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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 15 April 2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
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 single aisle aircraft having multiple aisles must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The amendment filed 15 April 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The amended figure provided 15 April 2025 changes the location of the reference line to point to a point at the trailing edge. However, there is no indication of any APU at this location.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference character 144 appears to be directed specifically to the hinge line in Fig 1 rather than the folding wing;
The only depiction of the APU is in Fig 1, which depicts “more than one propulsor” ([0038]). Since only two engines are shown, the disclosure requires them both to be propulsors. However, the original reference line is drawn to what appears to be the tail cone of the engine to indicate the APU. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the depicted right engine is the propulsor (as disclosed) or the APU (as depicted);
Reference character 608 is used in the specification to describe “at least a flight component” which “may include wings, empennages, nacelles, control surfaces, fuselages, and landing gear, among others” ([0074]). However, the figures use 608 to specifically point to the engine nacelle, and many of these other components already have other reference characters assigned (e.g. 116 for the wings, 140 for the landing gear).
The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not clearly depict the claimed subject matter.
Claim 1 recites a first set of control surfaces located outboard relative to the hinge line, and a second set inboard relative to the hinge line. The figures do not clearly depict and reference these sets of control surfaces.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
sets of control surfaces on respective sides of the hinge line;
a thickness of the carbon fiber material being non-uniform along the wings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, 15-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites respective sets of control surfaces inboard and outboard of the hinge line of the wings. The original specification is completely silent regarding these sets and their positions. The original specification only broadly states that “control surfaces may be disposed on wings in a plurality of locations and arrangements” ([0074]). The specification, in discussing the use of control surfaces, reference Fig 6. However no such surfaces are depicted in the figure. Fig 1 depicts an arrangement which could be construed as control surfaces. However, these are no clearly depicted, and without any clear description, it would require an impermissible assumption that these are control surfaces, and not other structure (structural panels, etc.). Accordingly, the arrangement is not sufficiently described in a manner that indicates that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 22 recites a thickness of the carbon fiber material is non-uniform along the wings. The original disclosure provides for the use of carbon fiber material, however, is silent regarding the thickness of the material. The disclosure provides for a non-uniform thickness of the wing as a whole, but not of the material, specifically. Accordingly, the thickness is not sufficiently described in a manner that indicates that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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, 4-6, 8-13, 15-18, 21, and 22 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 recites the aircraft having a single aisle passenger capacity, then proceeds to recite the cabin comprising “one or more passenger aisles.” It is unclear whether the aircraft has a single aisle or multiple aisles.
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, 4-6, 8-13, 15-18, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Page (US 2022/0001974) in view of Dizdarevic et al. (US 2010/0163670) and Naumann (US 2 712 421).
Regarding independent claim 1:
As best understood, Page discloses a commercial aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body aircraft having a main body and wings with no clear demarcation therebetween (as seen in e.g. Figs 1 and 6), a wing length being independent of a maximum passenger capacity (product-by-process, this being a design parameter based on a comparison of wing designs; further, Page indicates differing ranges of passengers for the same aircraft depending on desired configurations, e.g. [0027]);
a passenger cabin (e.g. 112) in the body and having single aisle passenger capacity (e.g. Fig 1) with a second, perpendicular, aisle (Fig 2, break between front and rear sections);
at least a propulsor (310) attached to a portion of the body; and
a fuel storage (314) having a fuel capacity.
Page does not specifically disclose the aircraft configured for long range flight.
Dizdarevic teaches aircraft configured for long range flight (e.g. Tables T-1 and T-3).
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 a long-range aircraft as taught by Dizdarevic for the predictable advantage of reaching long-distance destinations, for example, trans-pacific flights.
Page discloses aircraft wings with control surface (e.g. [0066]), but does not disclose folding wings, or sets of control surfaces inboard and outboard of the hinge line.
Naumann teaches an aircraft having folding wings for compact storage (col 1, lines 19-22), with control surfaces inboard (23) and outboard (24, 25) of the hinge line.
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 folding wings as taught by Naumann for the predictable advantage of reducing the space the aircraft occupies when not in use to improve airport/hangar capacity (permitting more aircraft to be stored), and further to increase the effectiveness of the control surfaces (providing more control surfaces allows the deflection of more air for more control).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses a wider rear portion than the front and fewer seats in the front than the back (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses the cabin comprising a single deck, with cargo and passengers located on or above the single deck (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses a cargo store (116, 312) located lateral to the cabin (Figs 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses the cabin comprising more than one cabin bays (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses a maximum passenger capacity of between 50 and 300 passengers (claim 6).
Regarding claim 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses a maximum capacity of 120-300 passengers, but does not disclose 150-250 passengers.
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the number of passengers is variable and dependent upon factors such as seating classes (e.g. more economy for higher capacity, more business/first class for lower capacity) or route (more seating for more popular routes, fewer seats for less popular routes).
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 have a maximum capacity of 150-250 passengers for the predictable advantage of providing the desired seating capacity for specific routes and seating plans, e.g. to accommodate popular or less popular routes and provide more income from higher priced/lower volume seating (e.g. first class), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses landing gear (120, 124), which would be configured for long range flight due to the modification by Dizdarevic to render the aircraft configured for long-range flight.
Regarding claim 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses the propulsor attached to an upper surface of the body (e.g. Fig 2).
Regarding claims 13 and 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses the transition increases in chord and thickness from the wings to the body, and the fuel storage located within the transition (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 16:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page as modified renders a maximum fuel capacity per passenger between 650 and 1000 lbs (Dizdarevic, table T-1, 260000 kg fuel / 860 passengers = 302 kg/pax ≈ 665 lbs/pax).
Regarding claim 17:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page as modified renders a maximum flight distance between 5000 and 8000 nautical miles (~12500 km ≈ ~6750 NM).
Regarding claim 18:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses a structural element extending from a lower surface toward an upper surface (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 21:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Page discloses a fixed wing length having a maximum value of a ratio between a first maximum capacity and a second capacity of six (the aircraft design can be used for capacities of e.g. 100-300 or 120-300, which yield ratios of 3 and 2.5, respectively).
Regarding claim 22:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Page discloses a carbon fiber material ([0052]), but does not specifically disclose a non-uniform thickness of the material along the wing.
The examiner takes Official Notice that non-uniform thicknesses of material are well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a non-uniform thickness of the material as the examiner takes Official Notice that non-uniform thicknesses of material are well-known in the art, in order to provide greater load-bearing strength where needed (e.g. at the wing roots) while reducing overall weight by having lesser material where not required (e.g. at the wingtips).
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
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 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