Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-03-20)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, Double Patenting

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) A protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion, said cover comprising:a) a material having a thickness\[\[,\]\] ; ande) programmable magnets joined to said material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft, said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction.
2\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, and a Pitot tube.
3\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein said material is a collapsible material \[\[is\]\] comprising a fabric.
4\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 3 wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
5\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 4 wherein the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets.

6\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 5 wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another.
7\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions.

8\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein a combination of one or more material thickness and a magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enables adherence to an aircraft surface subject to wind loads greater than 40 mph.
9\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.59

10\. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 9 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 10/24/2023. Claims 1-10 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/21/2023, 10/03/2023, 10/05/2023, 1/03/2024, 1/17/2024 (#1), 1/17/2024 (#2) and 1/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See,
e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d
1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA  as explained in MPEP § 2159.  See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using webscreens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 11,772,812. The following lists the comparison of the claims of the instant application with that of the conflict patent:
Instant Application 18/235,988
U.S. Patent 11,772,812
1. (Currently Amended) A protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion, said cover comprising:
a) a collapsible material having a thickness[[,]] b) said cover having a surface, and at least one edge portion; and
e) programmable magnets encapsulated to said cover at said edge portion joined to said material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft, said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction.
2. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, and a Pitot tube.
3. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein said material is a collapsible material [[is]] comprising a fabric.
4. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 3 wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
5. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 4 wherein the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets.
6. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 5 wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another.
7. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions.
8. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein a combination of one or more collapsible material thickness and a magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enables adherence to an aircraft surface subject to wind loads greater than 40 mph.
9. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface
10. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 9 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
1. A protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion, said cover comprising:
a collapsible material having a thickness; and programmable magnets joined to said collapsible material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft, said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined directly to each other side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction, wherein the magnets that are oriented North-South have their North pole on a first surface of the programmable magnet and their South pole on an opposing second surface of the programmable magnet and the other magnets that are oriented South-North have their South pole on the first surface and their North pole on the opposing second surface encapsulated in said cover at said edge portion.
2. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 configured to be removably attached to an aircraft engine having an inlet and to cover an aircraft engine inlet.
3. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein some of the plurality of magnets comprising the single metal piece that comprises the programmable magnets have the same polarity orientation and are joined directly to each other side-by-side.
4. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein said collapsible material is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
5. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein said collapsible material is a fabric and the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets.
6. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 5 wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another when the collapsible material is collapsed upon itself, which would make it difficult to separate the magnets from each other for protective aircraft cover installation.
7. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion of said cover that is different from the magnetic field strength in other portions of said cover so that adherence is increased in portions subject to higher loads and less in other areas.
8. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein a combination of one or more collapsible material thickness and a magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enables adherence to an aircraft surface subject to wind loads greater than 40 mph.
9. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface coatings.
10. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
Claims 1-10 of the instant application contain only obvious modifications of the patented independent claims 1-10, respectively. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Instant Application are broader than the patented claims, In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993), broad claims in the instant application are rejected as obvious double patenting over narrow claims of the patent.  For example, claim 1 of the present invention does not claim the specific features of “wherein the magnets that are oriented North-South have their North pole on a first surface of the programmable magnet and their South pole on an opposing second surface of the programmable magnet and the other magnets that are oriented South-North have their South pole on the first surface and their North pole on the opposing second surface encapsulated in said cover at said edge portion”.  Therefore, claim 1 of the instant invention is broader than claim 1 of the Patent.
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 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Descheemaeker teaches a protective aircraft cover (¶022, Fig 1) having a surface and at least one edge portion (¶026, Figs 1 & 2; aircraft is equipped with protective cover which comprises an anchoring system which makes it possible to fix the protective cover onto aircraft; Examiner note surface and edge portion are shown per Figs 1-2), said cover comprising:
a) a
e) programmable magnets joined to said material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft (¶029, Fig 2; tarpaulin comprises at least one and/or two electromagnets 106) which is fixed under tarpaulin… fixed to the face of the tarpaulin which comes into contact with the wing; Examiner interprets magnets as programmable because they can be in an active state or inactive state and be switched therebetween states: see ¶029, each electromagnet 106 has a deactivated state in which it does not produce any magnetic force and an activated state in which it produces a magnetic field)
Descheemaeker is silent on said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction.
Gustafsson from an analogous magnetic coupling art teaches the concept wherein programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction (¶015; multipole magnetic coupling systems described herein can comprise a plurality of discrete magnets joined together… and/or a plurality of magnets formed in a unitary block of material. In the first example, discrete magnets (e.g., in a rod configuration with north and south polarities on opposite ends) are bound or joined together so as to form a single body having multiple exposed poles... individual magnets can be positioned to create a common surface that contains a plurality of the exposed poles. This is typically an outer surface of the component body. In the second example, a single magnetic component is magnetized using a specific magnetization pulse so as to form multiple individual magnetic elements (magnetic poles) on the surface. Such magnetic elements can be referred to a “magnetic domains.” Each magnetic element can be configured so as to have a north pole, a south pole, or can have no polarity (e.g., display a neutral charge) and ¶016; individual magnets or magnetic elements can vary in terms of which pole is exposed on a particular surface of the component. Thus, a single component can have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple magnetic poles can be arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles. Moreover, a single unitary component having multiple magnetic domains can be programmed or reprogrammed by applying an electromagnetic pulse to one or more magnetic poles to form (or change) the magnetized surface pattern. Depending on the size, polarity, and the strength of the electromagnetic pulse, the size and polarity of the magnetic domains can be changed. Thus, the pattern of magnetization can be changed). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective cover of Descheemaeker with the concept of programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction, as taught by Gustafsson for the advantage of have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple magnetic poles being arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles for customizing or shaping predetermined magnetic fields.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on being configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, and a Pitot tube.
Hausmann from an analogous airplane cover art teaches a protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion (¶028; Fig 1; engine cover assembly 108 with engine cover 140 which may be a sheet or tarp whereby it’s edge nears a lip of housing 130 at fluid opening 138; see Fig 4; outter circumference or edge portion of cover 140 as shown) including a collapsible material having a thickness (¶028; engine cover 140 which may be a sheet or tarp); and a magnet (Fig 4; magnet 144, ¶028-¶029; magnet 144 attached near edge of engine cover 140). Hausmann further teaches the cover being configured to cover an engine inlet (¶023; fluid opening 138 is an air intake; Examiner interprets air intake as inlet) and/or to cover an engine exhaust (¶023; in some embodiments, fluid opening 138 is an exhaust and also other types of engine or machinery may be protected by engine cover assembly 108). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine Descheemaeker’s protective cover with magnets with the concept of being configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, as taught by Hausmann for the purpose of protectively covering the aircraft or any part thereof for protection from environmental elements, such as weather and smaller animals.
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Hausmann,, in combination teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 and Hausmann further teaches the concept wherein said material is a collapsible material [[is]] comprising a fabric (¶028; engine cover 140 which may be a sheet or tarp). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine Descheemaeker’s protective cover with magnets with the concept wherein said material is a collapsible material comprising a fabric, as taught by Hausmann for the purpose of allowing the cover to be made smaller (folded for example) for storage purposes.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199) and still further in view of Silver (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0094763)
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Hausmann, whether alone or in combination are silent on the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 3 wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
Silver from an analogous fabric art teaches the concept of a fabric with fire resistant mesh being fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers (¶018; DuPont's NOMEX.RTM. IIIA aramid is a fabric generally consisting of 93% NOMEX, 5% KEVLAR, and 2% carbon. Carbon may have been in NOMEX.RTM. IIIA fabric to reduce and/or dissipate static… DuPont's NOMEX.RTM. IIIA aramid possesses the following characteristics, among others: (i) it may be an inherently flame resistant anti-static fabric engineered to reduce nuisance static; and (ii) it may be self-extinguishing, and may not ignite melt, drip, and/or burn…, these characteristics may be generally thought to make NOMEX.RTM. fabrics exceptional all-around fabrics for applications such as petroleum refining, petro-chemical, fire service, and/or gas and/or electric utilities. Also, DuPont's prior art KEVLAR.TM. aramid fiber and/or fabric may be a strong ballistic flame-resistant material. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective cover of Descheemaeker with the concept wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers, as taught by Silver, for the advantage of using an inherently flame resistant anti-static fabric engineered to reduce nuisance static and be self-extinguishing (Silver; ¶018) in order to further enhance protections for a covered vehicle area.
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, Hausmann and Silver teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 4, and Hausmann further teaches wherein the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets (¶029; magnet 144 may be sown into or adhered to engine cover 140). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further combine Descheemaeker’s protective cover with magnets with the concept wherein said material is a collapsible material comprising a fabric, as taught by Hausmann for the purpose of allowing the cover to securely maintain the magnetics therein.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199) and still further in view of Silver (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0094763) and still even further in view of SHINOTSUKA (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0071483).
Regarding claim 6, (Currently Amended) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, Hausmann and Silver teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 5, but all are silent on wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another.
SHINOTSUKA from an analogous art teaches the concept of keeping magnetically attracted objects from adhering to one another by using a fabric with a thickness for keeping the objects separated from one other (¶053; buffer film 30 made of a flexible non-magnetic material is interposed between a permanent magnet and another magnetic object/diaphragm to keep the permanent magnet 20 and the diaphragm 10 separated from each other by a constant distance...buffer film 30 preferably has a thickness of a few micrometers to a few hundred micrometers, and may be made of cellulose fiber, such as traditional Japanese paper, cleaning paper, or cleaning wipes, or an elastic material such as rubber). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further combine the protective aircraft cover of Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, Hausmann with the concept wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another when the collapsible material is collapsed upon itself, which would make it difficult to separate the magnets from each other for protective aircraft cover installation, as taught by SHINOTSUKA, for the advantage of keeping the magnetically attracted objects separated from each other by a constant distance (SHINOTSUKA ¶053).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Foo. (U.S. Patent Application 2013/0146453).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions.
Foo from an analogous programmable magnet pack art teaches the concept of programmable magnet packs including cells, whereby removable magnetic inserts and removable non-magnetic inserts are disposed within the cells on a template. The removable inserts may be rearranged to customize or shape predetermined magnetic fields (¶018). Foo further teaches wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions  (¶046, FIG. 4B; number of magnetic inserts and number of non-magnetic inserts are variably stacked in cells so the number of magnetic inserts and number of non-magnetic inserts are operable to customize or shape a magnetic field over a target and surrounding a plurality of cells. For example, in FIG. 4B the full length magnetic inserts, half length magnetic inserts, full length non-magnetic inserts, and half length non-magnetic inserts are variably stacked in cells on a template; (Examiner interprets customizing/shaping magnetic fields over areas of a given target and surroundings as functionally equivalent to adherence/strength being increased in portions and/or less in other areas.in specific environment of sorts); also see ¶043-¶046). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective aircraft cover of Descheemaeker and Gustafsson further with the concept of using other programmable magnets, as taught by Foo, for the advantage of being able to customize/shape magnetic fields and their varying strength over areas of a given target.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Emory (U.S. Patent 5,919,541).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on wherein a combination of one or more
Emory from an analogous art teaches an improved vehicular component/fender cover having magnets for removably securing the fender cover to a metal surface (col 1:28-30). Emory further teaches a magnetic field strength of programmable (non-symmetrical distance placement thereof; per col 1:39-40) magnets enables adherence to a vehicle surface subject to high wind loads (col 2:24-26; magnets provide an extremely strong grip of fender cover 10 even in a high wind environment).  Emory doesn’t explicitly mention high wind loads greater than 40 mph. However, it was known in the art, as shown by Fulda (U.S. Patent 7,494,098) that magnetic holding systems may keep objects as desired together at higher wind speeds, up to half (1/2) gale force winds of thirty-five miles per hour (35 m.p.h.) or more (col 4:40-54, Examiner notes: Fulda is used as an example of knowledge in the art and not cited as a reference). A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the references, would also have recognized the desirability of improved methods for predetermined customized/shaped magnetic field strengths with programmable magnets enabling adherence of the cover to a vehicle/aircraft surface subject to high wind loads maintaining the device securely against the side of a vehicle/aircraft. Examiner interprets high wind loads on a moving vehicle to include wind loads greater than 40 mph. It would require no more than ordinary skill and common sense, for a predetermined customized/shaped magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enabling a strong enough adherence of a vehicle/aircraft cover to the vehicle/aircraft surface when subjected to high wind loads greater than 35 mph and more. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try for a predetermined customized/shaped magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enabling a stronger adherence of the cover to the vehicle/aircraft surface when subjected to high wind loads greater than 40 mph, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Klein (U.S. Patent 5,267,763).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface coatings.
Klein from an analogous cover art teaches the concept wherein magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to a vehicle while not causing damage to surface coatings (col 2:29-36; use of a magnet encapsulated in a generally tubular or conical shaped housing provides protection for the vehicle's painted metal surface against damage that could result from contact with the metal magnet and the means to permanently retain the magnet in the device of the present invention without the risk of the magnet coming lose and disengaging from the panel). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine Descheemaeker and Gustafsson further with the concept of magnets having a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere a protective cover to a vehicle while not causing damage to surface coatings, as taught by Klein in order to provide protection for a vehicle's painted metal surface against damage that could result from contact with metal magnets.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Klein teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 9, but all three are silent on wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
However, Gustafsson from an analogous magnet art, as introduced above, further teaches the use of programmable magnets which allow the user to customize and shape the magnetic field about a target (see claim 1 above). Likewise, a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the references, particularly with attention to the mentioning of “the user customizing magnetic fields” would have recognized the importance of shaping/customizing the magnetic fields so they do not interfere with any electronic signals or components when installed on any vehicle with electrical/electronic components, including a potentially massive human life impacting machine, such as an aircraft. It would require no more than ordinary skill and common sense, for shaping/customizing magnetic fields and using magnets so they do not interfere with any electronics, signals and/or like components, as such oversight could prove catastrophic to human lives. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try shaping/customizing magnetic fields and using magnets which generate those magnetic fields so they do not interfere with any electronics, signals and/or like components (memory chips for example) likely to negatively impact the operation of the aircraft, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue such known options within his or her technical grasp.
NOTE: The use of negative limitation is noted in the claim. Although, the use of a negative limitation is allowed according to MPEP; nevertheless, Applicant shall provide explicit teaching for the claimed negative limitation in the specification. The mere omission of the negatively claimed subject matter cannot be construed as Applicant's claimed invention. In order for the Examiner to give patentable weight to a negative limitation, Applicant shall provide the reason(s) for the negative limitation to be construed as a critical element to the invention as a whole, See MPEP 2173.05(i).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Cleveland (U.S. Patent 8,405,479), teaches a magnet structure for use in an airplane, vehicle etc. being provided to include a first layer of magnets including a first pole magnet and a plurality of first magnets that are positioned about the first pole magnet. The plurality of first magnets are oriented to have respective magnetic fields directed inward relative to the first pole magnet. The magnet structure may also include a second layer of magnets including a second pole magnet and a plurality of second magnets positioned about the second pole magnet and oriented such that the plurality of second magnets have respective magnetic fields directed outward relative to the second pole magnet.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
This amendment is responsive to the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 20, 2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and stand rejected. Claim 11 has been added.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-10 stand rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 11,772,812.
Without admitting that the double patenting rejection is properly imposed, Applicant is submitting a terminal disclaimer herewith to obviate the double patenting rejection.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that the double patent rejection be withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C.
Claim 1
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/025 13 13).
The Office Action states that "Examiner interprets magnets as programmable because they can be in an active state or inactive state and be switched therebetween states: see  029, each electromagnet 106 has a deactivated state in which it does not produce any magnetic force and an activated state in which it produces a magnetic field)"
The Office Action further states that:
[t]herefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of filing the invention to combine the protective cover of Descheemaeker with the
concept of programmable magnets
each comprising a single metal piece comprising a
plurality of
magnets joined together side-by-side with some of
said magnets oriented with
their
North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with
their South-North poles in the opposite direction,
as taught by Gustafsson for the
advantage of have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple
magnetic poles being arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles for customizing
or shaping predetermined magnetic fields.
Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn. The terms "electromagnets" and "programmable magnets" describe fundamentally different types of magnets. See Wikipedia articles on "Programmable magnet" and "Electromagnet".
The magnets described in Descheemaeker are electromagnets, not programmable
magnets. Electromagnets are a type of magnet in which the magnetic field is produced by an electric current. Electromagnets usually consist of a wire wound into a coil. A current through the wire creates a magnetic field which is concentrated in a hole in the center of the coil. The magnetic field disappears when the current is turned off. The main advantage of an electromagnet is that the magnetic field can be quickly changed by controlling the amount of electric current in the winding. An electromagnet requires a continuous supply of current to maintain the magnetic field.
Programmable magnets, on the other hand, are magnetic structures that incorporate
correlated patterns of magnets with alternating polarity, designed to achieve a desired behavior and deliver a stronger local force.
The protective cover described in Descheemaeker will only work if electromagnets are
used. Descheemaeker is intended to provide a protective cover for the wings of an aircraft that is held on by electromagnets and is quickly deployable and retractable using a remote control unit. It would be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker to use programmable magnets with the protective cover described in Descheemaeker since it would not be possible to selectively turn the magnetic field on and off to deploy and retract the cover.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claims 2-3
Claims 2-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent
Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199).
Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn. The addition of the Hausmann reference to the combination of the Descheemaeker and Gustafsson references does not cure the deficiencies in the combination of references discussed above in response the rejection of Claim 1. That is, it would be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker to use programmable magnets with the protective cover described in Descheemaeker since it would not be possible to selectively turn the magnetic field on and off to deploy and retract the cover. The magnet in Hausmann is limited to a single magnet (144) that is configured to interact with a magnetic detector sensor (134) to indicate whether an engine cover (140) is installed on an engine. The magnet in Hausmann is not a programmable magnet, and it is not used to hold the cover to the aircraft. Neither Gustafsson, nor Hausmann provide any teaching or disclosure that enables the protective cover of Descheemaeker to function as intended if it used programmable magnets as suggested in the Office Action.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 2 and 3 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claims 4-5
Claims 4-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199) and still further in view of Silver (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0094763).
Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn or the same reasons set forth above in response to the rejection of Claims 2 and 3. That is, it would be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker to use programmable magnets with the protective cover described in Descheemaeker since it would not be possible to selectively turn the magnetic field on and off to deploy and retract the cover. Silver does not teach or disclose programmable magnets. The Gustafsson, Hausmann, and Silver references do not provide any teaching or disclosure that enables the protective cover of Descheemaeker to function as intended if it used programmable magnets as suggested in the Office Action. Therefore, Silver
does not cure the deficiencies in the combination of the Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Hausmann references.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 4 and 5 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claim 6
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199) and still further in view of Silver (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0094763) and still even further in view of Shinotsuka (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0071483).
Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn for the same reasons set forth above in response to the rejection of Claims 4 and 5. That is, it would be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker to use programmable magnets with the protective cover described in Descheemaeker since it would not be possible to selectively turn the magnetic field on and off to deploy and retract the cover. Shinotsuka also does not teach or disclose an aircraft cover with the programmable magnets as described in Claim 6. Instead, Shinotsuka's permanent magnet has a magnetization pattern of parallel stripes formed such that north pole bands and south pole bands extend in the width direction of the permanent magnet and alternate with each other. Shinotsuka paragraph [0049]. Shinotsuka does not teach or disclose programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction as described in Claim 1. Shinotsuka, thus, does not cure the deficiencies in the combination of the Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, and Hausmann references.
Therefore, the rejection of Claim 6 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claim 7
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Foo (U.S. Patent Application 2013/0146453).
Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn for the same reasons set forth above in response to the rejection of Claim 1 and for the following additional reasons. Foo is not directed to protecting surfaces as is Descheemaeker. Foo does not disclose any type of cover and, thus, cannot solve the problem with the combination of the Descheemaeker and Gustafsson references. In addition, Foo is directed toward using a magnet pack to shape a magnetic field over a target object in a sputtering process. As stated in paragraph [0002] of Foo, sputtering is a process carried out in a vacuum chamber that is filled with selected gases. The sputtering process causes a substrate (120) to be coated with a material from a target (104) located within a sputtering apparatus. Foo is only concerned with shaping a magnetic field inside a vacuum chamber of a sputtering apparatus. Without the hindsight benefit of having read the Applicant's application, there is nothing in the combination of references that could lead one to conclude that a protective aircraft cover could be created using programmable magnets that are programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions.
Therefore, the rejection of Claim 7 should be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claim 8
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Emory (U.S. Patent 5,919,541).
Applicant respectfully requests that this rejection be reconsidered and withdrawn for the same reasons set forth above in response to the rejection of Claim 1 and for the following additional reasons. Emory is directed to a fender cover having a plurality of spaced apart and linearly aligned conventional magnets attached to the fender cover for holding the fender cover to a metal surface. Emory does not teach or disclose programmable magnets as described in Claim 8. The use of conventional magnets described in Emory would also be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker's protective cover. That is, Emory does not provide any teaching or that would enable the protective cover of Descheemaeker to function as intended if it used programmable magnets as suggested in the Office Action.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of Claim 8 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Claims 9-10
Claims 9-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Klein (U.S. Patent 5,267,763).
Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of Claim 9 be reconsidered and
withdrawn or the same reasons set forth above in response to the rejection of Claim 1 and for the following additional reasons. Klein is directed to a vehicle side guard. Klein does not teach or disclose programmable magnets. The use of conventional magnets described in Klein would also be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker's protective cover. Therefore, Klein does not cure the deficiencies in the combination of the Descheemaeker and Gustafsson references.
Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of Claim 10 be reconsidered and
withdrawn or the same reasons set forth above in response to the rejection of Claim 9 and for the following additional reason. Descheemaeker discloses an embodiment with only two electromagnets on each wing. Neither Gustafsson nor Klein describe an aircraft. None of the references in the combination of references teaches or discloses the need for not interfering with electronic signals on an aircraft. Without the hindsight benefit of having read the Applicant's application, there is nothing in the combination of references that could lead one to create a protective aircraft cover using programmable magnets that have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
The Office Action also contains a paragraph on the use of a negative limitation in Claim 10. The Office Action states:
In order for the Examiner to give patentable weight to a negative limitation,
Applicant shall provide the reason(s) for the negative limitation to be construed as a
critical element to the invention as a whole, See MPEP 2173.05(i).
The explicit teaching for the negative limitation is found in paragraph [0055] of Applicant's specification where it is stated that:
Use of programmable magnets enables high adherence when in place while not
interfering with electrical equipment that is close by. Programmable magnets can also be
tailored to provide higher strength in one area than another. Conventional magnets
provide field strength at a distance that can interfere with nearby electrical equipment and can damage coatings on the surface of the aircraft if they are used, thus magnets have not
been used previously for covers.
Therefore, the negative limitation should be given patentable weight.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of Claims 9 and 10 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 6/05/2024. No claims were amended. No claims were canceled. Claim 11 was newly added. Likewise claims 1-11 were pending for examination.
Title 35, U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See,
e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d
1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA  as explained in MPEP § 2159.  See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using webscreens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 11,772,812. The following lists the comparison of the claims of the instant application with that of the conflict patent:
Instant Application 18/235,988
U.S. Patent 11,772,812
1. (Currently Amended) A protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion, said cover comprising:
a) a collapsible material having a thickness[[,]] b) said cover having a surface, and at least one edge portion; and
e) programmable magnets encapsulated to said cover at said edge portion joined to said material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft, said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction.
2. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, and a Pitot tube.
3. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein said material is a collapsible material [[is]] comprising a fabric.
4. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 3 wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
5. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 4 wherein the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets.
6. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 5 wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another.
7. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions.
8. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein a combination of one or more collapsible material thickness and a magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enables adherence to an aircraft surface subject to wind loads greater than 40 mph.
9. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface
10. (Currently Amended) The protective aircraft cover according to Claim 9 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
1. A protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion, said cover comprising:
a collapsible material having a thickness; and programmable magnets joined to said collapsible material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft, said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined directly to each other side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction, wherein the magnets that are oriented North-South have their North pole on a first surface of the programmable magnet and their South pole on an opposing second surface of the programmable magnet and the other magnets that are oriented South-North have their South pole on the first surface and their North pole on the opposing second surface encapsulated in said cover at said edge portion.
2. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 configured to be removably attached to an aircraft engine having an inlet and to cover an aircraft engine inlet.
3. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein some of the plurality of magnets comprising the single metal piece that comprises the programmable magnets have the same polarity orientation and are joined directly to each other side-by-side.
4. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein said collapsible material is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
5. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein said collapsible material is a fabric and the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets.
6. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 5 wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another when the collapsible material is collapsed upon itself, which would make it difficult to separate the magnets from each other for protective aircraft cover installation.
7. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion of said cover that is different from the magnetic field strength in other portions of said cover so that adherence is increased in portions subject to higher loads and less in other areas.
8. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein a combination of one or more collapsible material thickness and a magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enables adherence to an aircraft surface subject to wind loads greater than 40 mph.
9. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface coatings.
10. The protective aircraft cover according to claim 1 wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
Claims 1-10 of the instant application contain only obvious modifications of the patented independent claims 1-10, respectively. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Instant Application are broader than the patented claims, In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993), broad claims in the instant application are rejected as obvious double patenting over narrow claims of the patent.  For example, claim 1 of the present invention does not claim the specific features of “wherein the magnets that are oriented North-South have their North pole on a first surface of the programmable magnet and their South pole on an opposing second surface of the programmable magnet and the other magnets that are oriented South-North have their South pole on the first surface and their North pole on the opposing second surface encapsulated in said cover at said edge portion”.  Therefore, claim 1 of the instant invention is broader than claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313).
Regarding claim 1 (Previously Presented), Descheemaeker teaches a protective aircraft cover (¶022, Fig 1) having a surface and at least one edge portion (¶026, Figs 1 & 2; aircraft is equipped with protective cover which comprises an anchoring system which makes it possible to fix the protective cover onto aircraft; Examiner note surface and edge portion are shown per Figs 1-2), said cover comprising:
a) a material having a thickness (¶027; protective cover comprises a tarpaulin  integral with anchoring system; ¶044; tarpaulin may comprise inflatable tube, ¶048; can be constituted by several sheets mounted so they slide over one another; ¶049; tarpaulin may be a foam mattress); and
e) programmable magnets joined to said material for adhering said protective aircraft cover to an aircraft (¶029, Fig 2; tarpaulin comprises at least one and/or two electromagnets 106) which is fixed under tarpaulin… fixed to the face of the tarpaulin which comes into contact with the wing; Examiner interprets magnets as programmable because they can be in an active state or inactive state and be switched therebetween states: see ¶029, each electromagnet 106 has a deactivated state in which it does not produce any magnetic force and an activated state in which it produces a magnetic field)
Descheemaeker is silent on said programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction.
Gustafsson from an analogous magnetic coupling art teaches the concept wherein programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction (¶015; multipole magnetic coupling systems described herein can comprise a plurality of discrete magnets joined together… and/or a plurality of magnets formed in a unitary block of material. In the first example, discrete magnets (e.g., in a rod configuration with north and south polarities on opposite ends) are bound or joined together so as to form a single body having multiple exposed poles... individual magnets can be positioned to create a common surface that contains a plurality of the exposed poles. This is typically an outer surface of the component body. In the second example, a single magnetic component is magnetized using a specific magnetization pulse so as to form multiple individual magnetic elements (magnetic poles) on the surface. Such magnetic elements can be referred to a “magnetic domains.” Each magnetic element can be configured so as to have a north pole, a south pole, or can have no polarity (e.g., display a neutral charge) and ¶016; individual magnets or magnetic elements can vary in terms of which pole is exposed on a particular surface of the component. Thus, a single component can have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple magnetic poles can be arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles. Moreover, a single unitary component having multiple magnetic domains can be programmed or reprogrammed by applying an electromagnetic pulse to one or more magnetic poles to form (or change) the magnetized surface pattern. Depending on the size, polarity, and the strength of the electromagnetic pulse, the size and polarity of the magnetic domains can be changed. Thus, the pattern of magnetization can be changed). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective cover of Descheemaeker with the concept of programmable magnets each comprising a single metal piece comprising a plurality of magnets joined together side-by-side with some of said magnets oriented with their North-South poles in one direction interspersed with other magnets oriented with their South-North poles in the opposite direction, as taught by Gustafsson for the advantage of have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple magnetic poles being arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles for customizing or shaping predetermined magnetic fields.
Regarding claim 11 (New), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1.  Descheemaeker is silent on the features of claim 1. However, Gustafsson further teaches the features of claim 11, as well. Gustafsson teaches wherein some of the plurality of magnets comprising the single metal piece that comprises the programmable magnets have the same polarity (¶015; a single magnetic component is magnetized using a specific magnetization pulse so as to form multiple individual magnetic elements (magnetic poles) on the surface. Such magnetic elements can be referred to a “magnetic domains.” Each magnetic element can be configured so as to have a north pole, a south pole, or can have no polarity (e.g., display a neutral charge)) and are joined directed to each other side-by-side (see Figs 2-6; magnets are joined directed to each other side-by-side, as shown). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective cover of Descheemaeker with the concept wherein some of the plurality of magnets comprising the single metal piece that comprises the programmable magnets have the same polarity and are joined directed to each other side-by-side, as taught by Gustafsson for the advantage of have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple magnetic poles being arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles for customizing or shaping predetermined magnetic fields.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on being configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, and a Pitot tube.
Hausmann from an analogous airplane cover art teaches a protective aircraft cover having a surface and at least one edge portion (¶028; Fig 1; engine cover assembly 108 with engine cover 140 which may be a sheet or tarp whereby it’s edge nears a lip of housing 130 at fluid opening 138; see Fig 4; outter circumference or edge portion of cover 140 as shown) including a collapsible material having a thickness (¶028; engine cover 140 which may be a sheet or tarp); and a magnet (Fig 4; magnet 144, ¶028-¶029; magnet 144 attached near edge of engine cover 140). Hausmann further teaches the cover being configured to cover an engine inlet (¶023; fluid opening 138 is an air intake; Examiner interprets air intake as inlet) and/or to cover an engine exhaust (¶023; in some embodiments, fluid opening 138 is an exhaust and also other types of engine or machinery may be protected by engine cover assembly 108). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine Descheemaeker’s protective cover with magnets with the concept of being configured to cover one of an engine inlet, and engine exhaust, as taught by Hausmann for the purpose of protectively covering the aircraft or any part thereof for protection from environmental elements, such as weather and smaller animals.
Regarding claim 3, (Previously Presented) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Hausmann, in combination teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1 and Hausmann further teaches the concept wherein said material is a collapsible material [[is]] comprising a fabric (¶028; engine cover 140 which may be a sheet or tarp). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine Descheemaeker’s protective cover with magnets with the concept wherein said material is a collapsible material comprising a fabric, as taught by Hausmann for the purpose of allowing the cover to be made smaller (folded for example) for storage purposes.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199) and still further in view of Silver (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0094763)
Regarding claim 4, (Previously Presented) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Hausmann, whether alone or in combination are silent on the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 3 wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers.
Silver from an analogous fabric art teaches the concept of a fabric with fire resistant mesh being fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers (¶018; DuPont's NOMEX.RTM. IIIA aramid is a fabric generally consisting of 93% NOMEX, 5% KEVLAR, and 2% carbon. Carbon may have been in NOMEX.RTM. IIIA fabric to reduce and/or dissipate static… DuPont's NOMEX.RTM. IIIA aramid possesses the following characteristics, among others: (i) it may be an inherently flame resistant anti-static fabric engineered to reduce nuisance static; and (ii) it may be self-extinguishing, and may not ignite melt, drip, and/or burn…, these characteristics may be generally thought to make NOMEX.RTM. fabrics exceptional all-around fabrics for applications such as petroleum refining, petro-chemical, fire service, and/or gas and/or electric utilities. Also, DuPont's prior art KEVLAR.TM. aramid fiber and/or fabric may be a strong ballistic flame-resistant material. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective cover of Descheemaeker with the concept wherein said fabric is a fire resistant ballistic fabric including antistatic fibers, as taught by Silver, for the advantage of using an inherently flame resistant anti-static fabric engineered to reduce nuisance static and be self-extinguishing (Silver; ¶018) in order to further enhance protections for a covered vehicle area.
Regarding claim 5, (Previously Presented) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, Hausmann and Silver teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 4, and Hausmann further teaches wherein the programmable magnets are encapsulated by stitching the fabric around said programmable magnets (¶029; magnet 144 may be sown into or adhered to engine cover 140). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further combine Descheemaeker’s protective cover with magnets with the concept wherein said material is a collapsible material comprising a fabric, as taught by Hausmann for the purpose of allowing the cover to securely maintain the magnetics therein.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Hausmann (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0300199) and still further in view of Silver (U.S. Patent Application 2007/0094763) and still even further in view of SHINOTSUKA (U.S. Patent Application 2015/0071483).
Regarding claim 6, (Previously Presented) Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, Hausmann and Silver teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 5, but all are silent on wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another.
SHINOTSUKA from an analogous art teaches the concept of keeping magnetically attracted objects from adhering to one another by using a fabric with a thickness for keeping the objects separated from one other (¶053; buffer film 30 made of a flexible non-magnetic material is interposed between a permanent magnet and another magnetic object/diaphragm to keep the permanent magnet 20 and the diaphragm 10 separated from each other by a constant distance...buffer film 30 preferably has a thickness of a few micrometers to a few hundred micrometers, and may be made of cellulose fiber, such as traditional Japanese paper, cleaning paper, or cleaning wipes, or an elastic material such as rubber). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further combine the protective aircraft cover of Descheemaeker, Gustafsson, Hausmann with the concept wherein the collapsible material thickness is sufficient to prevent the magnetic field strength of the programmable magnets to cause adherence to one another when the collapsible material is collapsed upon itself, which would make it difficult to separate the magnets from each other for protective aircraft cover installation, as taught by SHINOTSUKA, for the advantage of keeping the magnetically attracted objects separated from each other by a constant distance (SHINOTSUKA ¶053).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 20170251313) further in view of Foo. (U.S. Patent Application 2013/0146453).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions.
Foo from an analogous programmable magnet pack art teaches the concept of programmable magnet packs including cells, whereby removable magnetic inserts and removable non-magnetic inserts are disposed within the cells on a template. The removable inserts may be rearranged to customize or shape predetermined magnetic fields (¶018). Foo further teaches wherein at least one of said programmable magnets is programmed to have a magnetic field strength in a portion different from the magnetic field strength in other portions  (¶046, FIG. 4B; number of magnetic inserts and number of non-magnetic inserts are variably stacked in cells so the number of magnetic inserts and number of non-magnetic inserts are operable to customize or shape a magnetic field over a target and surrounding a plurality of cells. For example, in FIG. 4B the full length magnetic inserts, half length magnetic inserts, full length non-magnetic inserts, and half length non-magnetic inserts are variably stacked in cells on a template; (Examiner interprets customizing/shaping magnetic fields over areas of a given target and surroundings as functionally equivalent to adherence/strength being increased in portions and/or less in other areas.in specific environment of sorts); also see ¶043-¶046). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine the protective aircraft cover of Descheemaeker and Gustafsson further with the concept of using other programmable magnets, as taught by Foo, for the advantage of being able to customize/shape magnetic fields and their varying strength over areas of a given target.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Emory (U.S. Patent 5,919,541).
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on wherein a combination of one or more
Emory from an analogous art teaches an improved vehicular component/fender cover having magnets for removably securing the fender cover to a metal surface (col 1:28-30). Emory further teaches a magnetic field strength of programmable (non-symmetrical distance placement thereof; per col 1:39-40) magnets enables adherence to a vehicle surface subject to high wind loads (col 2:24-26; magnets provide an extremely strong grip of fender cover 10 even in a high wind environment).  Emory doesn’t explicitly mention high wind loads greater than 40 mph. However, it was known in the art, as shown by Fulda (U.S. Patent 7,494,098) that magnetic holding systems may keep objects as desired together at higher wind speeds, up to half (1/2) gale force winds of thirty-five miles per hour (35 m.p.h.) or more (col 4:40-54, Examiner notes: Fulda is used as an example of knowledge in the art and not cited as a reference). A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the references, would also have recognized the desirability of improved methods for predetermined customized/shaped magnetic field strengths with programmable magnets enabling adherence of the cover to a vehicle/aircraft surface subject to high wind loads maintaining the device securely against the side of a vehicle/aircraft. Examiner interprets high wind loads on a moving vehicle to include wind loads greater than 40 mph. It would require no more than ordinary skill and common sense, for a predetermined customized/shaped magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enabling a strong enough adherence of a vehicle/aircraft cover to the vehicle/aircraft surface when subjected to high wind loads greater than 35 mph and more. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try for a predetermined customized/shaped magnetic field strength of said programmable magnets enabling a stronger adherence of the cover to the vehicle/aircraft surface when subjected to high wind loads greater than 40 mph, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Descheemaeker (U.S. Patent Application 2020/0039662) in view of Gustafsson (U.S. Patent Application 2017/0251313) further in view of Klein (U.S. Patent 5,267,763).
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), Descheemaeker and Gustafsson teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 1, but both are silent on wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to an aircraft while not causing damage to surface coatings.
Klein from an analogous cover art teaches the concept wherein magnets have a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere the protective cover to a vehicle while not causing damage to surface coatings (col 2:29-36; use of a magnet encapsulated in a generally tubular or conical shaped housing provides protection for the vehicle's painted metal surface against damage that could result from contact with the metal magnet and the means to permanently retain the magnet in the device of the present invention without the risk of the magnet coming lose and disengaging from the panel). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to combine Descheemaeker and Gustafsson further with the concept of magnets having a magnetic field strength sufficient to adhere a protective cover to a vehicle while not causing damage to surface coatings, as taught by Klein in order to provide protection for a vehicle's painted metal surface against damage that could result from contact with metal magnets.
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), Descheemaeker, Gustafsson and Klein teach the protective aircraft cover according to Claim 9, but all three are silent on wherein the programmable magnets have a magnetic field that does not interfere with electronic signals when installed on an aircraft.
However, Gustafsson from an analogous magnet art, as introduced above, further teaches the use of programmable magnets which allow the user to customize and shape the magnetic field about a target (see claim 1 above). Likewise, a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the references, particularly with attention to the mentioning of “the user customizing magnetic fields” would have recognized the importance of shaping/customizing the magnetic fields so they do not interfere with any electronic signals or components when installed on any vehicle with electrical/electronic components, including a potentially massive human life impacting machine, such as an aircraft. It would require no more than ordinary skill and common sense, for shaping/customizing magnetic fields and using magnets so they do not interfere with any electronics, signals and/or like components, as such oversight could prove catastrophic to human lives. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try shaping/customizing magnetic fields and using magnets which generate those magnetic fields so they do not interfere with any electronics, signals and/or like components (memory chips for example) likely to negatively impact the operation of the aircraft, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue such known options within his or her technical grasp.
NOTE: The use of negative limitation is noted in the claim. Although, the use of a negative limitation is allowed according to MPEP; nevertheless, Applicant shall provide explicit teaching for the claimed negative limitation in the specification. The mere omission of the negatively claimed subject matter cannot be construed as Applicant's claimed invention. In order for the Examiner to give patentable weight to a negative limitation, Applicant shall provide the reason(s) for the negative limitation to be construed as a critical element to the invention as a whole, See MPEP 2173.05(i).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/04/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
(1) (Remarks, filed 6/04/2024, page marked as Pg. 8, paragraphs. 2 – 4).
In rejecting claims 1, 9 and 16, Applicant argues that protective cover described in Descheemaeker will only work if electromagnets are used. Descheemaeker is intended to provide a protective cover for the wings of an aircraft that is held on by electromagnets and is quickly deployable and retractable using a remote control unit. It would be contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker to use programmable magnets with the protective cover described in Descheemaeker since it would not be possible to selectively turn the magnetic field on and off to deploy and retract the cover.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously cited before and again above, Gustafsson teaches, per ¶016, that individual magnets or magnetic elements can vary in terms of which pole is exposed on a particular surface of the component and that a single component can have multiple distinct magnetic poles on a single surface, and these multiple magnetic poles can be arranged to form a pattern of north and south poles. Moreover, a single unitary component having multiple magnetic domains can be programmed or reprogrammed by applying an electromagnetic pulse to one or more magnetic poles to form (or change) the magnetized surface pattern. Depending on the size, polarity, and the strength of the electromagnetic pulse, the size and polarity of the magnetic domains can be changed. Thus, the pattern of magnetization can be changed.  Likewise, the magnets of Gustafsson are NOT contrary to the principle of operation of Descheemaeker. One of ordinary skill in the art would easily have recognized in concept, that the use of Gustafsson’s programmable magnets, for example, having multiple magnetic domains being programmed or reprogrammed by applying an electromagnetic pulse to one or more magnetic poles to form or change the magnetized surface pattern via providing the electromagnetic pulses via the same remote control means of the protective cover, as described in Descheemaeker, would indeed still be possible to selectively turn the magnetic field on and off to deploy and retract the cover. Examiner maintains the rejection as previously put forth and suggests that Applicant further narrow the claim(s) to better describe Applicant’s invention.
[End of Arguments].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Cleveland (U.S. Patent 8,405,479), teaches a magnet structure for use in an airplane, vehicle etc. being provided to include a first layer of magnets including a first pole magnet and a plurality of first magnets that are positioned about the first pole magnet. The plurality of first magnets are oriented to have respective magnetic fields directed inward relative to the first pole magnet. The magnet structure may also include a second layer of magnets including a second pole magnet and a plurality of second magnets positioned about the second pole magnet and oriented such that the plurality of second magnets have respective magnetic fields directed outward relative to the second pole magnet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.  Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  See MPEP § 706.07(a).  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20200039662A1: Claims:
A protective cover for the protection of an aircraft comprising a fuselage and two wings, the protective cover comprising: an anchoring system configured for fixing the protective cover to the aircraft, for each wing, a tarpaulin integral with the anchoring system and having a retracted position in which the tarpaulin is gathered up and a deployed position in which the tarpaulin is spread over the wing, for each tarpaulin, a deployment device provided for making the tarpaulin move from the retracted position to the deployed position, for each tarpaulin, at least one electromagnet fixed to the face of the tarpaulin which comes against the wing, where each electromagnet has a deactivated state in which the electromagnet does not produce any magnetic force and an activated state in which the electromagnet produces a magnetic field, a remote control, and a control system comprising a control unit in communication with the remote control, wherein, when the control unit receives activation information from the remote control, the control unit is configured for controlling the deployment device, in order to make the tarpaulin move from the retracted position to the deployed position, then for activating each electromagnet in order to make the electromagnet change from the deactivated state to the activated state and wherein, when the control unit receives deactivation information from the remote control, the control unit is configured for deactivating each electromagnet in order to make the electromagnet change from the activated state to the deactivated state.
an anchoring system configured for fixing the protective cover to the aircraft,
for each wing, a tarpaulin integral with the anchoring system and having a retracted position in which the tarpaulin is gathered up and a deployed position in which the tarpaulin is spread over the wing,
for each tarpaulin, a deployment device provided for making the tarpaulin move from the retracted position to the deployed position,
for each tarpaulin, at least one electromagnet fixed to the face of the tarpaulin which comes against the wing, where each electromagnet has a deactivated state in which the electromagnet does not produce any magnetic force and an activated state in which the electromagnet produces a magnetic field,
a remote control, and
a control system comprising a control unit in communication with the remote control,
wherein, when the control unit receives activation information from the remote control, the control unit is configured for controlling the deployment device, in order to make the tarpaulin move from the retracted position to the deployed position, then for activating each electromagnet in order to make the electromagnet change from the deactivated state to the activated state and
wherein, when the control unit receives deactivation information from the remote control, the control unit is configured for deactivating each electromagnet in order to make the electromagnet change from the activated state to the deactivated state.
The protective cover according to claim 1 , wherein the control system comprises a radio module, and wherein the communication between the remote control and the control system is a radio communication between the radio module and the remote control.
The protective cover according to claim 1 , wherein the communication between the remote control and the control system is a wired communication.
The protective cover according to claim 1 , wherein the anchoring system is a cylindrical-arc-shaped mattress.
The protective cover according to claim 1 , wherein the tarpaulin comprises at least one inflatable tube extending along the tarpaulin and wherein the deployment device comprises a system for inflating the inflatable tube.
The protective cover according to claim 1 , wherein the tarpaulin comprises a frame made of leaf spring configured to unfold automatically as soon as the leaf spring is released, and wherein the deployment device comprises a locking system configured to keep the tarpaulin in the retracted position and configured to be unlocked when instructed by the control unit.
The protective cover according to claim 1 , wherein, in the retracted position, the tarpaulin is rolled up upon itself, and wherein the deployment device comprises a locking system configured to keep the tarpaulin in the retracted position and configured to be unlocked when instructed by the control unit.
Ref US20170251313A1: Claims:
A bone conduction hearing prosthesis comprising a vibration actuator and a magnetic coupling assembly connected to the vibration actuator, wherein the magnetic coupling assembly comprises an engagement surface having a plurality of exposed poles, including both a north pole and a south pole, that is configured to secure the bone conduction hearing prosthesis to a percutaneous abutment and transfer vibrations from the vibration actuator to bone of a recipient to cause a hearing percept.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 1 , wherein the actuator includes an output shaft, the magnetic coupling assembly is disposed on an end of the output shaft, and the magnetic coupling assembly terminates in the engagement surface at a position furthest from the actuator.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 2 , wherein the engagement surface comprises a plurality of north poles and a plurality of south poles disposed symmetrically about a longitudinal axis of the output shaft.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 1 , wherein the engagement surface comprises at least three distinct magnetic poles.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 1 , further comprising: a percutaneous abutment configured to be secured to bone with a securement element disposed at a first end of the abutment; and an abutment magnetic engagement surface disposed at a second end of the abutment opposite the first end, wherein the abutment magnetic engagement surface includes a plurality of exposed poles, including both a north pole and a south pole, and wherein the abutment magnetic engagement surface is configured to magnetically engage with the engagement surface of the magnetic coupling assembly.
a percutaneous abutment configured to be secured to bone with a securement element disposed at a first end of the abutment; and
an abutment magnetic engagement surface disposed at a second end of the abutment opposite the first end,
wherein the abutment magnetic engagement surface includes a plurality of exposed poles, including both a north pole and a south pole, and wherein the abutment magnetic engagement surface is configured to magnetically engage with the engagement surface of the magnetic coupling assembly.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 5 , wherein the engagement surface of the magnetic coupling assembly is configured to sit flush against the abutment magnetic engagement surface with no overlap between the percutaneous abutment and the magnetic coupling assembly.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 1 , further comprising an actuator shaft defining a shaft axis, wherein the plurality of exposed poles are disposed on the engagement surface so as to enable magnetic engagement between the engagement surface and an abutment magnetic engagement surface at a plurality of discrete positions about the shaft axis.
The bone conduction hearing prosthesis of claim 1 , wherein the magnetic coupling assembly is configured to support the full weight of the bone conduction hearing prosthesis when the bone conduction hearing prosthesis is worn by a recipient.
An apparatus comprising a wearable prosthesis having a housing defining an input port and a magnetic engagement surface configured to secure the wearable prosthesis to a percutaneous abutment, wherein the magnetic engagement surface defines a pattern of exposed magnetic poles that are engageable with a reciprocal magnetic engagement surface of the percutaneous abutment such that the input port is positionable only in select positions relative to the percutaneous abutment.
wherein the magnetic engagement surface defines a pattern of exposed magnetic poles that are engageable with a reciprocal magnetic engagement surface of the percutaneous abutment such that the input port is positionable only in select positions relative to the percutaneous abutment.
The apparatus of claim 9 , wherein the percutaneous abutment is configured to be secured to bone with a securement element disposed at a first end of the abutment, the reciprocal magnetic engagement surface of the percutaneous abutment disposed at a second end of the abutment opposite the first end, wherein the reciprocal engagement surface includes a plurality of exposed poles arranged reciprocally to the pattern of exposed poles on the magnetic engagement surface of the wearable prosthesis.
wherein the reciprocal engagement surface includes a plurality of exposed poles arranged reciprocally to the pattern of exposed poles on the magnetic engagement surface of the wearable prosthesis.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the percutaneous abutment includes a bone screw and the bone screw is configured to be secured to the skull of a recipient.
The apparatus of claim 10 , wherein the plurality of exposed poles of the reciprocal magnetic engagement surface define a mirror image of the pattern of exposed poles of the magnetic engagement surface of the housing.
The apparatus of claim 9 , wherein the exposed poles are arranged in one of a grid pattern, a pie pattern or an irregular pattern.
The apparatus of claim 9 , wherein the wearable prosthesis is configured to be worn on the head of a recipient, and wherein the pattern of the exposed poles restricts positioning of the input port to a single direction relative to the recipient's skull.
The apparatus of claim 9 , further comprising a magnetic sensor disposed in the housing, wherein the magnetic sensor is configured to detect a magnetic field generated by magnetic engagement of the magnetic engagement surface and the reciprocal magnetic engagement surface.
The apparatus of claim 9 , wherein the input port comprises at least one of a microphone and a connector port.
A wearable prosthesis comprising a housing with electrical components disposed therein and a magnetic assembly configured to secure the housing to a recipient, wherein the magnetic assembly comprises a surface with at least three exposed poles, wherein the exposed poles include both a north pole and a south pole.
The wearable prosthesis of claim 17 , wherein the at least three exposed poles are arranged in a regular pattern.
The wearable prosthesis of claim 17 , wherein the at least three exposed poles are separated from each other by a non-magnetic material.
The wearable prosthesis of claim 17 , wherein the magnetic assembly comprises a plurality of north poles and a plurality of south poles, and the magnetic assembly is configured to support the full weight of the wearable prosthesis when the wearable prosthesis is worn by a recipient.
Ref US20190300199A1: Claims:
A cover detection system, comprising: an engine having moving parts and defining a fluid opening, wherein the fluid opening exposes the moving parts to an ambient environment; a first sensor component proximate to the engine; an engine cover assembly comprising: an engine cover configured to cover the fluid opening; and a second sensor component attached to the engine cover and configured to interact with the first sensor component; and a controller configured to determine whether the engine cover is installed on the engine based on an interaction between the first sensor component and the second sensor component.
an engine having moving parts and defining a fluid opening, wherein the fluid opening exposes the moving parts to an ambient environment;
a first sensor component proximate to the engine;
an engine cover assembly comprising: an engine cover configured to cover the fluid opening; and a second sensor component attached to the engine cover and configured to interact with the first sensor component; and
an engine cover configured to cover the fluid opening; and
a second sensor component attached to the engine cover and configured to interact with the first sensor component; and
a controller configured to determine whether the engine cover is installed on the engine based on an interaction between the first sensor component and the second sensor component.
The cover detection system of claim 1 , wherein the second sensor component is configured to generate a sensor signal indicating the interaction between the first sensor component and the second sensor component, and wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the engine cover is installed based on the sensor signal.
The cover detection system of claim 2 , further comprising a display, and wherein the controller is further configured to indicate on the display that the cover is installed in response to receiving an engine start input while the sensor signal indicates that the cover is installed.
The cover detection system of claim 2 , further comprising a flight status sensor configured to indicate whether an aircraft is in flight, and wherein the controller is further configured to inhibit an engine start of the engine in response to receipt of an engine start input while the flight status sensor indicates that the aircraft is not in flight and the sensor signal indicates that the cover is installed.
The cover detection system of claim 4 , wherein the controller is further configured to start the engine in response to receipt of the engine start input while the flight status sensor indicates that the aircraft is in flight.
The cover detection system of claim 5 , wherein the controller is further configured to indicate a potential malfunction of the second sensor component in response to the sensor signal indicating that the cover is installed while the aircraft is in flight.
The cover detection system of claim 1 , wherein the fluid opening is an air intake.
The cover detection system of claim 1 , wherein the engine cover is a plug.
The cover detection system of claim 1 , wherein the second sensor component is configured to interact with the first sensor component by detecting a presence of the first sensor component.
The cover detection system of claim 9 , wherein the second sensor component is a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag and the first sensor component is an RFID tag reader.
The cover detection system of claim 9 , wherein the second sensor component is a magnet and the first sensor component is a magnetic detector.
The cover detection system of claim 9 , wherein the second sensor component is a pin and the first sensor component is a switch.
A controller, comprising: a processor; and a memory unit operatively coupled with the processor, the memory unit having instructions, the instructions and the processor cooperating to configure the controller to: determine whether an engine cover is installed on a fluid opening of an engine of an aircraft based on an interaction between a first sensor component associated with the aircraft and a second sensor component associated with the engine cover.
a processor; and
a memory unit operatively coupled with the processor, the memory unit having instructions, the instructions and the processor cooperating to configure the controller to: determine whether an engine cover is installed on a fluid opening of an engine of an aircraft based on an interaction between a first sensor component associated with the aircraft and a second sensor component associated with the engine cover.
determine whether an engine cover is installed on a fluid opening of an engine of an aircraft based on an interaction between a first sensor component associated with the aircraft and a second sensor component associated with the engine cover.
The controller of claim 13 , wherein the controller is further configured to cause a display to indicate that the engine cover is installed in response to receiving an engine start input while the interaction indicates that the engine cover is installed.
The controller of claim 13 , wherein the controller is further configured to inhibit an engine start of the engine in response to receipt of an engine start input while a flight status sensor indicates that the aircraft is not in flight and the interaction indicates that the engine cover is installed.
The controller of claim 13 , wherein the controller is further configured to start the engine in response to receipt of an engine start input while the interaction indicates that the aircraft is in flight.
The controller of claim 13 , wherein the controller is further configured to indicate a potential malfunction of the second sensor component in response to the interaction indicating that the engine cover is installed while the aircraft is in flight.
The controller of claim 13 , wherein the controller further configured to read a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag as the second sensor component using an RFID tag reader as the first sensor component.
The controller of claim 13 , wherein the controller is further configured to detect a magnet as the second sensor component using a magnetic detector as the first sensor component.
An aircraft, comprising: an engine having moving parts and defining a fluid opening, wherein the fluid opening exposes the moving parts to an ambient environment; a first sensor component proximate to the engine; and a controller configured to determine whether an engine cover is installed on the fluid opening of the engine based on an interaction between the first sensor component a second sensor component associated with the engine cover.
a first sensor component proximate to the engine; and
a controller configured to determine whether an engine cover is installed on the fluid opening of the engine based on an interaction between the first sensor component a second sensor component associated with the engine cover.
Ref US20070094763A1: Claims:
An article of fire resistant safety outerwear comprising a main body piece adapted to receive in encompassing relation at least a portion of the body of a wearer in use, wherein the main body piece comprises a garment wall that defines an inside wall portion and an outside wall portion, with said inside wall portion being adapted to present a substantially smooth surface to the body of the wearer in use, and with said outside wall portion being adapted for substantially constant exposure to environmental conditions and to provide the wearer with protection against abrasion during normal activity selected from the group consisting of working activity and athletic activity; with said garment wall being formed at least in part from a vent portion, such that at least a portion of each of said inside wall portion and said outside wall portion of said garment wall is defined by said vent portion; with said vent portion being constructed solely from at least one layer of a mesh material, with said vent portion being safety-rated with a flame resistant rating that qualifies said vent portion for flame resistant use in hazardous environments, and with said mesh material operatively having a substantially open texture for high breathability.
An article according to claim 1 , wherein a substantial entirety of said garment wall is formed from said vent portion.
An article according to claim 1 , wherein said mesh material is constructed at least in part from a synthetic flame resistant material.
An article according to claim 3 , wherein said synthetic flame resistant material comprises a synthetic flame resistant fiber that is characterized by low stiffness and high elongation, so as to provide textile-like characteristics, and so as to enable processing of said fiber on conventional textile equipment.
An article according to claim 3 , wherein said synthetic flame resistan
[Truncated to input limit]