DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 9, 11 – 15, 17 – 22 and 24 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Airbus (US Pat Pub No.2011/0095136, hereinafter Airbus 136).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Airbus 136 shows a method of operating an aircraft in flight (See at least Para 0013 for aircraft operating method with control surface), an aircraft control system comprising a flight control processor configured to simultaneously command (See at least Para 0014 for at least two control surfaces deflected mirror symmetrical manner; also on Para 0004 for simultaneously deflected stabilizer):
deflecting a first empennage control surface (See at least Para 0014 for at least two control surfaces deflected mirror symmetrical manner)
to cause a first drag force and a first yawing moment or a first pitching moment on the aircraft (See at least Para 0002 for compensating negative pitching moment of the aircraft, intended use);
deflecting a second empennage control surface (See at least Para 0014 for at least two control surfaces deflected mirror symmetrical manner)
to cause a second drag force and a second yawing moment or a second pitching moment on the aircraft (See at least Para 0002 for compensating negative pitching moment of the aircraft, intended use),
at least one of: the first and second yawing moments destructively combine to generate a resultant yawing moment about a center of gravity of the aircraft that is less than one or both of the first and second yawing moments (See at least Para 0005 for speed brake yaw control ),
or the first and second pitching moments destructively combine to generate a resulting pitching moment about a center of gravity of the aircraft that is less than one or both of the first and second pitching moments (See at least Para 0004 for pitching moment control for ailerons and elevators, also on Para 0011 for pitching moment generation in the direction of vertical axis from the center of gravity of the aircraft; also para 0002 negative pitching moment compensate),
the first and second drag forces constructively combine to generate a resultant drag force on the aircraft (See at least Para 0011 for additional drag force for positive pitching moment).
Regrading claims 2 and 18, Airbus 163 shows at least one of the first and second yawing moments cancel to generate no net yaw moment on the aircraft or the first and second pitching moments cancel to generate no net pitching moment on the aircraft (See at least Para 0011 for positive pitching moment compensate the negative pitching moment, Para 0002, resulting balance of the force).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Airbus 163 shows the first empennage control surface is deflected a first degree (4See at least figure 2a for rudder 22 also on Para 0036),
the second empennage control surface is deflected a second degree (See at least figure 2a for rudder 24 also on Para 0036),
the first and second degrees are equal and opposite ( See at least figure 2a for rudder 22 and 24 also on Para 0013 and 0036).
Regarding claim 4 and 20, Airbus 163 shows the deflecting of the first and second empennage control surfaces takes place during a landing operation of the aircraft (See at least Para 0007 for vertical stabilizer during landing) such that the resultant drag force at least partially reduces a groundspeed of the aircraft to a touchdown speed (See at least Para 0005 for speed brake; Intended Use).
Regarding claim 5, Airbus 163 the deflecting of the first and second empennage control surfaces takes place during the landing operation of the aircraft and after a touchdown operation (See at least Para 0007 for vertical stabilizer during landing) such that the resultant drag force at least partially reduces a groundspeed of the aircraft to at least one of a taxi speed or a stop.
Regarding claim 6, Airbus 163 shows the deflecting of the first and second empennage control surfaces takes place during at least one of: a rejected takeoff operation (See at least Para 0033 for shorten the take-off distance a)such that the resultant drag force at least partially reduces a groundspeed or airspeed of the aircraft (See at least Para 0033 for reduced speed. Intended Use).
Regarding claim 7, Airbus 163 shows the first and second empennage control surfaces are disposed approximately symmetrically about a longitudinal axis of the aircraft (See at least Para 0033 for two stabilizer spaced apart from longitudinal axis).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Airibus 163 shows the first empennage control surface comprises at least one right rudder and the second empennage control surface comprises at least one left rudder (See at least figure 2a for rudder 22 and 24 also on Para 0013 and 0036).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Airbus 163 shows the at least one right rudder comprises an upper right rudder and a lower right rudder (See at least figure 2b for upper rudder 32 and lower rudder 30), and the at least one left rudder comprises an upper left rudder and a lower left rudder (See at least figure 2b for upper rudder 26 and lower rudder 28).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Airbus 163 the upper and lower right rudders and the upper and lower left rudders form an H-configuration for an empennage of the aircraft (See at least figure 2a for left and right rudder both has upper lower movement forming H shape configuration).
Regarding claim 11, Airbus 163 the first empennage control surface comprises a first elevator (See at least figure 1a for elevator 18 on right hand side ), the second empennage control surface comprises a second elevator (See at least figure 1a for elevator 18 on left hand side).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Airbus 163 shows reducing an airspeed of the aircraft while conducting at least one of a yawing movement or a pitching movement by simultaneously controlling the respective resultant yawing moment or pitching movement and resultant drag force, the simultaneously controlling includes adjusting both of the first and second empennage control surfaces ( See at least Para 0005 for speed brake yaw control).
Regarding claim 13, Airbus 163 shows the reducing an airspeed of the aircraft while conducting at least one of a yawing movement or a pitching movement takes places during a landing operation of the aircraft (See at least Para 0033 for reduced speed; also on Para 0007 for landing operation).
Regarding claims 14 and 25, Airbus 163 shows deflecting a first aileron to cause a first additional drag force and a first rolling moment on the aircraft (See at least figure 1a for right high lift control surface 18 as first aileron change rolling moment for nose heavy moment caused by drag force);
deflecting a second aileron to cause a second additional drag force and a second rolling moment on the aircraft (See at least figure 1a for left high lift control surface 18 as first aileron change rolling moment for nose heavy moment caused by drag force),
the first and second rolling moments destructively combine to generate a resultant rolling moment about a center of gravity of the aircraft that is less than one or both of the first and second rolling moments (See at least Para 0033 for additional drag with high lift control surface 18 compensated with rudder segment along the center of gravity), and
the first and second additional drag forces constructively combine to generate a resultant drag force on the aircraft (See at least Para 0033 for additional drag with high lift control surface 18 compensated with rudder segment along the center of gravity).
Regarding claims 15 and 26, Airbus 163 shows the first and second rolling moments cancel to generate no net rolling moment on the aircraft (See at least Para 0033 for additional drag with high lift control surface 18 compensated with rudder segment along the center of gravity as tail heavy moment compensated nose heavy moment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No.2011/0095136, hereinafter Airbus 163 in view of US Pat Pub No.2020/0094939, hereinafter Boeing 939 .
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Airbus 163 shows the upper and lower right rudders and the upper and lower left rudders for an empennage of the aircraft (See at least figure 2a for left and right rudder both has upper lower movement forming H shape configuration); however, Airbus 163 does not further shows H configuration.
Boeing 939 further shows a H configuration of the tail (See at least Para 0052 for H-tail).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide H-configuration of aircraft tail of Boeing 939, for the Airbus 163,since H tail empennage is a known technique, discussed on Para 0052 as another prior art example embodiment, capable for stabilizer assembly reducing moment for yaw control, also desired and discussed by Airbus 163 of similar aircraft device, in order to improve and yield predictable result for aircraft of Airbus 163.
Claim Objection
Claims 16 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat Pub No. 2022/0388633, Blend Wing Aircraft.
US Pat Pub No. 2021/0380218 , ZSM.
US Pat Pub No. 2012/0237341, Simon.
US Pat Pub No. 2020/0150690, Galffy.
US Pat Pub No. 2022/0382300, Regent Craft.
US Pat No.5645250, Gevers.
US Pat No.4571157, Eickmann.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657