib with yokes, an aircraft primary structure comprising a peg and fittings with oblong openings, and their arrangement is a novel concept. On top of that the applicant’s arguments, filed 6th December 2024, with respect to exterior structure as a structure indispensable for the flight is also persuasive.
Claims 4-7 and 9-10 are allowable due to dependency on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
I.    Summary of Office Action and Reply
In the Office Action, the Office:
" Made the action non-final; " Objected to the drawings;
" Acknowledged the claim for priority and receipt of the certified copies of
the priority documents;
" Examined the Application under the first inventor to file provisions of the
AIA;
" Objected to Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 because of informalities;
" Rejected Claims 1, 2, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over
Roche (US 2009/0283631) in view of Ramlaoui (US 2011/0127370);
" Rejected Claims 3-5, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over
Roche and Ramlaoui as applied to Claim 2 and further in view of
Chintapudi (US 2019/0232825);
" Rejected Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Roche,
Ramlaoui, and Chintapudi as applied to Claim 3 and further in view of
Prager (US 2023/0192296); and
" Rejected Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Roche,
Ramlaoui, and Chintapudi as applied to Claim 3 and further in view of
Paulson (US 5,459,935).
By this Reply:
" Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 are amended to address the objections;
" Claim 1 is amended;
" Applicant traverses the objection to the drawings;
" Claim 8 is cancelled without prejudice to address the drawing objection to
the duplicated peg and second through opening in the front transverse rib;
" No new matter is added; and
" Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are at issue.
Applicant submits the Application is now in condition for allowance and requests same.
II.   Discussion
A. Objections to the Drawings
The Office objected to the drawings as not showing every feature of the invention specified in the claims, more specifically the oblong shape extending in direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the oblong shape extending along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis.
In response, Applicant traverses the objection for the following reasons.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 113, "The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented [emphasis added]." 35 U.S.C. § 113. Additionally, 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a), in its entirety, states the following:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show
every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential
for a proper understanding of the invention, should be
illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical
drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the
specification and sequences that are included in sequence
listings should not be duplicated in the drawings [emphasis
added].
As explained below, Applicant respectfully submits that the drawings do illustrate the feature "the oblong shape extending in direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and the oblong shape extending along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis" in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 113 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the objections with respect to the showing (in the drawings) of these features.
With regard to the referenced feature "said openings in the fittings ... having an oblong shape ..." recited in Claims 3-5 and 10, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office's contention that this feature is not shown in the drawings. FIGS. 4 and 5, reproduced below, show this feature, labeled with references 33' and 33".
Element 33' and 33" are described in the present Application as representing openings in the fittings 33. For example, in Paragraph [0041]:
[0041]  According to one embodiment, the opening 33' of the fitting 33 that is configured to be inserted into the yoke
42r likewise has an oblong shape extending in the direction Z.
Thus, the two openings 33' of the two fittings 33 that are
configured to be inserted respectively into the yokes 421 and
42r of the front transverse rib 42 both have an oblong opening
extending along the axis Z and of a width equal to the diameter of the bore 42b and a length greater than this
diameter.
Similarly, in Paragraph [0042]:
[0042]  ... The only appreciable difference between the
fixing interfaces to which the yokes 421 and 42r contribute is that a through opening 33" made in the fitting 33 preferably
has an oblong shape extending in a direction X...
As explained above, 35 U.S.C. § 113 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) do not require an explicit drawing for each embodiment recited in the claims and do not require that detailed substructure of all elements, such as a particularly described shapes of the openings 33' and 33", be illustrated. Instead, 35 U.S.C. § 113 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) both indicate that drawings are to be furnished and elements illustrated to the extent necessary for an understanding of the subject matter for which protection is sought. This is exactly what Applicant's drawings do.
As explained herein, elements 33' and 33" are described in the present Application as representing openings that have a described shape. Accordingly, contrary to the contention by the Office in the Non-Final Office Action, Applicant submits that FIGS 4 and 5 show the oblong openings 33' and 33" in a manner necessary and appropriate for an
understanding of the subject matter claimed, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 113 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a).
For at least these reasons, Applicant accordingly requests that the Office to withdraw the corresponding objection to the drawings.
42a
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
FIG. 1: FIG. 4 of the present invention showing  FIG. 2: FIG. 5 of the present invention showing oblong opening 33'
oblong opening 33"
B. Rejection of Claim 1
The Office rejected Claim 1 as unpatentable over Roche in view of Ramlaoui.
In response, Claim 1 is amended to clarify that the aircraft pylon fairing is a
secondary structure which contributes to the aerodynamic performance for flight, and the exterior structure is a structure indispensable for flight from which the through opening in the transverse rib is configured to accept a peg. The amendment is supported in the original disclosure by, at least, Paragraph [0026]. Applicant traverses the rejection for the following reasons.
As amended, Claim 1 is patentable over Roche in view of Ramlaoui because the combination of Roche and Ramlaoui does not teach a front transverse rib comprising a through opening configured to accept a peg of an exterior structure, where the exterior structure is a structure indispensable for flight and where the aircraft pylon fairing is a
secondary structure which contributes to the aerodynamic performance for flight. It is well-settled that a combination of references must reach all the limitations of a claim to establish aprimafacie case of obviousness. Here, Claim 1 requires among other things: a front transverse rib securely fixed to said wall and extending perpendicularly on each side of said longitudinal axis, said front transverse rib comprising a through opening configured to accept a peg of an exterior structure by push- fitting in a direction parallel to said longitudinal axis ...
wherein the aircraft pylon fairing is a secondary structure which contributes to the aerodynamic performance
for flight, and
wherein the exterior structure is a structure indispensable for flight.
Here, the Office relied on Roche's bracket (66) as teaching the through opening of Claim 1 and Roche's pin (64) as teaching the peg required by Claim 1. However, Roche's pin (64) is not of an exterior structure that is indispensable for flight. Instead, Roche's pin (64) is part of aerodynamic fairing (33). According to Roche, aerodynamic fairing (33) is a secondary structure.
Both Roche and the present Application distinguish between a secondary structure and a structure indispensable for flight. More specifically, according to Roche, a primary structure of an aircraft is a rigid structure to ensure transmission of loads:
[0004]   To ensure the transmission of loads, the mounting
structure comprises a rigid structure, also called primary
structure, often of «box  type i.e. formed by the assembly
of upper and lower spars and of side panels joined together
via transverse ribs.
(See Roche at Paragraph [0004] (emphasis added)). Further according to Roche, secondary structures, like aerodynamic fairings, are distinguished from primary structures:
[0007]   Additionally, the pylon is provided with a plurality
of secondary structures which, in particular, ensure the
separating and supporting of supply lines whilst carrying
aerodynamic cowling, these structures generally being in the
form of panels or cowls integrated in these same structures.
In manner known to persons skilled in the art, the secondary
structures differ from the rigid structure i.e,. primary
structure in that they are not intended to ensure the
transmitting of loads generated by the engine which are to
be transmitted towards the aircraft wing.
(See Roche at Paragraph [0007] (emphasis added)). Finally, Roche's aerodynamic fairing (33) is a secondary structure because it
onl
y
has an aerodynamic function:
[0071]   ... By way of indication, this fairing 33 only has an aerodynamic function, which means that it can be made
from panels or similar known to persons skilled in the art for
this type of application. Nonetheless, it may also be equipped
with reinforcements for the mere purpose of providing
support for the above-mentioned attachments. In said case, in
which the fairing 33 integrates reinforcements whose role is
not to ensure a structural function such as that met by the
adjacent cradle 40 carrying the fan cowls 34, the panels and
these reinforcements can then optionally be manufactured in a
single piece.
(See Roche at Paragraph [0071] (emphasis added)). Thus, Roche's aerodynamic fairing
(33) which comprises pin (64) is a secondary structure and is not part of an external structure indispensable for flight.
Likewise, the present Application describes a primary structures as indispensable rigid structures, such as a pylons that attach engines to wings, and a secondary structures as those whose primary function is aerodynamic performance:
[0026]   ... The engine pylon 3 is an element of the primary structure of the aircraft, which is to say the "vital" structure of
the aircraft which is indispensable to flight. The fairings 3' and 4 are elements of the secondary structure of the aircraft.
They contribute to improving the aerodynamic performance for flight and make it possible to reduce fuel consumption... (See the present Application at Paragraph [0026]).
To summarize, the Office relied on Roche's pin (64) as teaching the peg required by Claim 1. Roche's pin (64) is part of a secondary structure aerodynamic fairing (33).
Claim 1 requires the peg to be part of an external structure to the fairing, where the external structure is indispensable to flight and where the fairing is a secondary structure. Therefore, Roche's pin (64) cannot teach the pug required by Claim, and Claim 1, as amended, is patentable over Roche in view of Ramlaoui.
C. Rejection of Claim 3
Applicant further submits that Claim 3 is also distinguished from the cited
combination because Claim 3 further comprises an aircraft primary structure, and the aircraft primary structure comprises the claimed peg. III.  Conclusion