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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of wing element units”, “plurality of interconnected wing element edge pieces”, “wing link connector” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0005] recites “betweenthe” and should be replaced with “between the”, Para. [0047] recites “thewing” and should be replaced with “the wing”, Para. [0049], line 3 recites “elementleading” and should be replaced with “element leading”, Para. [0049], line 4 and 7-8 recite “elementmiddle” and should be replaced with “element middle”, Para. [0049], line 11 recites “elementleading” and should be replaced with “element leading”, and line 12 recites “elementtrailing” and should be replaced with “element trailing”, Para. [0055] recites “elementmiddle” and should be replaced with “element middle”, Para. [0056] recites “elementmiddle” and should be replaced with “element middle”, Para. [0056] recites “connector 210from” and should be replaced with “connector 210 from”, Para. [0057] recites “thewingmiddle” and should be replaced with “the wing middle”, Para. [0061], line 2 recites “thesliding” and should be replaced with “the sliding”, Para. [0061], line 3 recites “anda” and should be replaced with “and a”, and Para. [0065] recites “withthe” and should be replaced with “with the”.
Examiner notes review of the specification is required to make sure punctuation and grammar is
consistent with MPEP guidelines. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 recites “awing” and should be replaced with “a wing”;
Claim 2, line 4 recites “betweenthe” and should be replaced with “between the”;
Claim 3, line 3 recites “wingleading” and should be replaced with “wing leading”
Claim 4, line 2 recites “awing” and should be replaced with “a wing”;
Claim 6, line 3 recites “elementouter” and shoud be replaced with “element outer”, and line 4 recites “connectortelescopically” and should eb replaced with “connector telescopically”; and
Claim 7, line 3 recites “afirst” and should be replaced with “a first”, line 5 recites “asecond” and should be replaced with “a second”.
Examiner notes review of the Claims is required to make sure punctuation and grammar is consistent with MPEP guidelines. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 5 recites “the wing link connector in each of the wing element units” is indefinite, because according to fig. 4 of Applicant’s drawings, the wing line connector 110, 210, 310 is not “in” the wing element unit 21, 22, 23.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sliding ring" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sliding base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim 9 is indefinite, because it appears to depend on claim 8 and not claim 7.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Perez (US 2002/0100842 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Perez discloses a wing element structure (fig. 3), characterized by including a plurality of wing element units (plurality of spars 52, fig. 3), the adjacent wing element units being connected by an airfoil control unit (drive elements or actuators 62a, 62b; as shown in fig. 3 each spar 52 is connected by actuators 62a and 62b) and a wing element outer edge connector (upper wing skin 55a and lower wing skin 55b; 1as shown in figs. 3 & 4, the spar 52 is connected to the drive elements 62a, 62b and the upper and lower skin 55a, 55b), wherein each of the wing element units (plurality of spars 52, fig. 3) includes a plurality of interconnected wing element edge pieces (plurality of segments 12, 12a figs. 3, and 11-12) and a wing link connector (joint 67, fig. 3), and the wing link connector in each of the wing element units is correspondingly connected to a wing lever group (Para. [0038], “connection pieces 65 transmit the movement of joints 67 relative to each other, to the corresponding transmission elements in a lever-like manner; as shown in fig. 3, the joint 67 [i.e., the wing link connector] is connected to a connection piece 65 [wing lever group]) of an aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, Perez discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plurality of wing element units (plurality of spars 52, fig. 3) comprise a wing element leading edge unit (as shown in figs. 2 & 18, there is a spar 152 at the leading edge 11) and a wing element trailing edge unit (as shown in figs. 2 & 3, there is a spar 52 at the trailing edge 12), and at least one wing element middle unit is disposed between the wing element leading edge unit and the wing element trailing edge unit (as shown in fig. 2, there are a plurality of main spars, e.g., a first 21, a second 22, a third 23, and a fourth 24 main spar disposed between the leading edge unit and the trailing edge unit).
Regarding claim 3, Perez discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the wing element leading edge unit comprises a wing element leading edge arc piece (as shown in Annotated fig. 1 below, the spar 152 at the leading edge comprises an arc shaped end region 150), a first wing element edge piece (as set forth above in claim 1, the wing is made up of a plurality of segments; see first wing element edge piece in Annotated fig. 1 below), an eighth wing element edge piece (see eighth wing element edge piece in Annotated fig. 1 below), and a wing leading edge link connector (see joint 167 at the leading edge in Annotated fig. 1 below), first ends of the first wing element edge piece and of the eighth wing element edge piece are respectively connected with a first end and a second end of the wing element leading edge arc piece (as shown in Annotated fig. 1 below), and second ends of the first wing element edge piece and of the eighth wing element edge piece are respectively connected with a first rotary bearing and a sixth rotary bearing1 (Para. [0028], “[s]egment 12a is subdivided into spaces or wing-torsion boxes 53 by at least one spar 52, which sets first 55a and second 55b wing skins apart from each other, and is connected to them by first 52a and second 52b support points or connection points, respectively, which may include hinges or elastic joints. For each segment 12a, first wing skin 55a and second wing skin 55b are accordingly formed between two adjacent spars 52, from wing-skin segments 56a and 56b, which may be parts of a uniform wing skin, or also physically separate segments that make up the specific wing skin”; as shown in Annotated fig. 1 below and fig. 4, the second end of the first and eighth wing element edge piece are connected with a first and second support point or connections points 52a, 52b), the first rotary bearing (first 52a support point at the first wing element edge piece) and the sixth rotating bearing (second 52b support point at the second end of the eighth wing element edge piece) being connected through a first wing element unit support (one of the spars 52 at the leading edge, as shown in Annotated fig. 1 below) which passes through and is connected with the wing leading edge link connector (as shown in fig. 3, spar 52 is connected with joint 67 via drive elements 62a, 62b).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: Annotated image of Perez’s fig. 18
Regarding claim 4, Perez discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the wing element trailing edge unit comprises a wing element trailing edge wedge piece (see trailing edge end piece 77 in fig. 3), a fourth wing element edge piece (any one of the segments 12a on the upper portion of the trailing edge, as shown in Annotated fig. 2 below), a fifth wing element edge piece (any one of the segments 12a on the lower portion of the trailing edge, as shown in Annotated fig. 2 below) and a wing trailing edge link connector (see joint 167 at the trailing edge in fig. 3), first ends of the fourth wing element edge piece and of the fifth wing element edge piece are respectively connected with a first end and a second end of the wing element trailing edge wedge piece (as shown in Annotated fig. 2 below), and second ends of the fourth wing element edge piece and of the fifth wing element edge piece are respectively connected with a third rotary bearing and a fourth rotary bearing2 (Para. [0028], “[s]egment 12a is subdivided into spaces or wing-torsion boxes 53 by at least one spar 52, which sets first 55a and second 55b wing skins apart from each other, and is connected to them by first 52a and second 52b support points or connection points, respectively, which may include hinges or elastic joints. For each segment 12a, first wing skin 55a and second wing skin 55b are accordingly formed between two adjacent spars 52, from wing-skin segments 56a and 56b, which may be parts of a uniform wing skin, or also physically separate segments that make up the specific wing skin”; as shown in Annotated fig. 1 below and fig. 3, the second end of the fourth and fifth wing element edge piece are connected with a first and second support point or connections points 52a, 52b), the third rotary bearing (first 52a support point at the fourth wing element edge piece) and the fourth rotary bearing (second 52b support point a the fifth wing element edge piece) being connected through a third wing element unit support which passes through and is connected with the wing trailing edge link connector (as shown in fig. 3, spar 52 is connected with joint 67 via drive elements 62a, 62b).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2: Annotated image of Perez’s fig. 11
Regarding claim 5, Perez discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the wing element middle unit comprises a second wing element edge piece (as shown in fig. 11, the second wing element edge piece can be any one of segments 12a on the upper portion of the wing in the middle) a third wing element edge piece (as shown in fig. 11, the third wing element edge piece can be any one of segments 12a on the upper portion of the wing in the middle), a sixth wing element edge piece (as shown in fig. 11, the sixth wing element edge piece can be any one of segments 12a on the lower portion of the wing in the middle), a seventh wing element edge piece (as shown in fig. 11, the seventh wing element edge piece can be any one of segments 12a on the lower portion of the wing in the middle) and a wing middle link connector (see joint 167 at the wing middle, as shown in fig. 11), first ends of the second wing element edge piece and of the third wing element edge piece are connected through a second rotary bearing (Para. [0028], “[s]egment 12a is subdivided into spaces or wing-torsion boxes 53 by at least one spar 52, which sets first 55a and second 55b wing skins apart from each other, and is connected to them by first 52a and second 52b support points or connection points, respectively, which may include hinges or elastic joints. For each segment 12a, first wing skin 55a and second wing skin 55b are accordingly formed between two adjacent spars 52, from wing-skin segments 56a and 56b, which may be parts of a uniform wing skin, or also physically separate segments that make up the specific wing skin”; as shown in figs. 3, 4 & 11, the second and third wing element edge piece are connected through a first support point or connection points 52a [second rotary bearing]), and first ends of the sixth wing element edge piece and of the seventh wing element edge piece are connected through a fifth rotary bearing (see para. [0028] above; as shown in figs. 3, 4 & 11, the sixth and seventh wing element edge piece are connected through a second support point 52b [fifth rotary bearing]), the second rotary bearing and the fifth rotary bearing being connected through a second wing element unit support (as shown in fig. 4, the first and second support points 52a and 52b are connected through the spar 52) which passes through and is connected with the wing middle link connector (as shown in fig. 3, spar 52 is connected with joint 67 via drive elements 62a, 62b).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Perez discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the airfoil control unit (drive elements 62a, 62b, fig. 3) comprises a slip ring link (see drive elements 62a, fig. 3), a slip ring (Para. [0039], “[e]lectro-rheological fixing films are arranged on the drive shaft, which interact with electro-rheological fixing films correspondingly arranged on the nut. The drive shaft is moved in and out by appropriately applying voltages to the electro-rheological fixing films”. Furthermore, examiner notes, the slip ring is the “nut”) and a sliding rod (see Para. [0039] above. Examiner notes, the sliding rod is the drive shaft), one end of the slip ring link is connected to a side of a first wing link connector of the first wing element unit (as shown in fig. 3, one end of the drive element is connected to joint 67 [i.e., the wing link connector]), the other end of the slip ring link is connected to the slip ring, the sliding rod is arranged on a side of a second wing link connector of the second wing element unit adjacent to the first wing element unit and extends toward the direction of the first wing link connector (as shown in fig. 3, each torsion box 53 includes a joint 67, a wing element unit [i.e., spar 52] and drive element 62a, 62b. Therefore, the sliding rod is arranged on a side of a second wing link connector of the second wing element unit [i.e., any one of spar 52 in torsion box 53] adjacent to the first wing element unit and extends toward the direction of the first wing link connecter [i.e., joint 67]), and the sliding ring is sleeved on the sliding rod and can slide back and forth along the sliding rod (Para. [0039], “[e]lectro-rheological fixing films are arranged on the drive shaft, which interact with electro-rheological fixing films correspondingly arranged on the nut. The drive shaft is moved in and out by appropriately applying voltages to the electro-rheological fixing films”. Furthermore, examiner notes, the sliding ring [i.e., the nut] is sliding along the drive shaft).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez (US 2002/0100842 A1) in view of XI et al. (US 2017/0305525 A1), hereinafter XI.
Regarding claim 6, Perez discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the wing element edge pieces (as set forth above in claim 1, plurality of segments 12,12a; figs. 3, and 11-12) of adjacent wing element units are connected by the wing element outer edge connector (as shown in figs. 3 & 4, the wing element edge pieces [i.e., plurality of segments 12, 12a] of adjacent wing element units [spars 52] are connected by the wing element outer edge connector [i.e., upper wing skin 55a and lower sing skin 55b]). However, Perez does not appear to specifically disclose that the wing element outer edge connector includes a flexible connector and a sliding cover, the flexible connector telescopically connects the adjacent wing element edge pieces, one end of the sliding cover is fixedly connected with an end of one of the wing element edge pieces connected, and the other end of the sliding cover is slidably connected with an end of another adjacent wing element edge piece.
XI is in the field of a morphing skin for an aircraft (Para. [0002]) and teaches a flexible connector (see connectors in figs. 20 & 21) and a sliding cover (Para. [0170], “the third skin element 226 may be the sliding skin 186”; as shown in figs. 15-16, and 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to modify the upper and lower wing skins 55a, 55b [i.e., outer edge connector] of Perez such that it includes a flexible connector and a sliding panel as taught by XI, in order to enhance the morphing capability of the wing. Furthermore, XI discloses in at least Para. [0144] that “the morphing aircraft skin 186 may be applied to any external surface of the aircraft…it is contemplated that the morphing aircraft skin 186 will be applied to the surface of the wings of the aircraft”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wing of Perez such that it had a sliding cover. Examiner notes, Modifying Perez in view of XI would result in the sliding cover of XI fixedly connected with an end of one of the wing element edge pieces [i.e., any one of plurality of segments 12, 12a] of Perez, and the other end of the sliding cover is slidably connected with an end of another adjacent wing element edge piece [i.e., segments 12, 12a].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Tien Dinh can be reached on (571) 272-6899. 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.
/NEVENA ALEKSIC/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 Examiner notes: each torsion box 53 has a joint 67 (i.e., wing edge link connector), first 52a and second 52b support points (i.e., roller bearing), and spar 52 (i.e., wing element unit support).
2 Examiner notes: each torsion box 53 has a joint 67 (i.e., wing edge link connector), first 52a and second 52b support points (i.e., roller bearing), and spar 52 (i.e., wing element unit support).