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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicants’ amendment filed on 07/02/2026 are entered. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application of which Claim 1 is independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in view of amendments filed on 07/02/2026 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicants’ arguments, Pg. 05, regarding drawing objections are persuasive and the objections are therefore withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments, Pg. 05-08, regarding 35 U.S.C 101 are considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicants’ arguments, Pg. 08-13, regarding 35 U.S.C 103 are considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: Yes. The claim recites a “method” which is a process.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE:
The claim recites multiple mathematical concepts.
defining … a geometric shape corresponding to an initial lifting surface according to a planform, wherein the initial lifting surface is defined by at least five geometry parameters and a plurality of shape modifier parameters of said lifting surface;
This limitation falls under a mathematical concept which can be a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation. In this case the limitation is a mathematical relationship between variables to describe a geometric shape.
modifying the geometric shape of the initial lifting surface by applying a spanwise function to at least one shape modifier parameter of the initial lifting surface to obtain a modified lifting surface with a continuous variation of aerodynamic properties along the span;
This limitation is a mathematical calculation of applying a function such as a spanwise function to transform a parameter. The “with a … along the span” describes the result of applying a continuous function over the span and is part of the calculation itself.
defining a thickness of at least one airfoil at a given span position along a span of the modified lifting surface obtained in the modifying step based on at least one predefined airfoil … ; and
This limitation is a mathematical relationship defining a relation between the airfoil geometry and the surface thickness.
defining the external geometry of the aircraft final lifting surface by interpolating the at least one airfoil along the span of the modified lifting surface by means of a transition function to generate a continuous three-dimensional aerodynamic surface.
This limitation is a mathematical calculation of interpolating. The recited “continuous … surface” describes the output of the interpolation which is a geometric definition and remains part of the calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: The claim does not recite an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception.
2106.05(a) No improvement to computer functionally or other technology – The claim does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The improvement is an improvement to the mathematical parameterization itself not to a computer or technological process.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine – The claim does not recite the use of, or the method steps to, any particular machine or apparatus. The “computer-aided aerodynamic design system” is recited only in the first step as a general-purpose computer to apply the abstract ideas.
… by a computer-aided aerodynamic design system …
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is generic computer components used to perform the mathematical abstractions. The claim merely invokes a computer to carry out the “defining” calculation.
… associated with a physical aerodynamic surface;
MPEP 2106.05(h) – This is generally linking the mathematical concept to a particular field of use. The phrase describes what the geometry and shape modifier parameters represent. It does not change the operation performed on them, which remains the definition of the geometric shape. This is manipulation of parameters, not of a manufactured physical surface.
… corresponding to a physical airfoil cross-section;
MPEP 2106.05(g) – This is insignificant extra solution activity in the form of selecting a particular type of data being manipulated. The predefined airfoil remains a geometric definition.
Conclusion: Claim 1 is directed to a mathematical concept, not integrated into a practical application and lacks an inventive concept. Therefore, it is ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding Claims 2-9 and 11-13:
These claims further define mathematical relationships among variables and functions but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These claims also do not resolve the issues from the claim they depend upon.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 has the limitation of modifying geometric shape by applying spanwise function. This is directed to further abstract idea of math operations.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-13 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Three-Dimensional Piecewise-Continuous Class-Shape Transformation of Wings” by OLSON et al [herein “OLSON”] (2015), and “Aerodynamic Design of the Hybrid Wing Body Propulsion Airframe Integration” by LIOU et al [herein “LIOU”] (2017).
Regarding Claim 1, OLSON teaches
A method of designing an external geometry of an aircraft lifting surface, the method comprising the steps of: defining a geometric shape corresponding to an initial lifting surface according to a planform,
“This paper proposes a methodology for using spanwise parametrization of the planform shape that retains sufficient generality to be suitable for a much wider range of extruded shapes.”. (Pg. 4).
This shows defining the shape of a lifting surface based on a planform.
wherein the initial lifting surface is defined by at least five geometry parameters and a plurality of shape modifier parameters of said lifting surface associated with a physical aerodynamic surface;
“The reference span, b, is twice the spanwise distance at the tip(b≡2s|η=1).” (Pg. 9 and EQ 22).
“If one considers the wing to be a continuous extrusion of airfoils, one can define parametrizations that define the variation of chord, c, thickness-to chord ratio, t/c, and incidence, i, of the airfoil along the reference wherec≡2c b.”. (Pg. 9-10 and EQ 23).
“It is apparent that the quarter-chord sweep, Λc 4, and dihedral, Γ, are related to the derivatives of the reference axis coordinates as follows:”. (Pg. 10 and EQ 25).
“These quantities are familiar to the aircraft designer and their spanwise variations follow directly from non-dimensional wing design parameters such as aspect ratio, taper ratio, washout, etc.”. (Pg. 10).
“Any or all of the sets of Bezier coefficients (acj, atj or aij) may be used as design variables in shape optimization studies.”. (Pg. 10).“Here, the normalized coordinate ζ ≡ ζ t/c is used to allow the maximum thickness-to-chord ratio to be scaled independently, as described in Section III. These equations function as a transformation from the non-dimensional (ψ,η) space to the physical domain.”. (Pg. 4).
“In addition to the distribution of the chord, thickness, and incidence, one also needs to know the physical locations of the airfoils along the span before one can assemble the full wing shape.”. (Pg. 10).
This shows defining at least 5 geometric parameters and shape modifiers associated with the physical lifting surface.
modifying the geometric shape of the initial lifting surface by applying a spanwise function to at least one shape modifier parameter of the initial lifting surface to obtain a modified lifting surface with a continuous variation of aerodynamic properties along the span;
“In addition to three-dimensional parametrization of the airfoils (Eq. 4), this paper introduces a spanwise parametrization scheme for the variation of wing design parameters. For a given parameter, χ, which may be any spanwise-varying property such as chord, twist, etc., one can use CST to create a functional representation of the property between the root and tip of a wing:”. (Pg. 4 and EQ 5).
“One or more of these parametrizations could also be formulated as piecewise equations in the form of Eq.7, with or without continuity constraints. The form of each equation can be specified separately, so that the chord equation might be defined in a piecewise manner with first-order discontinuity at a chord break; whereas the thickness and incidence equations might, at the same time, be defined as continuous across the break, or even as single-section parametrizations across the entire span. The use of separate equations give the designer a great deal of flexibility to choose the best form of equation for each parameter.”. (Pg. 10).
“A wide variety of two- and three-dimensional shapes can be represented analytically using only a modest number of parameters, and the surface representation is smooth and continuous to as fine a degree as desired.”. (Abstract).
“Using separate equations for these parameters means that an optimization study could be performed on one of the quantities of interest independently; for example, the coefficients of the incidence equation could be chosen to match a desired spanwise lift distribution, all while keeping the airfoil, chord, and thickness distributions constant.”. (Pg. 10).
This shows modifying the shape of the surface by applying a spanwise function in order to alter a shape modifier, where the analytical spanwise function produces a continuous variation along the span of an aerodynamic property such as the lift distribution.
OLSON does not explicitly teach but LIOU teaches
… by a computer aided aerodynamic design system …
“Our geometry modeler consists of four steps: (1) generation of HWB airframe planform, (2) generation of control airfoils at specified spanwise sections, (3) generation of interpolated airfoils based on the control airfoils, and (4) generation of the nacelle geometry.”. (Pg. 3).
“The planform is the two-dimensional shadow (outline) of the aircraft when viewed directly from above the craft. Shown in Fig. 2 is a typical planform of a HWB vehicle and denoted are the set of geometrical parameters involved in defining its shape.”. (Pg. 3).
This shows a computer aided aerodynamic design system, the geometry modeler, defining the geometric shape of a lifting surface based on a planform as the first step of the design.
defining a thickness of at least one airfoil at a given span position along a span of the modified lifting surface obtained in the modifying step based on at least one predefined airfoil corresponding to a physical airfoil cross-section; and
“The first step in generating the complete 3D geometry of the wing body-propulsion configuration is the creation of the clean (i.e., sans propulsion/nacelle) wing body. This is begun with the generation of a series of airfoil shapes at various control planes (y=constant), hence they are named control airfoils.”. (Pg. 4).
“As the initial sectional airfoil shape in this study, the sectional shapes of the N3-X configuration12 is extracted and fitted by the CST method by gradient-based optimization. Figure 3 shows the results for the curve fitting for airfoils at 0%, 30%, 70%, and 100% semi-span sections of the N3-X airframe.”. (Pg. 4).
“To generate the clean wing body, four control sectional airfoils are placed along the spanwise direction at y1, 𝑦3, 𝑦7 and 𝑦9, from root to wingtip respectively.”. (Pg. 5).
“At any given spanwise location, the sectional airfoil must have its own set of unique CST parameters (i.e. 𝐴𝑢𝑖, 𝐴𝑙𝑖, 𝑖 = 0, 𝑁), twist, and z-offset values.”. (Pg. 6).“After the above airfoil generation, these non-dimensional sectional airfoils need to be dimensionalized to get the correct physical scales of the aircraft, based on planform location parameters.”. (Pg. 6).
This shows using predefined airfoils with different span positions each with their own thickness defined by the airfoil shape, where the predefined airfoils correspond to physical airfoil cross-sections extracted from the sections of the N3-X airframe.
defining the external geometry of the aircraft final lifting surface by interpolating the at least one airfoil along the span of the modified lifting surface using a transition function to generate a continuous three-dimensional aerodynamic surface.“The third task is to create interpolated airfoils in order to complete a smooth aerodynamic body.”. (Pg. 3).
“A complete loft (volume) of the aircraft is obtained by interpolating two neighboring control airfoils in the spanwise direction. In other words, these sets of the CST parameters are interpolated between two closest control airfoil sections, based on a local non-dimensional y coordinate, 𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 ∈ [0,1] …”. (Pg. 6).
“…and function F can be defined as a linear function (F = 𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙), or a cubic function (F = 𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙2(3 − 2𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙)).”. (Pg. 6).
“A front view and isometric view of the clean wing body is shown in Fig. 5, after creating sufficient interpolated airfoil section. Now the task of generating a clean wing body is completed.”. (Pg. 6).
This shows generating the final 3d geometry of the lifting surface by interpolating through a transition function, where the transition function is selected for smoothness to produce a continuous three-dimensional aerodynamic body.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LIOU’s modifiable air foil with OLSON’s aircraft lifting design method. The motivation for doing so would have been to create an enhanced lifting air surface design “The Class function Shape function Transformation (CST)14, a non-dimensional airfoil/wing generation method, is shown in Ref. 17 to be capable of creating a variety of geometries and hence adopted to construct the HWB airframe-propulsion configuration.”. (Pg. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least five geometry parameters comprise at least one of a span, a root chord, a tip chord, a sweep angle at 25% and a dihedral angle.
“The reference span, b, is twice the spanwise distance at the tip(b≡2s|η=1).” (Pg. 9 and EQ 22).
“If one considers the wing to be a continuous extrusion of airfoils, one can define parametrizations that define the variation of chord, c, thickness-to chord ratio, t/c, and incidence, i, of the airfoil along the reference wherec≡2c b.”. (Pg. 9-10 and EQ 23).
“It is apparent that the quarter-chord sweep, Λc 4, and dihedral, Γ, are related to the derivatives of the reference axis coordinates as follows:”. (Pg. 10 and EQ 25).
This shows the at least five parameters comprise one of the listed options.
Regarding Claim 4, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of shape modifier parameters comprises at least a leading edge.
“When the airfoil functions are combined with known spanwise variations of chord, twist, and leading-edge location, the three-dimensional wing surface can be assembled.”. (Pg. 4).
This shows that one of the shape modifiers comprise a leading edge.
Regarding Claim 5, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of shape modifier parameters comprises at least a trailing edge.
“To construct the leading and trailing edges and wing tips of the HWB, we use 10 control points, (x1, y1) to (x10, y10) as labeled in Fig. 2. The points are determined by solving two systems of linear equations via introduction of twelve parameters: cr, cb, ct, cb, cr, ow, ct, ow, wcb, lcb, bow, Λ1, Λ2, λ1, λ2, and λ3. These parameters are our planform design variables.”. (Pg. 3).
“TE = Trailing Edge” (Pg. 2).
This shows defining a shape parameter of a trailing edge.
Regarding Claim 6, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of shape modifier parameters comprises at least a sweep angle.
“These parameters are our planform design variables. They are intuitive and bear physical and geometrical meaning. Some are based on the sizing requirement from a specified mission, such as the first seven parameters, the remaining parameters control the sweep angles…”. (Pg. 3).
This shows defining a shape modifying parameter of a sweep angle.
Regarding Claim 7, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of shape modifier parameters comprises at least a thickness.
“The additional ζT terms specify the trailing-edge thickness-to-chord ratio for blunt-trailing-edge airfoils. In Eq. 1, the class function, CN1 N2, takes the form…”. (Pg. 2).
“Using separate equations for these parameters means that an optimization study could be performed on one of the quantities of interest independently; for example, the coefficients of the incidence equation could be chosen to match a desired spanwise lift distribution, all while keeping the airfoil, chord, and thickness distributions constant. One or more of these parametrizations.” (Pg. 10).
This shows defining a shape modifying parameter of a thickness.
Regarding Claim 8, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of shape modifier parameters comprises at least a twist.
“The method uses individual functions for the spanwise variation of airfoil shape, chord, thickness, twist, and reference axis coordinates to build up the complete wing shape.”. (Abstract).
“When the airfoil functions are combined with known spanwise variations of chord, twist, and leading-edge location, the three-dimensional wing surface can be assembled.”. (Pg. 4).
This shows defining a shape modifying parameter of a twist.
Regarding Claim 9, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of shape modifier parameters comprises at least a dihedral angle.
“An alternative formulation parametrizes the slopes of the reference axis coordinates in order to relate the spanwise variation to the tangents of the sweep and dihedral angles.”. (Abstract).
“Γ wing dihedral”. (Pg. 1).
“This direct parametrization scheme is simple and straightforward; on the other hand, the functions themselves may not offer insight to the aircraft designer, who is used to working with such wing shape parameters as sweep and dihedral. It is apparent that the quarter-chord sweep, Λc 4, and dihedral, Γ, are related to the derivatives of the reference axis coordinates as follows:”. (Pg. 10).
This shows defining a shape modifying parameter of a dihedral angle.
Regarding Claim 10, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the modifying step comprises modifying the geometric shape of the initial lifting surface by applying a spanwise function to a plurality of shape modifier parameters.
“Using separate equations for these parameters means that an optimization study could be performed on one of the quantities of interest independently; for example, the coefficients of the incidence equation could be chosen to match a desired spanwise lift distribution, all while keeping the airfoil, chord, and thickness distributions constant. One or more of these parametrizations.”. (Pg. 10).
This shows applying spanwise functions on shape parameters to modify the lifting surface.
Regarding Claim 11, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the spanwise function applied in the modifying step is a function with a single input variable representing a span non-dimensional position in an interval [0,1].
“For a given parameter, χ, which may be any spanwise-varying property such as chord, twist, etc., one can use CST to create a functional representation of the property between the root and tip of a wing: N χ(η) = CN1 N2 (η) j=0 ajbN j (η) + ηχtip + (1 −η) χroot (0 ≤ η ≤ 1)”. (Pg. 4 and EQ 5).
This shows a spanwise function applied on an input variable on interval [0, 1].
Regarding Claim 12, LIOU does not explicitly teach but OLSON teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the spanwise function is a mathematical model, such as polynomials, Nurbs, Nurbs-fit, splines, or any other real single-valued function defined over an interval [0,1], the mathematical model being configured to be controlled by control points and parameters depending on each of them.
“For a given parameter, χ, which may be any spanwise-varying property such as chord, twist, etc., one can use CST to create a functional representation of the property between the root and tip of a wing: N χ(η) = CN1 N2 (η) j=0 ajbN j (η) + ηχtip + (1 −η) χroot (0 ≤ η ≤ 1)”. (Pg. 4 and EQ 5).
This shows the spanwise function applied is a polynomial on Bezier Coefficient control points over [0, 1].
Regarding Claim 13, OLSON does not explicitly teach but LIOU teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the transition function applied in a final step is a mathematical function of a family of real single-valued functions.
“A complete loft (volume) of the aircraft is obtained by interpolating two neighboring control airfoils in the spanwise direction.”. (Pg. 6).
“And function F can be defined as a linear function (F = 𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙), or a cubic function (F = 𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙2(3 − 2𝜂𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙)). The cubic function is used here for smoothness.”. (Pg. 6).
This shows a transition function applied to the wing along all the points to produce a final geometry.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over “Three-Dimensional Piecewise-Continuous Class-Shape Transformation of Wings” by OLSON et al [herein “OLSON”] (2015), “Aerodynamic Design of the Hybrid Wing Body Propulsion Airframe Integration” by LIOU et al [herein “LIOU”] (2017), and US 20180334253 A1 by GENESTE et al [herein “GENESTE”] (2018).
Regarding Claim 2, OLSON and LIOU do not explicitly teach but GENESTE teaches
The method according to claim 1, wherein the geometric shape defined in the defining step is a trapezoid shape.
“In the example illustrated on FIG. 3, each airfoil 20 has a trapezoid shape in plan, in this case reduced to the desired dimensions of the airfoil.”. (0067).
“Other shapes in plan are naturally possible for the airfoils, with as much freedom of design as the shapes of a conventional wing: rectangular, simple trapezoid or multi-trapezoid, elliptical, straight, or swept to the rear or reversed, etc.”. (0068).
This shows the geometric shape defined as a trapezoid among other possible shapes.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of GENESTE’s shaped airfoil / lifting surfaces with LIOU-OLSON’s aircraft lifting design method. The motivation for doing so would have been to create an enhanced lifting air surface design system “The Class function Shape function Transformation (CST)14, a non-dimensional airfoil/wing generation method, is shown in Ref. 17 to be capable of creating a variety of geometries and hence adopted to construct the HWB airframe-propulsion configuration.”. (LIOU Pg. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10521527 B2 teaches modeling and analysis of a structure and, in particular, modeling and analysis of a leading edge rib of a fixed leading edge section of an aircraft wing.
US 20210009256 A1 teaches a lifting surface of an aeronautical vehicle, in which the lifting surface has a span, a leading edge, a trailing edge, an upper surface and a lower surface, and the wingtip is in a range of five percent to fifteen percent of an end portion of the span of the lifting surface.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NARCISO EDUARDO MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, REHANA PERVEEN, can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/N.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights