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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IX in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has elected Species IX (corresponding to fig. 9A) without traverse. Additionally, Applicant has withdrawn claim 22.
Applicant’s figures 3 and 4 demonstrate Applicant’s stated distinction between what Applicant refers to as “vent hole 322” throughout the disclosure and what Applicant refers to as “nozzle 410” throughout the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant states that “[i]n current aircraft systems, the hot air of the wing anti-ice system has no additional benefit beyond its anti-ice function before it is exhausted out the bottom of slat 130 via vent hole 322 into the external environment 370” (para. [0034]). By contrast, Applicant discloses nozzle 410 as being able to “increase lift and reduce drag for the wing.”
Applicant discloses that in Species I−VI and X (figs. 4−7B and 9B) the air emerges from a first “air duct 302” located inside the slat, where the air is then collected in a hollow space 320 before being accelerated through nozzle 410 disposed on skin 310 of the slat. Additionally, Applicant discloses that in Species VII−IX (figs. 7B−9A) there is a “second air duct 722” connected to a dedicated nozzle 410 such that air from the second air supply is ejected directly from this dedicated nozzle without entering hollow space 320 of the slat.
Applicant’s elected Species IX is shown below in figure 9A. The elected species features vent hole 322 on the bottom surface of the slat, in the arrangement described by Applicant as having “no additional benefit beyond its anti-ice function.” Additionally, Applicant’s elected species places the second air duct 722 and corresponding nozzle in the wing at leading edge 212, rather than in the slat itself, as compared to fig.7B. Notably, Applicant’s elected species does not feature air being collected in the hollow space of a skin structure before being accelerated through the nozzle.
PNG
media_image2.png
639
937
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Consequently, Applicant’s elected Species IX does not read upon claim 1, which requires “a hollow space within the skin structure; and a nozzle disposed on a surface of the skin structure to accelerate air collected in the hollow space into an external environment outside a slat.” As such, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2−4, 6, 9, and 21−26 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected Species.
Similarly, Species IX does not read upon dependent claim 13, which requires that “the nozzle is disposed on the slat to accelerate the air exhaust of the wing anti-ice system into the external environment.” Claim 13 is therefore also withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected Species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Pub. No. 2020/0148368 to Bensmann et al. (“Bensmann”) in view of either US Pre-Grant Pub. No. 2020/0079499 to Shmilovich or Applicant’s admitted prior art from Applicant’s Appeal Brief dated 20 July 2024.
Regarding claim 12, Bensmann teaches an aircraft 52 comprising:
a wing 54 including a leading edge (fig. 7); and
a slat 12 mounted at the leading edge of the wing, the slat having a skin (16 and 35) enclosing a hollow space (20 and 22), wherein at least one of the wing and the slat includes a nozzle (openings 36) on an external surface 35 thereof (figs. 1−2) to accelerate air collected inside the at least one of the wing and the slat to an external environment of the aircraft (para. [0043]) to increase lift and reduce drag for the wing (where Bensmann inherently performs in this manner since it is structurally identical to Applicant’s claimed invention, see MPEP 2114(I); see also Examiner’s Answer dated 2024 September 28 on pages 3-−6 and Patent Board Decision dated 23 October 2025 on pages 3−7 for additional discussion of Bensmann teaching these limitations), the nozzle having an inlet at a first side of the external surface and an outlet at a second side of the external surface opposite the first side (fig. 2), wherein the nozzle accelerates the air to flow between the slat and the wing (see arrows indicating flow in fig. 2).
Bensmann fails to disclose that the nozzle is either a convergent nozzle or a convergent/divergent nozzle. Shmilovich teaches a plurality of nozzles 44 disposed in a wall (the wall defined between inner surface 38 and outer surface 40), where the nozzles are convergent (Shmilovich para. [0026]). Additionally, Applicant states that: ‘The mere existence of “convergent” nozzles (or “convergent/divergent” nozzles), for which the examiner relies on Shmilovich-499, is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art and is readily acknowledged by Appellant’ (Appeal Brief dated 20 July 2024, page 10, mid-page).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to design the nozzles of Bensmann to be convergent nozzles or convergent/divergent nozzles as taught by Smilovich or Applicant, because convergent nozzles accelerate the velocity of the airflow at the exit opening, providing a more efficient system by increasing the magnitude of the nozzles’ effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 are moot since claim 1 is withdrawn from consideration.
Examiner has made a good faith effort to discern the substance of Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 12. It appears that Applicant’s arguments amount to a summary of claim limitations which were discussed previously in the Appeal proceedings (see Appeal Brief dated 20 July 2024, Examiner’s Answer dated 28 September 2024, Reply Brief dated 4 November 2024, and Patent Board Decision dated 23 October 2025), followed by an assertion that “[t]he alleged combination of Bensmann and Shmilovich '499 fails to teach or suggest the aircraft of claim 12.”
In response, Examiner notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the combination of Bensmann and Shmilovich does, in fact, teach an aircraft meeting all the limitations of Applicant’s current claim 12.
Examiner is bound by the Board’s ruling and would not possess the ability to contravene in Applicant’s favor even if Examiner agreed with Applicant’s position. If Applicant wishes to dispute the Board’s ruling, Applicant would need appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642