DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, directed towards claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 08/29/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/29/2023.
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.
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(s) 1-6 (as best understood), 8-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dizdarevic (US 7793884 B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dizdarevic (US 7793884 B2) in view the 747-400 Freighter (see NPL titled “747-400/-400ER Freighters”) and Brown (US 20140231586 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Dizdarevic (US 7793884 B2) discloses a blended wing body aircraft, the aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body (Dizdarevic, figure 1, item 24, aircraft has a blended wing body), the blended wing body comprising:
a lower portion extending form a first wing to a second wing (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, lower portion extending between wings on each lateral side of the aircraft), wherein the lower potion comprises a base and wherein the lower portion is configured to store payload (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, payload storage with a floor at its bottom); one or more structural components connected to the base and longitudinally extending along the lower portion and the upper portion of the blended wing body (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, see callout below, wall which is made of a structure which extends longitudinally along upper and lower portions of body), wherein the one or more structural components are configured to physically support a shape and structure of the blended wing body aircraft (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, see callout below, walls and associated structural components capable of providing support to maintain the shape of the fuselage similar to a column); and
an upper portion positioned above the lower portion (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, upper portion), wherein an aft portion of the upper portion is configured to store additional payload (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, aft part of the upper portion is capable of storing additional payload); and
a passenger compartment positioned in the upper portion of the blended wing body (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, passenger compartment), the passenger compartment is additionally positioned forward of the aft portion of the upper portion (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, forward part of the upper portion which is capable of comprising the passenger compartment can be located adjacent to the cockpit), the passenger compartment comprising:
at least a partial deck, wherein a length of the at least a partial deck is configured to be less than an entire length of the fuselage (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, passenger compartment and other parts of the associated deck to not extend to the tail of the fuselage);
one or more walls, defined by the one or more structural components (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, see callout below, walls defined be structural components); and a floor adjoined to the one or more walls (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, floor of passenger compartment), wherein the passenger compartment is configured to seat one or more passengers (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, passenger compartment has seats for one or more passengers);
wherein a height of the upper portion is sized to accommodate the one or more seated passengers, in the passenger compartment of the upper portion, above the payload in the lower portion (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, upper portion including passenger compartment has a height which can accommodate passengers above cargo, thus the combined height could accommodate passengers).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In arguendo, should applicant argue that Dizdarevic does not teach the partial deck configured to be less than an entire length of the fuselage , the 747-400 Freighter (see NPL titled “747-400/-400ER Freighters”) teaches a passenger compartment includes at least a partial deck, wherein a length of the at least a partial deck is configured to be less than an entire length of the fuselage (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout below, aircraft upper portion, including passenger compartment, does not extend the entire length of the fuselage).
Dizdarevic and the 747-400 Freighter are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of blended aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the upper deck of Dizdarevic to only include part of the fuselage length as in the 747-400 Freighter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accommodate a large amount of freight and a small number of passengers, to reduce the part of the fuselage that must be pressurized, and to reduce weight.
PNG
media_image2.png
219
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In arguendo, should applicant argue that Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter does not teach one or more structural components connected to the base and longitudinally extending along the lower portion and the upper portion of the blended wing body, wherein the one or more structural components are configured to physically support a shape and structure of the blended wing body aircraft; one or more walls defined by the one or more structural components; and a floor adjoined to the one or more wall, Brown (US 20140231586 A1) teaches one or more structural components connected to the base and longitudinally extending along the lower portion and the upper portion of the blended wing body (Brown, figure 6, items 128, 130, and 132), wherein the one or more structural components are configured to physically support a shape and structure of the blended wing body aircraft (Brown, figure 6, items 126); one or more walls defined by the one or more structural components (Brown, figure 6, items 126 and 130, structural components form wall of the aircraft); and a floor adjoined to the one or more wall (Brow, figure 6, items 124 and 148, floor adjoined to the walls of aircraft).
Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the walls of Dizdarevic to include structural components as in the Brown with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent the fuselage from buckling (Brown, ¶48).
Regarding claim 2, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein: the blended wing body further comprises a fuselage having an interior cavity (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, interior cavity), the interior cavity comprising the lower portion and the upper portion (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, interior cavity with lower and upper portion); the passenger compartment is disposed within the upper portion of the interior cavity and above the payload stored in the lower portion of the interior cavity (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout below, passenger compartment and payload); except:
the lower portion of the interior cavity has a greater floor area than the upper portion of the interior cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The 747-400 Freighter (see NPL titled “747-400/-400ER Freighters”) also teaches an aircraft with an interior cavity (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout below, aircraft has an interior cavity); the interior cavity having a lower portion and an upper portion (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout below, cavity has an upper and lower portion); a passenger compartment is disposed within the upper portion (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout below, upper portion includes a passenger compartment); a payload stored in the lower portion below the passenger compartment (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout below, lower portion is a cargo compartment); the lower portion of the interior cavity has a greater floor area than the upper portion of the interior cavity (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout below, passenger compartment has a smaller floor area the lower cargo compartment).
PNG
media_image2.png
219
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter (as previously applied) and Brown and the 747-400 Freighter are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interior cavity of Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown with the interior cavity having upper and lower portions with different areas of the 747-400 Freighter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accommodate a large amount of freight and a small number of passengers.
Regarding claim 3, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 2, wherein the passenger compartment is positioned in a front half of the interior cavity (747-400 Freighter, page 23, see callout above, passenger compartment is in the front half of the interior cavity).
Regarding claim 4, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein: the blended wing body further comprises a nose portion having a cockpit (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, nose with a cockpit);
and the passenger compartment is positioned adjacent to the cockpit (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, cockpit adjacent the passenger compartment OR ALTERNATIVELY 747-400 Freighter, page 8, see callout above, passenger compartment is adjacent to the flight deck);
Regarding claim 5, Dizdarevic as modified by The 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein the blended wing body further comprises a deck located in the lower portion of the blended wing body, wherein the deck is configured to support the payload (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout above, lower portion includes a floor for supporting cargo).
Regarding claim 6, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein the passenger compartment comprises: a sitting area, the sitting area comprising one or more seats (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, passenger compartment includes seats in an area for sitting); except:
wherein the passenger compartment further comprises a sleeping area, the sleeping area comprising one or more bunks; and a partitioning wall, wherein the partitioning wall is configured to at least partially physically divide the sitting area and the sleeping area.
The 747-400 Freighter (see NPL titled “747-400/-400ER Freighters”) also teaches an aircraft with a passenger compartment comprising : a sitting area, the sitting area comprising one or more seats (747-400 Freighter, page 8, see callout below, sitting area and seats);
wherein the passenger compartment further comprises a sleeping area, the sleeping area comprising one or more bunks (747-400 Freighter, page 8, see callout below, sleeping area with bunks); and a partitioning wall, wherein the partitioning wall is configured to at least partially physically divide the sitting area and the sleeping area (747-400 Freighter, page 8, see callout below, partition wall between sitting area and sleeping areas).
PNG
media_image3.png
540
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter (as previously applied) and Brown and the 747-400 Freighter are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the passenger compartment of Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown with the seats, bunks, and a partition to create a separate sitting and sleeping area of the 747-400 Freighter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow those sleeping in the bunks a degree of privacy while trying to rest.
Regarding claim 8, Dizdarevic as modified by The 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more walls comprises a structural component of the blended wing body (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout above, wall which can be configured as a structural component of the body).
Regarding claim 9, Dizdarevic as modified by The 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein the blended wing body aircraft comprises a tanker aircraft (Intended use; Aircraft is capable of being used as a tanker aircraft).
Regarding claim 11, Dizdarevic as modified by The 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein the blended wing body aircraft comprises a freighter aircraft having a cargo bay disposed within the lower portion of the blended wing aircraft (Dizdarevic, figure 2b, see callout above, aircraft can be used as a freighter; cargo bay located in lower portion of aircraft).
Regarding claim 12, Dizdarevic as modified by The 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein the passenger compartment further comprises luggage storage for passengers (Dizdarevic, figures 2a-b, see callout above, legend indicates luggage storage).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dizdarevic (US 7793884 B2) in view of the 747-400 Freighter (see NPL titled “747-400/-400ER Freighters”) and Brown (US 20140231586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Traylor (US 6318672 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, except:
wherein the one or more walls of the passenger compartment comprise insulated walls.
Traylor teaches an aircraft passenger compartment wherein one or more walls of the passenger compartment comprise insulated walls (Traylor, col 1 lines 8-17, walls of passenger cabin are insulted).
Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown and Traylor are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft cabin design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the walls of Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown with the insulted walls of Traylor with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce noise in the passenger compartment (Traylor, col 1 lines 8-17).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dizdarevic (US 7793884 B2) in view of the 747-400 Freighter (see NPL titled “747-400/-400ER Freighters”) and Brown (US 20140231586 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Whelan (US 7093798 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 1, wherein the blended wing body aircraft comprises a tanker aircraft.
Whelan teaches a blended wing body aircraft wherein the blended wing body aircraft comprises a tanker aircraft (Whelan, col 2, lines 22-38).
Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown and Whelan are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter and Brown with the tanker aircraft and adaptations therefor of Whelan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the aircraft to transport fuel.
Regarding claim 10, Dizdarevic as modified by the 747-400 Freighter, Brown, and Whelan teaches the blended wing body aircraft of claim 9, further comprising: a fuel store located within one or more of at least a wing or the lower portion of the blended wing body, the fuel store configured to store a fuel (Dizdarevic, figure 2a, legend indicates parts of the wing and aircraft as a whole the areas used to store fuel); an offloading system operatively connected to the fuel store, wherein the offloading system is configured to offload the fuel to another aircraft in flight (Whelan, col 2, lines 22-38 and figure 13, item 114, refueling boom offloads fuel to other aircraft); and a propulsion system of the blended wing body, the propulsion system configured to propel the blended wing body (Dizdarevic, figures 1a-c, item 76).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references cited, including Dizdarevic and the NPL titled “747 Freighter” teaches, suggests, or motivates the newly amended limitations.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant merely asserts that the prior art fails to teach the new claim language as provided without specifically pointing out what the prior art fails to teach. Based upon a review of prior art (namely Dizdarevic), it appears that the prior art does actually teach the claim language as amended (see the above rejection of claim 1). As a result the claims remain rejected based upon the same prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US 20220411058 A1) teaches a blended wing body aircraft with a cargo hold below a pressurized cabin.
Page (US 11453483 B2) teaches a blended wing aircraft and a prior art configuration with an upper and lower deck wherein the upper deck has a passenger compartment and the lower is used for cargo.
Carroll (US 3869102 A) teaches an aircraft with an upper portion and a lower portion configured to carry cargo.
Hawley (US 5893535 A) teaches an aircraft with a blended wing body including multiple decks, including a passenger portion.
Dizdarevic (US 6923403 B1) teaches a blended wing body aircraft including a passenger compartment.
Anger (US 8459594 B2) teaches a blended wing body aircraft with an upper portion and a lower portion wherein the upper portion includes a passenger compartment.
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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642