DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior-filed application, 17/895,384, and those before do not disclose a capacity of 200-250 passengers, a packing efficiency of at least 0.75 or at least 0.9 (these specific numbers are not disclosed), a “mid-range” aircraft, a range of 4000 nautical miles, and folding wings.
Further, no prior-filed application discloses the structural element connecting an upper skin structure and lower skin structure in order to reduce pressurization loads applied on a skin of the aircraft.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of the claims is 9 March 2023.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2022/0001974) in view of Reams et al. (US 2017/0129608) and Hawley (US 5 893 535).
Regarding independent claim 1, and claim 21:
Page discloses an aircraft with mid-market capacity comprising:
a blended wing body aircraft (100) having a main body (104) and wings (304) with no clear demarcation between the wings and body along a leading edge (as seen in e.g. Figs 1, 3, and 6),
the main body comprises a passenger cabin (112) configured to have a mid-market capacity ([0027] indicates a capacity of 120-300, which covers the required range of 150-300 with sufficient specificity as this covers over 80% of the range; MPEP 2131.03), a structural element extending vertically from a lower surface to an upper surface of the body (as seen in Fig 3, the unnumbered beam in the middle), and passenger aisles, at least two of which are perpendicular (to access transverse seating);
a lateral cargo hold (312); and
at least a propulsor (310) attached to the main body (Figs 1, 3, and 6).
Page does not disclose the structural element comprising walls with windows.
Reams teaches a cabin dividing wall with windows (Figs 14 and 15) to permit passengers to see between cabin sections ([0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Page to use dividing walls with windows as taught by Reams for the predictable advantage of permitting passengers to see between sections, to talk with other passengers and/or to make the plane feel larger (e.g. for those with claustrophobia).
Page discloses a structural element that appears to extend from the upper skin to lower skin (Fig 3), but does not explicitly disclose connecting the upper and lower skin structures.
Hawley teaches a blended body aircraft having a structural element (106) extending from the upper skin structure (44) to the lower skin structure (46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Page to connect the upper and lower skin structures as taught by Hawley for the predictable advantage of accommodating shear forces (e.g. from cross winds or uneven loading) upon the aircraft.
The element would be configured to transfer loads due to the structural relationship provided.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses the cabin including a single deck with cargo and passengers located on or above the deck (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses two bays (Fig 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses seating rows having a packing efficiency of at least 0.75 (Fig 1, all but the first row; Fig 3), and a packing efficiency of at least 0.90 (rear rows of Fig 1, efficiency of 18/(18+1) ≈ 0.95).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 15, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Marc et al. (US 2018/0334254) in view of in view of Reams et al. (US 2017/0129608) and Hawley (‘535).
Regarding independent claim 1, and claims 4 and 21:
Saint-Marc discloses an aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body aircraft (10) having a main body (13) and wings (at e.g. 62) with no clear demarcation between the wings and body along a leading edge (as seen in e.g. Figs 3 and 6),
the main body comprises a passenger cabin (12) having between 100-300, and 200-250, seats (Fig 6 depicts roughly 110 seats, which, doubled to account for other half of the aircraft, yields 220, plus a few extra for those not implied but not depicted, e.g. under the nacelle, renders seats between 150-300, and particularly between 200-250), at least two aisles perpendicular to each other (longitudinal aisle and transverse aisle formed by interior steps) and a structural element comprising a wall extending vertically from a lower surface to an upper surface of the body longitudinally along the cabin (22; e.g. Fig 3);
at least a cargo store (50) located laterally outside and adjacent the cabin (Fig 3); and
at least a propulsor attached to the main body (Figs 3 and 6).
Saint-Marc does not disclose the structural element comprising walls with windows.
Reams teaches a cabin dividing wall with windows (Figs 14 and 15) to permit passengers to see between cabin sections ([0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Saint-March to use dividing walls with windows as taught by Reams for the predictable advantage of permitting passengers to see between sections, to talk with other passengers and/or to make the plane feel larger (e.g. for those with claustrophobia).
Saint-Marc does not explicitly disclose the structural element connecting the upper and lower skin structures.
Hawley teaches a blended body aircraft having a structural element (106) extending from the upper skin structure (44) to the lower skin structure (46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Saint-Marc to connect the upper and lower skin structures as taught by Hawley for the predictable advantage of accommodating shear forces (e.g. from cross winds or uneven loading) upon the aircraft.
The element would be configured to transfer loads due to the structural relationship provided.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses the cabin including a single deck with cargo and passengers located on or above the deck (Figs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses a structural element, but does not disclose the element comprising carbon fiber material.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention (as evinced by [0023], which indicates various materials may be used), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Saint-Marc to use carbon fiber materials for the predictable advantage of providing a high strength-to-weight ratio structure, lowering the overall weight of the aircraft without sacrificing strength, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses the structural element creating two cabin bays (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
As best understood, Saint-Marc discloses seating having a packing efficiency of at least 0.75 (Fig 2, 18/(18+3) ≈ 0.86).
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses the structural element extending from a first distal end toward a second distal end of the cabin (Figs 3 and 6; note: “distal end” is an arbitrary portion of indeterminate size, and “toward” does not require “to”).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses an ascending seat layout (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 19:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses the propulsor attached to an upper aft surface of the aircraft (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 20:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Saint-Marc discloses at least one row having eight or more seats (Figs 2, 3, and 6).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 15, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant et al. (US 2014/0175215) in view of in view of Reams et al. (US 2017/0129608).
Regarding independent claim 1, and claim 21:
Gallant discloses an aircraft with mid-market capacity comprising:
a blended wing body aircraft (10) having a main body and wings with no clear demarcation between the wings and body along a leading edge (as seen in e.g. Fig 1),
the main body comprises a passenger cabin (14) configured to have a capacity of 100-300 passengers ([0013] indicates a capacity of fewer than 200, with Fig 1 depicting 186 seats), at least two aisles perpendicular to each other (longitudinal aisle and transverse aisle formed at the rear to connect the longitudinal aisles) and a structural element comprising a wall extending vertically from a lower surface to an upper surface of the body longitudinally along the cabin (Fig 2; [0045]);
at least a cargo store (16) located laterally outside and adjacent the cabin (Fig 1) and
at least a propulsor (20) attached to the main body (Fig 1).
Gallant does not disclose the structural element comprising walls with windows.
Reams teaches a cabin dividing wall with windows (Figs 14 and 15) to permit passengers to see between cabin sections ([0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Gallant to use dividing walls with windows as taught by Reams for the predictable advantage of permitting passengers to see between sections, to talk with other passengers and/or to make the plane feel larger (e.g. for those with claustrophobia).
Gallant does not explicitly disclose the structural element connecting the upper and lower skin structures.
Hawley teaches a blended body aircraft having a structural element (106) extending from the upper skin structure (44) to the lower skin structure (46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Gallant to connect the upper and lower skin structures as taught by Hawley for the predictable advantage of accommodating shear forces (e.g. from cross winds or uneven loading) upon the aircraft.
The element would be configured to transfer loads due to the structural relationship provided.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses the cabin including a single deck with cargo and passengers located on or above the deck (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses the structural element creating two cabin bays (Fig 2; [0045]).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses seating rows having a packing efficiency of at least 0.75 (Fig 2, 12/(12+2) ≈ 0.86).
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses the structural element extending from a first distal end toward a second distal end of the cabin (implied in [0045]; note: “distal end” is an arbitrary portion of indeterminate size, and “toward” does not require “to”).
Regarding claim 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses a mid-range aircraft (the disclosure defines “mid-range” as having a range for medium-haul flights, and [0013] indicates use for such).
Regarding claim 11:
The discussion above regarding claim 10 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses an aircraft for medium-haul flights, with a range of 5000 km (~2100 mi), but does not specifically disclose a range of 4000 miles (~6430 km).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Gallant to use a range of 4000 miles since applicant has not disclosed that this range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with shorter ranges (the applicant’s disclosure indicates short ranges are permitted; [0029]), and to increase the range of the aircraft to increase the availability of airports/destinations for the passengers. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses an ascending seat layout (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses fuel storage (18) in the transition (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 19:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses the propulsor attached to an upper aft surface of the aircraft (Figs 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 20:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gallant discloses at least one row having eight or more seats (Fig 1, all but the first four rows; Fig 2).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (‘974), Saint-Marc et al. (‘254), or Gallant et al. (‘215) in view of Reams et al. (‘608) and Hawley (‘535) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karem (US 2014/0231593).
Page, Saint-Marc, and Gallant each discloses a blended wing body aircraft, but do not disclose folding wings.
Karen teaches a BWB aircraft having folding wings for compact storage (Fig 2; [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Page, Saint-Marc, or Gallant to use folding wings as taught by Karem for the predictable advantage of reducing the space the aircraft occupies when not in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 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, Anita Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619