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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
This Action is responsive to the RCE filed 17 November 2025. Claims 1, 6-9, and 11-26 are pending. Claims 2-5 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 11 have been written in independent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the plurality of gear wells is configured to contain pressure within the payload cabin” in lines 1-2. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least an unpressurized gear well of the plurality of gear wells comprises a gear well volume located within the payload cabin, wherein the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin and wherein the at least an unpressurized gear well forms a portion of the pressure vessel” in lines 12-16. This limitation in claim 8 is vague and indefinite when read into claim 1 from which it depends. It is not clear how an unpressurized gear well comprises a gear well volume within the payload cabin in lines 12-13 in claim 1, can also contain pressure within the payload cabin in line 2 in claim 8. How is this possible? How can the gear well be unpressurized and pressurized at the same time? For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the plurality of gear wells is configured to contain pressure within the payload cabin” in lines 1-2. Claim 16 depends from claim 11. Claim 11 recites the limitation “a plurality of gear wells with at least an unpressurized gear well of the plurality of gear wells comprising a gear well volume located within the payload cabin, wherein the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin and wherein the at least an unpressurized gear well forms a portion of the pressure vessel” in lines 7-11. This limitation in claim 16 is vague and indefinite when read into claim 11 from which it depends. It is not clear how an unpressurized gear well comprises a gear well volume within the payload cabin in lines 7-8 in claim 16, can also contain pressure within the payload cabin in line 2 in claim 16. How is this possible? How can the gear well be unpressurized and pressurized at the same time? For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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(s) 1, 6-9, 11-18, and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Page, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0001999 A1 (hereinafter called Page), and further in view of Murray et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210031903 A1 (hereinafter called Murray), and further in view of Davis, U.S. Patent 5,060,886 A (hereinafter called Davis), and further in view of Tafoya, U.S. Patent 7618005 B1 (hereinafter called Tafoya).
Regarding claim 1, Page teaches an aircraft with stowed landing gear within a cabin, the aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body (See e.g., FIG. 1A-1B; ¶ [0028]), wherein the blended wing body comprises:
a single deck (See e.g., FIG. 1B, where the floor of the passenger compartment upon which the seats are shown located teaches a single deck);
an exterior surface (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B the outer/outside/exterior surface of the aircraft), the exterior surface comprising an underbody portion (See e.g., FIG. 1B the outside/exterior bottom most surface of the aircraft); and
a payload cabin (See e.g. FIGS. 1A-1B element 125, where, the passenger compartment 125 teaches a payload cabin) contained within a pressure vessel (See e.g., ¶ [0105]) and containing a payload volume located above the single deck (See e.g. FIGS. 1A-1B, where, the entirety of the space inside of the passenger compartment above the floor teaches a payload volume located above the single deck);
a plurality of gear wells (See e.g., FIG. 1A, where the rectangular boxes inside which dotted-lined elements 105a and 105b, main and nose landing gear, respectively reside teach a plurality of gear wells), wherein:
each gear well of the plurality of gear wells includes an opening in the exterior surface and disposed on the underbody portion of the blended wing body (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B, where solid elements 105a and 105b shown in the extended position underneath the bottom side of the blended wing body, teach each gear well of the plurality of gear wells includes an opening in the exterior surface and disposed on the underbody portion of the blended wing body); and
at least a gear well of the plurality of gear wells comprises a gear well volume located within the payload cabin (See e.g., FIG. 1A, where the space inside of the rectangular boxes shown inside the passenger compartment 125, i.e., the payload cabin teaches at least a gear well comprises a gear well volume located within the payload cabin), and wherein the at least a gear well forms a portion of the pressure vessel (See e.g., ¶ [0105]).
a plurality of landing gears (See e.g., FIG. 1A elements 105a & 105b) comprising at least a nose gear (See e.g., FIG. 1A element 105b) and a main gear (See e.g., FIG. 1A element 105a) disposed at the plurality of gear wells, wherein;
each landing gear of the plurality of landing gears has a proximal end located within a gear well volume and a distal end (See e.g., FIG. 1A unlabeled dotted-lined elements 105a and 105b, where the wheels on the ends of the dotted-lined unlabeled elements 105a and 105b teach a distal end, and the end of the strut on which the wheels are attached teach a proximal end located within a gear well volume);
each landing gear has at least a wheel removably attached at the distal end (See e.g., FIG. 1A the wheels on elements 105a);
each landing gear is movable between a deployed position in which the at least a wheel is outside of the at least a gear well and a retracted position in which the at least a wheel is inside of the at least a gear well (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B elements 105a & 105b solid and unlabeled);
wherein the plurality of landing gears are in a tricycle formation (See e.g., FIG. 1A elements 105b, 105a, & 105a), wherein:
the main gear is located at an aft end of a fuselage of the aircraft (See e.g., FIG. 1A elements 105a, 125-fuselage; ¶ [0003]);
in the retracted position, at least a landing gear of the plurality of landing gears extends above the single deck into the payload cabin and is not entirely below the single deck (See e.g., FIG. 1B unlabeled dotted-lined element 105a); and
at least a sensor (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B & 9 elements 935, 940; ¶s [0013], [0064], & [0069]) is connected to the plurality of landing gears and is configured to detect the deployed position and the retracted position of the at least a wheel, wherein the at least a sensor comprises a proximity sensor (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B & 9 elements 935, 940; ¶s [0013], [0064], & [0069], where ¶ [0013] discloses that FIGS. 1A and 1B are showing the landing gear in a convention location, and not that the blended wing aircraft in FIGS. 1A and 1B is prior art; and because FIG. 9 is teaching that the position sensors 935 and 940 can comprise, for example, proximity sensors, these landing gear sensors 935 and 940 apply to FIGS. 1A and 1B, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation).
But Page does not teach an unpressurized gear well nor the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin.
However, Murray teaches an unpressurized gear well (See e.g., ¶ [0044]) and the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin (See e.g., FIG. 6 elements 106, 116, 194; ¶ [0068], where element 106, i.e., passenger compartment, teaches an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin, and element 194, i.e., wheel well assembly, teaches the gear well volume, and that portions of element 116, i.e., floor panels, is removed to access a portion of the wheel well assembly 194 through the floor panel support, together with the instant recitation, in their entirety teach the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page and Murray before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft of Page to incorporate an unpressurized gear well and the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin, as taught in the analogous art of Murray. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of beneficially improving aerodynamic performance characteristics of the aircraft, reducing the weight of the aircraft, reducing assembly time and cost of the aircraft, reducing recurring costs associated with inspection and maintenance of the aircraft, and improving access to areas around the nose landing gear bay, as suggested by Murray (See e.g., ¶ [0044]).
And neither Page nor Murray teaches each landing gear of the plurality of landing gears is connected using a longitudinal member coupled, using a main linkage, to a lateral shaft.
However, Davis teaches each landing gear of the plurality of landing gears is connected using a longitudinal member (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 26, 30, 34, 32, 36, 16, 18, where elements 16 and 18, i.e., a longitudinal member for each plurality of landing gears 30 & 34 and 32 & 36, respectively) coupled, using a main linkage (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 38; column 2 lines 63-66; column 3 lines 22-23, where standard fittings and a connection bracket 38 teach a main linkage), to a lateral shaft (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 22, where elements 38, i.e., a main linkage connects elements 16 and 18, i.e., a longitudinal member for each plurality of landing gears 30 & 34 and 32 & 36, respectively, to element 22, i.e., a lateral shaft, therefore the references in their entirety teach each landing gear of the plurality of landing gears is connected using a longitudinal member coupled, using a main linkage, to a lateral shaft).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page, Murray, and Davis before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft of the combined invention of Page and Murray to incorporate each landing gear of the plurality of landing gears is connected using a longitudinal member coupled, using a main linkage, to a lateral shaft, as taught in the analogous art of Davis. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of having longitudinal tubes to act as energy absorbers for vertical loads during landing and also act to stabilize the landing gear in the presence of wheel drag loads during flight, as suggested by Davis (See e.g., column 1 lines 60-63).
And, although Page discloses a nose gear located ahead of a center of gravity of the aircraft (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-2B), and the system can comprise one or more nose gear (See e.g., ¶ [0031]), neither Page, Murray, nor Davis teaches the nose gear comprises two gears located ahead of a center of gravity of the aircraft, in a longitudinally aligned arrangement.
However, Tafoya teaches the nose gear comprises two gears located ahead of a center of the aircraft, in a longitudinally aligned arrangement (See e.g., FIGS. 10 & 11 element 44).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft of the combined invention of Page, Murray, and Davis to incorporate the nose gear comprises two gears located ahead of a center of gravity of the aircraft, in a longitudinally aligned arrangement, as taught in the analogous art of Tafoya. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result to bear the load of the aircraft during ground operations, provide traction, and ensure smooth and safe takeoffs and landings.
Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya fail to teach the tricycle formation provides a range of deck angles in a tail-down position ranging from +3° to +8°. The Office takes Official Notice that a range of deck angles in the tail-down position ranging from +3° to +8° is old and well known in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise a range of deck angles in the tail-down position ranging from +3° to +8° as it would have achieved the predictable result of a main gear touchdown angle of attack sufficiently low to avoid scraping the tail of the aircraft, optimize lift, minimize drag, and reduce susceptibility to stalls. Examiner’s notes that the Office’s Official Notice that the well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Office’s assertion of Official Notice. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Regarding claim 6 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the payload volume and a cabin floor (Page See e.g., FIG. 1B, where the floor upon which the seats are located teaches a cabin floor), form a contiguous wall (Page See e.g., FIG. 1B, where the entirety of the space inside of the passenger compartment 125, i.e., payload cabin and the cabin floor teach the payload volume and a cabin floor, form a contiguous wall).
Regarding claim 7 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the plurality of gear wells protrudes into the payload volume within the payload cabin (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A the rectangular boxes inside the passenger compartment, i.e., the payload cabin, inside which unlabeled elements 105a and 105b, main and nose landing gear, respectively, reside).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the plurality of gear wells is configured to contain pressure within the payload cabin (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A, the rectangular boxes inside which unlabeled dotted-line elements 105a and 105b reside).
Regarding claim 9 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear is stored within a nose gear well located aft of a cockpit (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A, the rectangular box inside which unlabeled dotted-line elements 105b resides).
Regarding claim 11 Page teaches a method for manufacturing landing gear stored within a cabin of an aircraft, the method comprising:
receiving a blended wing body (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B; ¶ [0028]), wherein the blended wing body comprises:
a single deck (See e.g., FIG. 1B, where the floor of the passenger compartment upon which the seats are shown located teaches a single deck);
a payload cabin (See e.g. FIGS. 1A-1B element 125, where, the passenger compartment 125 teaches a payload cabin) contained within a pressure vessel (See e.g., ¶ [0105]) and containing a payload volume located above the single deck (See e.g. FIGS. 1A-1B element 125, where, the entirety of the space inside of the passenger compartment above the floor teaches a payload volume located above the single deck); and
a plurality of gear wells (See e.g., FIG. 1A, where the rectangular boxes inside which dotted-lined elements 105a and 105b, main and nose landing gear, respectively reside teach a plurality of gear wells) with at least a gear well of the plurality of gear wells comprising a gear well volume located within the payload cabin (See e.g., FIG. 1A element 125, where the space inside of the rectangular boxes that reside inside the passenger compartment 125, i.e., the payload cabin teaches at least a gear well comprising a gear well volume located within the payload cabin), and wherein the at least a gear well forms a portion of the pressure vessel (See e.g., ¶ [0105]).
receiving a plurality of landing gears (See e.g., FIG. 1A elements 105a and 105b) comprising at least a nose gear (See e.g., FIG. 1A element 105b) and a main gear (See e.g., FIG. 1A element 105a)
mounting each of the plurality of landing gears within each of the plurality of gear wells on the blended wing body (See e.g., FIG. 1A unlabeled dotted-lined elements 105a & 105b and the rectangular boxes inside which unlabeled dotted-lined elements 105a & 105b reside) wherein the plurality of landing gears are in a tricycle formation (See e.g., FIG. 1A elements 105b, 105a, & 105a), wherein:
the main gear is located at an aft end of a fuselage of the aircraft (See e.g., FIG. 1A elements 105a, 125-fuselage; ¶ [0003]);
connecting at least a sensor (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B & 9 elements 935, 940; ¶s [0013], [0064], & [0069]) to the plurality of landing gears, wherein the at least a sensor is configured to detect a deployed position and a retracted position of at least a wheel (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B the wheels on elements 105a and 105b) of each landing gear of the plurality of landing gears, wherein the at least a sensor comprises a proximity sensor (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B & 9 elements 935, 940; ¶s [0013], [0064], & [0069], where ¶ [0013] discloses that FIGS. 1A and 1B are showing the landing gear in a convention location, and not that the blended wing aircraft in FIGS. 1A and 1B is prior art; and because FIG. 9 is teaching that the position sensors 935 and 940 can comprise, for example, proximity sensors, these landing gear sensors 935 and 940 apply to FIGS. 1A and 1B, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation), wherein:
in the retracted position, at least a landing gear of the plurality of landing gears extends above the single deck into the payload cabin and is not entirely below the single deck (See e.g., FIG. 1B unlabeled dotted-lined element 105a).
But Page does not teach an unpressurized gear well nor the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin.
However, Murray teaches an unpressurized gear well (See e.g., ¶ [0044]) and the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin (See e.g., FIG. 6 elements 106, 116, 194; ¶ [0068], where element 106, i.e., passenger compartment, teaches an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin, and element 194, i.e., wheel well assembly, teaches the gear well volume, and that portions of element 116, i.e., floor panels, is removed to access a portion of the wheel well assembly 194 through the floor panel support, together with the instant recitation, in their entirety teach the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page and Murray before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Page to incorporate an unpressurized gear well and the gear well volume is inspectable from within an interior of the payload volume of the payload cabin, as taught in the analogous art of Murray. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of beneficially improving aerodynamic performance characteristics of the aircraft, reducing the weight of the aircraft, reducing assembly time and cost of the aircraft, reducing recurring costs associated with inspection and maintenance of the aircraft, and improving access to areas around the nose landing gear bay, as suggested by Murray (See e.g., ¶ [0044]).
And neither Page nor Murray teaches at least a nose gear and a main gear connected using a longitudinal member coupled, using a main linkage, to a lateral shaft.
However, Davis teaches at least a nose gear (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 26) and a main gear (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 30, 34 & 32, 36) connected using a longitudinal member (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 16, 18) coupled, using a main linkage (See e.g., FIG. 3 element 38; column 2 lines 63-66; column 3 lines 22-23, where standard fittings and a connection bracket 38 teach a main linkage), to a lateral shaft (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 22, where elements 38, i.e., a main linkage connects elements 16 and 18, i.e., a longitudinal member for each landing gears 30 & 34 and 32 & 36, respectively, to element 22, i.e., a lateral shaft, therefore the references in their entirety teach at least a nose gear and a main gear connected using a longitudinal member coupled, using a main linkage, to a lateral shaft).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page, Murray, and Davis before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combined invention of Page and Murray to incorporate at least a nose gear and a main gear connected using a longitudinal member coupled, using a main linkage, to a lateral shaft, as taught in the analogous art of Davis. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of having longitudinal tubes to act as energy absorbers for vertical loads during landing and also act to stabilize the landing gear in the presence of wheel drag loads during flight, as suggested by Davis (See e.g., column 1 lines 60-63).
And, although Page discloses a nose gear located ahead of a center of gravity of the aircraft (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-2B), and the system can comprise one or more nose gear (See e.g., ¶ [0031]), neither Page, Murray, nor Davis teaches the nose gear comprises two gears located ahead of a center of gravity of the aircraft, in a longitudinally aligned arrangement.
However, Tafoya teaches the nose gear comprises two gears located ahead of a center of the aircraft, in a longitudinally aligned arrangement (See e.g., FIGS. 10 & 11 element 44).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combined invention of Page, Murray, and Davis to incorporate the nose gear comprises two gears located ahead of a center of gravity of the aircraft, in a longitudinally aligned arrangement, as taught in the analogous art of Tafoya. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result to bear the load of the aircraft during ground operations, provide traction, and ensure smooth and safe takeoffs and landings.
Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya fail to teach the triangle formation provides a range of deck angles in a tail-down position ranging from +3° to +8°. The Office takes Official Notice that a range of deck angles in the tail-down position ranging from +3° to +8° is old and well known in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise a range of deck angles in the tail-down position ranging from +3° to +8° as it would have achieved the predictable result of a main gear touchdown angle of attack sufficiently low to avoid scraping the tail of the aircraft, optimize lift, minimize drag, and reduce susceptibility to stalls. Examiner’s notes that the Office’s Official Notice that the well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Office’s assertion of Official Notice. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420
Regarding claim 12 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 11 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the plurality of gear wells stores the landing gear (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A, the rectangular boxes inside of which unlabeled dotted-line elements 105a and 105b, main and nose landing gear, respectively, reside).
Regarding claim 13 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 12 hereinabove, further teaches wherein:
the nose gear is at least connected to a nose linkage (Page See e.g., FIG. 1B unlabeled rectangular junction assembly that executes element 105b to deploy and retract); and
the main gear is at least connected to the main linkage (Page See e.g., FIG. 1B unlabeled rectangular junction assembly that executes element 105a to deploy and retract).
Regarding claim 14 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 13 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear is located within a nose gear well and the main gear is located within a main gear well (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A, unlabeled dotted-line elements 105a and 105b, i.e., nose and main gear, respectively, located inside the corresponding rectangular boxes, i.e., nose and main gear wells).
Regarding claim 15 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 11 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the at least a gear well occupies at least a portion of a payload volume (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A element 125, where the rectangular boxes that reside inside the space of the passenger compartment 125, i.e., the payload cabin teach at least a gear well occupies at least a portion of a payload volume).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 11 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the plurality of gear wells is configured to contain pressure within the payload cabin (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A, the rectangular boxes inside which unlabeled dotted-line elements 105a and 105b reside).
Regarding claim 17 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 13 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear is stored in a nose gear well located aft of a cockpit (Page See e.g., FIG. 1A, the rectangular box inside which unlabeled dotted-line elements 105b is located).
Regarding claim 18 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 13 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the main gear is stored in a main gear well located within the payload cabin (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B unlabeled dotted-lined element 105a).
Regarding claim 20 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 11 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the landing gear includes at least corresponding wheels (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1B the wheels on elements 105a and 105b).
Regarding claim 21 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element 105b) is located fore of a center of gravity of the aircraft (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element CG).
But neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya teaches the parameter for the nose gear being between 2% and 11% of a total weight of the aircraft is applied on the nose gear. The Office takes Official Notice that the parameter for the nose gear being between 2% and 11% of a total weight of the aircraft is applied on the nose gear is old and well-known design parameter in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise the parameter for the nose gear being between 2% and 11% of a total weight of the aircraft is applied on the nose gear as it would have achieved the predictable result of estimating the location of a center-of-gravity of an aircraft and a weight of the aircraft using deformities in the aircraft's structures (e.g., a nose gear, a main landing gear, or both) as opposed to manually being estimated by aircraft operators, and as a result, operational flexibility and payload capability are increased due to weight estimations and center-of-gravity location estimations that are more accurate than manual estimations with curtailments; thus, the maximum amount of weight that is permitted to be loaded onto the aircraft can be increased due curtailment reduction.
Regarding claim 22 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element 105b) is located a distance from a center of gravity of the aircraft (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element CG).
But neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya teaches the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 25% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft. The Office takes Official Notice that the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 25% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft is an old and well-known design parameter in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 25% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft as it would have achieved the predictable result of allowing a flight management processor to estimate the location of the center-of-gravity of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 23 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element 105b) is located a distance from a center of gravity of the aircraft (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element CG).
But neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya teaches the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 10% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft. The Office takes Official Notice that the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 10% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft is an old and well-known design parameter in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 10% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft as it would have achieved the predictable result of allowing a flight management processor to estimate the location of the center-of-gravity of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 24 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element 105b) is located fore of a center of gravity of the aircraft (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element CG).
But neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya teaches the parameter for the nose gear being between 2% and 11% of a total weight of the aircraft is applied on the nose gear. The Office takes Official Notice that the parameter for the nose gear being between 2% and 11% of a total weight of the aircraft is applied on the nose gear is old and well-known design parameter in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise the parameter for the nose gear being between 2% and 11% of a total weight of the aircraft is applied on the nose gear as it would have achieved the predictable result of estimating the location of a center-of-gravity of an aircraft and a weight of the aircraft using deformities in the aircraft's structures (e.g., a nose gear, a main landing gear, or both) as opposed to manually being estimated by aircraft operators, and as a result, operational flexibility and payload capability are increased due to weight estimations and center-of-gravity location estimations that are more accurate than manual estimations with curtailments; thus, the maximum amount of weight that is permitted to be loaded onto the aircraft can be increased due curtailment reduction.
Regarding claim 25 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element 105b) is located a distance from a center of gravity of the aircraft (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element CG).
But neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya teaches the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 25% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft. The Office takes Official Notice that the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 25% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft is an old and well-known design parameter in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 25% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft as it would have achieved the predictable result of allowing a flight management processor to estimate the location of the center-of-gravity of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 26 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the nose gear (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element 105b) is located a distance from a center of gravity of the aircraft (Page See e.g., FIGS. 1A & 1B element CG).
But neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya teaches the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 10% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft. The Office takes Official Notice that the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 10% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft is an old and well-known design parameter in the art. And, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combine invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to comprise the parameter for the nose gear is located a distance less than 10% of a length of the aircraft from a center of gravity of the aircraft as it would have achieved the predictable result of allowing a flight management processor to estimate the location of the center-of-gravity of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Page, and further in view of Murray, and further in view of Davis, and further in view of Tafoya, and further in view of CHITTICK et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0389581 A1 (hereinafter called CHITTICK).
Regarding claim 19 Page, as modified by Murray, Davis, and Tafoya in the rejection of claim 13 hereinabove, neither Page, Murray, Davis, nor Tafoya further teaches the nose gear and the main gear are located within a main body of the blended wing body.
However, CHITTICK teaches the nose gear and the main gear are located within a main body of the blended wing body (See e.g., FIG. 3; ¶ [0035]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Page, Murray, Davis, Tafoya, and CHITTICK before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the combined invention of Page, Murray, Davis, and Tafoya to incorporate the nose gear and the main gear are located within a main body of the blended wing body, as taught in the analogous art of CHITTICK. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of not disturbing an air flow circulating around the aircraft, as suggested in CHITTICK (See e.g., ¶ [0035]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
29 November 2025
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644