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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the third action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 7/6/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calatayud et al. (PGPub #2023/0159153) in view of Beauchamp et al. (US #5,367,970), and Chang et al. (PGPub #2013/0224024).
Regarding claim 1, Calatayud teaches an aircraft control surface, comprising: a spar (12) extending in a span-wise direction (12 as seen in figure 7), the spar having at least one aperture (11) extending through the spar (Paragraph 48, lines 1-4); a displacement guide (4) adjacent to the at least one aperture of the spar (4, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 4); an airfoil (5, and 6) mounted to the spar (5, 6, and 12 as seen in figure 1) and extending in the span-wise direction (5, and 6 as seen in figure 4), the airfoil extending in a chord-wise direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge (5, and 6 as in figure 1), the airfoil comprising: a top skin (5) being resiliently deformable (Paragraph 43, lines 1-14), the top skin being bendable relative to the spar, in a downward direction (5, and 12 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 43, lines 1-14), the top skin extending from the spar in the chord-wise direction to a top skin rear edge (5, 7, and 12 as seen in figure 1); a bottom skin (6) being resiliently deformable (Paragraph 43, lines 1-14) and disposed beneath the top skin (5, and 6 as seen in figure 1), part of the bottom skin being displaceable in the chord-wise direction (6, and Element D as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 42, lines 1-5) and configured to be guided by the displacement guide (4, and 6 as seen in figure 4), the bottom skin extending in the chord-wise direction from the spar to a bottom skin rear edge (6, 7, and 12 as seen in figure 1), the bottom skin rear edge joined to the top skin rear edge to form the trailing edge of the airfoil (5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1); and an actuator (8) connected to the bottom skin and configured to displace the bottom skin in the chord-wise direction (5, 8, 9, and 20 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 42, lines 1-5), displacement of the bottom skin causing the trailing edge to displace up or down (1 as seen in figures 1, and 2), wherein the spar is a fixed wing structure that the control surface is attached to (1, and 12 as seen in figure 1). But Calatayud does not teach that the top skin is mounted to the fixed wing structure via a leaf spring, the leaf spring fixedly mounting the top skin to the fixed wing structure and having an arc shaped length, that the top skin is movable in an upward direction, and that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the spar.
However, Beauchamp does teach that the top skin is mounted to the fixed wing structure via a leaf spring (2, 12, 14, and the skin as seen in figure 1, and Column 4, lines 4-8, as can be seen the leaf spring and stiffeners help to connect the upper skin to the spar of the wing), the leaf spring fixedly mounting the top skin to the fixed wing structure and having an arc shaped length (2, 12, 14, and the skin as seen in figure 1, and Column 4, lines 4-8, as can be seen the leaf spring and stiffeners help to mount the upper skin to the spar of the wing and the spring has an arc shaped length in the longitudinal direction), that the top skin is movable in an upward direction (4 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the top skin mounted to the spar by a leaf spring with an arc shaped length and to have the upper skin be movable in an upward direction because Calatayud and Beauchamp are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having the top skin mounted to the spar by a leaf spring with an arc shaped length is that it helps to ensure that the system will return to the default position when the system is no longer desired to be actuated, and the motivation for having the upper skin be movable in an upward direction is that it allows the control surface to be movable in both an upward and downward direction which increases the usability of the surface and can allow for greater control of the aircraft. But Beauchamp does not teach that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the spar.
However, Chang does teach that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the spar (15, and 18 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bottom skin be displaceable through the aperture of the spar because Calatayud and Chang are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having the bottom skin be displaceable through the aperture of the spar is that it allows for a greater range of shapes that the trailing edge can be moved to by allowing the bottom skin to be actuated over a greater length.
Regarding claim 2, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 1, wherein the spar is an aft spar of an aircraft wing (Paragraph 12, lines 1-3 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 3, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 2, wherein the airfoil is mounted to a main wing section of the aircraft wing (1, and 12 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 12, lines 1-3 of Calatayud) or to a winglet at a tip of the aircraft wing.
Regarding claim 4, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 1, but Calatayud does not teach that the displacement guide includes at least one roller and at least one roller guideway configured for guiding the part of the bottom skin through the at least one aperture of the spar. However, Chang does teach that the displacement guide includes at least one roller (The roller as seen in figure 2A) and at least one roller guideway (The bracket connecting the roller to the spar) configured for guiding the part of the bottom skin through the at least one aperture of the spar (15 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B, as can be seen the roller and guideway help to guide the bottom skin through the aperture by keeping the portion of the skin near the aperture relatively level with the aperture). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a roller and guideway to help guide the bottom skin to the aperture because Calatayud and Chang are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having a roller and guideway to help guide the bottom skin to the aperture is that it helps to allows the bottom skin to smoothly move through the aperture which allows the system to work more effectively.
Regarding claim 5, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 1, wherein the trailing edge is tapered relative to the leading edge (1, 5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 6, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 1, wherein the top skin and the bottom skin define an internal cavity of the airfoil (1, 5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud), the internal cavity configured to vary with the displacement of the bottom skin (1, 5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 7, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 6, wherein the internal cavity includes a solid trailing edge portion at the trailing edge (5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 8, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 7, but does not explicitly teach that the solid trailing edge portion occupies approximately 5% of a chord length of the airfoil. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solid trailing edge be 5% of the chord length, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the solid trailing edge be 5% of the chord length is that it helps to provide additional support and rigidity to the airfoil and can help to ensure that the top and bottom skins move in unison.
Regarding claim 10, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 1, wherein the actuator is directly connected to at least one finger (19 of Calatayud) protruding from the bottom skin at the leading edge (6, and 19 as seen in figure 4 of Calatayud) and is configured to effect displacement of the finger (Paragraph 44, lines 1-13 of Calatayud), but Calatayud does not teach that the finger is displaced through the at least one aperture.
However, Chang does teach that the finger is displaced through the at least one aperture (15, and 18 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B, this teaches that the end portion of the bottom skin is displaced through the aperture and the finger of Calatayud is located on the end portion of the bottom skin). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the finger displaced through the aperture because Calatayud and Chang are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having the finger displaced through the aperture is that it allows for a greater range of shapes that the trailing edge can be moved to by allowing the bottom skin to be actuated over a greater length.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calatayud et al. (PGPub #2023/0159153) as modified by Beauchamp et al. (US #5,367,970), and Chang et al. (PGPub #2013/0224024) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Appa (US #5,887,828).
Regarding claim 9, Calatayud as modified by Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 6, but Calatayud does not teach that the interior cavity includes a plurality of airfoil supports extending between the top skin and the bottom skin. However, Appa does teach that the interior cavity includes a plurality of airfoil supports extending between the top skin and the bottom skin (38, 40, 50, 50A, 54, and 54A as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of supports in the cavity connecting the top and bottom skins because Calatayud and Appa are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having a plurality of supports in the cavity connecting the top and bottom skins is that it helps to strengthen the airfoils and helps to ensure that both skins move in unison.
Claims 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calatayud et al. (PGPub #2023/0159153) in view of Kirk et al. (US #5,407,153), Beauchamp et al. (US #5,367,970), and Chang et al. (PGPub #2013/0224024).
Regarding claim 11, Calatayud teaches a winglet for an aircraft, the winglet coupled to a main wing section of an aircraft wing (Shown below in figure 3), the winglet comprising: a main winglet section extending between a root portion and a distal portion (The winglet as shown below in figure 3), the main winglet section having an aft spar (12, and Paragraph 48, lines 1-4) extending through an internal cavity of the main winglet section along a span thereof (12 as seen in figure 7), the aft spar (12) having at least one aperture (11) extending through the aft spar (Paragraph 48, lines 1-4); a displacement guide (4) adjacent to the at least one aperture of the aft spar (4, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 4); an airfoil (5, and 6) mounted to the aft spar (5, 6, and 12 as seen in figure 1) and extending in a span-wise direction (5, and 6 as seen in figure 4), the airfoil extending in a chord-wise direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge (5, and 6 as in figure 1), the airfoil comprising: a top skin (5) being resiliently deformable (Paragraph 43, lines 1-14), the top skin being bendable relative to the aft spar, in a downward direction (5, and 12 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 43, lines 1-14), the top skin extending from the aft spar in the chord-wise direction to a top skin rear edge (5, 7, and 12 as seen in figure 1); a bottom skin (6) being resiliently deformable (Paragraph 43, lines 1-14) and disposed beneath the top skin (5, and 6 as seen in figure 1), part of the bottom skin being displaceable in the chord-wise direction (6, and Element D as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 42, lines 1-5) and configured to be guided through the at least one aperture by the displacement guide (4, and 6 as seen in figure 4), the bottom skin extending in the chord-wise direction from the aft spar to a bottom skin rear edge (6, 7, and 12 as seen in figure 1), the bottom skin rear edge joined to the top skin rear edge to form the trailing edge of the airfoil (5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1); and an actuator (8) connected to the bottom skin and configured to displace the bottom skin in the chord-wise direction (5, 8, 9, and 20 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 42, lines 1-5), displacement of the bottom skin causing the trailing edge to displace up or down (1 as seen in figures 1, and 2), wherein the aft spar is a fixed wing structure that the control surface is attached to (1, and 12 as seen in figure 1). But Calatayud does not teach that the main winglet section has a forward spar, the forward and aft spars being spaced apart in a chord-wise direction at the distal portion of the main winglet section, the top skin is mounted to the fixed wing structure via a leaf spring, the leaf spring fixedly mounting the top skin to the fixed wing structure and having an arch shaped length, that the top skin is movable in an upward direction, and that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the aft spar.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kirk does teach that the main winglet section has a forward spar (46 and the dashed lines extending from 46 representing the spar as seen in figure 3), the forward and aft spars being spaced apart in a chord-wise direction at the distal portion of the main winglet section (45, 46, and the extending dashed lines as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a forward spar spaced from the aft spar because Calatayud and Kirk are both wingtip systems with spars. The motivation for having a forward spar spaced from the aft spar is that it helps to strengthen the system and allow it to better handle the aerodynamic loads. But Kirk does not teach that the top skin is mounted to the fixed wing structure via a leaf spring, the leaf spring fixedly mounting the top skin to the fixed wing structure and having an arch shaped length, that the top skin is movable in an upward direction, and that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the aft spar.
However, Beauchamp does teach that the top skin is mounted to the fixed wing structure via a leaf spring (2, 12, 14, and the skin as seen in figure 1, and Column 4, lines 4-8, as can be seen the leaf spring and stiffeners help to connect the upper skin to the spar of the wing), the leaf spring fixedly mounting the top skin to the fixed wing structure and having an arch shaped length (2, 12, 14, and the skin as seen in figure 1, and Column 4, lines 4-8, as can be seen the leaf spring and stiffeners help to mount the upper skin to the spar of the wing and the spring has an arc shaped length in the longitudinal direction), that the top skin is movable in an upward direction (4 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the top skin mounted to the spar by a leaf spring with an arc shaped length, and to have the upper skin be movable in an upward direction because Calatayud and Beauchamp are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having the top skin mounted to the spar by a leaf spring with an arc shaped length is that it helps to ensure that the system will return to the default position when the system is no longer desired to be actuated, and the motivation for having the upper skin be movable in an upward direction is that it allows the control surface to be movable in both an upward and downward direction which increases the usability of the surface and can allow for greater control of the aircraft. But Beauchamp does not teach that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the spar.
However, Chang does teach that the bottom skin is displaceable through the at least one aperture of the aft spar (15, and 18 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bottom skin be displaceable through the aperture of the spar because Calatayud and Chang are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having the bottom skin be displaceable through the aperture of the spar is that it allows for a greater range of shapes that the trailing edge can be moved to by allowing the bottom skin to be actuated over a greater length.
Regarding claim 12, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the aircraft control surface as defined in claim 1, but Calatayud does not teach that the displacement guide includes at least one roller and at least one roller guideway configured for guiding the part of the bottom skin through the at least one aperture of the aft spar. However, Chang does teach that the displacement guide includes at least one roller (The roller as seen in figure 2A) and at least one roller guideway (The bracket connecting the roller to the spar) configured for guiding the part of the bottom skin through the at least one aperture of the aft spar (15 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B, as can be seen the roller and guideway help to guide the bottom skin through the aperture by keeping the portion of the skin near the aperture relatively level with the aperture). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a roller and guideway to help guide the bottom skin to the aperture because Calatayud and Chang are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having a roller and guideway to help guide the bottom skin to the aperture is that it helps to allows the bottom skin to smoothly move through the aperture which allows the system to work more effectively.
Regarding claim 13, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the winglet as defined in claim 11, wherein the trailing edge is tapered relative to the leading edge (1, 5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 14, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the winglet as defined in claim 11, wherein the top skin and the bottom skin define an internal cavity of the airfoil (1, 5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud), the internal cavity configured to vary with the displacement of the bottom skin (1, 5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 15, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the winglet as defined in claim 14, wherein the internal cavity includes a solid trailing edge portion at the trailing edge (5, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Calatayud).
Regarding claim 16, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the winglet as defined in claim 15, but does not explicitly teach that the solid trailing edge portion occupies approximately 5% of a chord length of the airfoil. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solid trailing edge be 5% of the chord length, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the solid trailing edge be 5% of the chord length is that it helps to provide additional support and rigidity to the airfoil and can help to ensure that the top and bottom skins move in unison.
Regarding claim 18, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the winglet as defined in claim 11, wherein the actuator is directly connected to at least one finger (19 of Calatayud) protruding from the bottom skin at the leading edge (6, and 19 as seen in figure 4 of Calatayud) and is configured to effect displacement of the at least one finger (Paragraph 44, lines 1-13 of Calatayud), but Calatayud does not teach that the finger is displaced through the at least one aperture.
However, Chang does teach that the finger is displaced through the at least one aperture (15, and 18 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B, this teaches that the end portion of the bottom skin is displaced through the aperture and the finger of Calatayud is located on the end portion of the bottom skin). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the finger displaced through the aperture because Calatayud and Chang are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having the finger displaced through the aperture is that it allows for a greater range of shapes that the trailing edge can be moved to by allowing the bottom skin to be actuated over a greater length.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calatayud et al. (PGPub #2023/0159153) as modified by Kirk et al. (US #5,407,153), Beauchamp et al. (US #5,367,970), and Chang et al. (PGPub #2013/0224024) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Appa (US #5,887,828).
Regarding claim 17, Calatayud as modified by Kirk, Beauchamp, and Chang teaches the winglet as defined in claim 14, but Calatayud does not teach that the interior cavity includes a plurality of airfoil supports extending between the top skin and the bottom skin. However, Appa does teach that the interior cavity includes a plurality of airfoil supports extending between the top skin and the bottom skin (38, 40, 50, 50A, 54, and 54A as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of supports in the cavity connecting the top and bottom skins because Calatayud and Appa are both airfoils with variable camber trailing edges. The motivation for having a plurality of supports in the cavity connecting the top and bottom skins is that it helps to strengthen the airfoils and helps to ensure that both skins move in unison.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments Mangione does not teach the amendments to the claims and the rejections using Mangione have been removed. The examiner believes that Beauchamp does still teach the amended limitations and the rejections using Beauchamp have been amended to reflect this.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647