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 1-23 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the fifth action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/15/2023 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-20 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 17 introduces “an outboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of the starboard wing”, and claims 18-20 further specify the structure of this control surface. It is not clear to the examiner if the control surface introduced in claim 17 is meant to be the same control surface that is introduced in claim 1 or a different surface. The examiner believes that these are meant to be the same elements and the claims will be examined in this manner.
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 1-6, and 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) in view of Dickey et al. (PGPub #2019/0367156), and Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379).
Regarding claim 1, Wakayama teaches an aircraft comprising: a blended wing body (41), wherein the blended wing body comprises: a fuselage (The center fuselage portion of 41 as seen in figure 3); a port wing (The port wing portion of 41 as seen in figure 3) and a starboard wing (The starboard wing portion of 41 as seen in figure 3) continuously coupled to the fuselage and a nose section (41 as seen in figures 3, and 4), wherein each of the port wing and the starboard wing comprise an outboard wing portion that is distinct from the fuselage and projects laterally outward from the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figures 3, and 4); at least one individual controllable control surface (43 as seen in figure 3, and 55, and 57 as seen in figure 4, and Paragraph 29) located on the outboard wing portion of the starboard wing (43 as seen in figure 3, and 55, and 57 as seen in figure 4), wherein the at least one individual controllable control surface comprises; a first control surface (55) having a first planform (55 as seen in figure 4) and situated inboard relative to a second control surface of the at least one control surface (55, and 57 as seen in figure 4); and an upper surface and a lower surface (55, and 57 as seen in figures 4, 5, and 7), and wherein the individual controllable control surface is configured to simultaneously raise and lower the upper surface and the lower surface (55, and 57 as seen in figures 4, 5, and 7), wherein the at least an individual controllable surface is rotated below the starboard wing (55, and 57 as seen in figure 7, and Paragraph 38); a midship control surface disposed on a trailing edge of the fuselage (47 as seen in figure 4, and the central most control surfaces as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the trailing edge has control surfaces located on the main central body portion of the aircraft), but Wakayama does not explicitly teach that the first planform is a triangular plan form; the midship control surface is centered between the port wing and the starboard wing, and wherein the entirety of the trailing edge of the fuselage is substantially at the same height.
However, Dickey does teach that the first planform is a triangular plan form (400 as seen in figure 35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first planform be triangular because Wakayama and Dickey are both control surface systems for aircraft. The motivation for having the first planform be triangular is that it can help to reduce the weight of the control surface system while still allowing them to perform their desired tasks. But Dickey does not teach that the midship control surface is centered between the port wing and the starboard wing, and wherein the entirety of the trailing edge of the fuselage is substantially at the same height.
However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface is centered between the port wing and the starboard wing (16, 18, and 34 as seen in figure 2), wherein the entirety of the trailing edge of the fuselage is substantially at the same height (14, 26, 28, and 34 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 control surface mounted at the center of the trailing edge of the fuselage because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having a control surface mounted at the center of the trailing edge of the fuselage is that it provides a large control surface to help control the pitch of the aircraft while not imparting a large roll or yaw force on the aircraft to help maintain stability.
Regarding claim 2, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that the midship control surface is the aftmost control surface on the fuselage. However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface is the aftmost control surface on the fuselage (14, 30, 32, and 34 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 midship control surface be the aftmost fuselage control surface because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface be the aftmost fuselage control surface is that it allows it to generate a larger pitching moment when it is deployed.
Regarding claim 3, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 2, but Wakayama does not teach that no other control surface on the fuselage is in line with the midship control surface. However, Clark does teach that no other control surface on the fuselage is in line with the midship control surface (30, 32, and 34 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 midship control surface not be in line with the other control surfaces because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface not be in line with the other control surfaces is that it allows the midship control surface to provide an aerodynamic force when it is deployed that is different from the other control surfaces to provide more control options for the aircraft.
Regarding claim 4, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the trailing edge of the fuselage is convex (41 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 5, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein there are no vertical stabilizers on the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama, as can be seen the vertical stabilizers are located on the wings of the aircraft rather than the fuselage).
Regarding claim 6, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the blended wing body has no clear demarcation between the wings and fuselage along a trailing edge of the aircraft (41 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 9, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that a chord length of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of a centerbody chord length. However, Clark does teach that a chord length of the midship control surface is a small portion of a centerbody chord length (10, 14, and 34 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 chord length of the control surface be a small portion of the centerbody chord because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the chord length of the control surface be a small portion of the centerbody chord is that it helps to ensure that the control surface is properly sized for the rest of the aircraft. But Clark does not explicitly teach that the chord of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of the centerbody chord.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the chord of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of the centerbody chord, 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 chord of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of the centerbody chord is that it helps to ensure that that the control surface is large enough to provide adequate control movements when deployed but not so large as to over-control the system and cause undesired large movements in the aircraft.
Regarding claim 10, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that the midship control surface has elevator functionality. However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface has elevator functionality (Paragraph 16, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the midship control surface be an elevator because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface be an elevator is that it allows the aircraft to more effectively control its pitch in flight.
Regarding claim 11, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that the midship control surface has braking functionality. However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface has braking functionality (Paragraph 16, lines 1-7, any deployable control surface that is moved to a deployed position from a stowed position will inherently provide a degree of braking functionality as the control surface will generate more drag in the deployed position which if all else is equal will work to help slow down an aircraft). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the midship control surface provide a braking force because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface provide a braking force is that it can help to control the aircraft by providing an extra control on the speed of the aircraft and can help to make the landings easier.
Regarding claim 12, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising an inboard port control surface on the trailing edge of a port side of the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), further comprising an inboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of a starboard side of the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 13, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the blended wing body has no clear demarcation between the wings and the fuselage along the trailing edge of the aircraft (41 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama), wherein the inboard port control surface on the trailing edge of the port side of the fuselage is in a transition region between the fuselage and the port wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and wherein the inboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of the starboard side of the fuselage is in the transition region between the fuselage and the starboard wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 14, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the inboard port control surface is a control surface doublet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and wherein the inboard starboard control surface is a starboard control surface doublet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 15, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the inboard port and starboard control surfaces have elevator functionality (Paragraph 9, lines 1-6 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 16, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the inboard port and starboard control surfaces have aileron functionality (Abstract, lines 1-1-2, and Claim 19 of Wakayama, this teaches that the control surfaces are independently controllable and are capable of upwards and downwards deflections, this means that the control surfaces can be used in an aileron functionality).
Regarding claim 17, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising an outboard port control surface on the trailing edge of the port wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), further comprising an outboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of the starboard wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 18, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 17, wherein the outboard port control surface is a control surface triplet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and wherein the outboard starboard control surface is a control surface triplet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 19, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the outboard port control surface and the outboard starboard control surface (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama) each comprise a first shaped control surface (53 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), a quadrilateral shaped control surface (55 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and a second shaped control surface (57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama). But Wakayama does not teach that the first and second shaped control surfaces are triangular shaped control surfaces.
However, Dickey does teach that the first and second shaped control surfaces are triangular shaped control surfaces (400 as seen in figure 35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shaped control surfaces be triangular because Wakayama and Dickey are both control surface systems for aircraft. The motivation for having the shaped control surfaces be triangular is that it can help to reduce the weight of the control surface system while still allowing them to perform their desired tasks.
Regarding claim 20, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 19, wherein the shaped control surfaces are triangular (400 as seen in figure 35 of Dickey), and the first shaped control surface, the quadrilateral shaped control surface, and the second shaped control surface of each of the outboard port control surface and the outboard starboard control surface are positioned such that a side of the first shaped control surface is adjacent to and parallel to a first side of the quadrilateral shaped control surface (53, and 55 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and a side of the second shaped control surface is adjacent to and parallel to a second side of the quadrilateral shaped control surface (55, and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), wherein the first side of the quadrilateral shaped control surface and the second side of the quadrilateral control surface are not adjacent sides (53, 55, and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 21, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a port wing trailing edge and a starboard wing trailing edge extend laterally outward from a side of the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 22, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a port wing trailing edge and a starboard wing trailing edge comprise a rearward sweep (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Claims 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) as modified by Dickey et al. (PGPub #2019/0367156), and Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Page et al. (PGPub #2002/0145075).
Regarding claim 7, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the midship control surface is located at the trailing edge of the aircraft (14, 26, 28, and 34 as seen in figure 2 of Clark), but does not teach that the trailing edge is aft of a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft.
However, Page does teach that the trailing edge is aft of a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft (34, 70, and 88 as seen in figures 1, and 2, and Paragraph 30, lines 1-22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rear pressure bulkhead located in front of the trailing edge because Wakayama and Page are both blended wing body aircraft. The motivation for having the rear pressure bulkhead located in front of the trailing edge is that helps to ensure that the pressure bulkhead is protected in the event of an incident by having it spaced from the edges of the aircraft that could strike another object.
Regarding claim 8, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that there is no aft door through a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft. However, Page does teach that there is no aft door through a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft (34, 70, and 88 as seen in figures 1, and 2, and Paragraph 30, lines 1-22, as can be seen all of the cabin structures terminate at the bulkhead and there is no passageway through the bulkhead). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have no door in the rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft because Wakayama and Page are both blended wing body aircraft. The motivation for having no door in the rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft is that it helps to strengthen the pressure bulkhead by having it be a solid member which is less likely to fail.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) as modified by Dickey et al. (PGPub #2019/0367156), and Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Cazals et al. (PGPub #2011/0135472).
Regarding claim 23, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that the midship control surface is moveable in a split configuration, wherein a top surface of the midship control surface moves upward and a bottom surface of the midship control surface moves downward.
However, Cazals does teach that the midship control surface is moveable in a split configuration (7, and 8 as seen in figure 2, and Paragraph 36, lines 1-5, this teaches that the split configuration can be applied to any control surface of an aircraft), wherein a top surface of the midship control surface moves upward (7 as seen in figures 7a, and 7b) and a bottom surface of the midship control surface moves downward (7 as seen in figures 7a, and 7b). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the midship control surface be a split flap that each have a top surface move upwards and a bottom surface move downwards because Wakayama and Cazals are both trailing edge control surface systems for aircraft. The motivation for having the midship control surface be a split flap that each have a top surface move upwards and a bottom surface move downwards is that it allows the control surface to move to a wider range of positions and provide an air brake to improve the controllability of the aircraft.
Claims 1-6, 9-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) in view of Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379).
Regarding claim 1, Wakayama teaches an aircraft comprising: a blended wing body (41), wherein the blended wing body comprises: a fuselage (The center fuselage portion of 41 as seen in figure 3); a port wing (The port wing portion of 41 as seen in figure 3) and a starboard wing (The starboard wing portion of 41 as seen in figure 3) continuously coupled to the fuselage and a nose section (41 as seen in figures 3, and 4), wherein each of the port wing and the starboard wing comprise an outboard wing portion that is distinct from the fuselage and projects laterally outward from the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figures 3, and 4); at least one individual controllable control surface (43 as seen in figure 3, and 55, and 57 as seen in figure 4, and Paragraph 29) located on the outboard wing portion of the starboard wing (43 as seen in figure 3, and 55, and 57 as seen in figure 4), wherein the at least one individual controllable control surface comprises; a first control surface (55) having a first planform (55 as seen in figure 4) and situated inboard relative to a second control surface of the at least one control surface (55, and 57 as seen in figure 4); and an upper surface and a lower surface (55, and 57 as seen in figures 4, 5, and 7), and wherein the individual controllable control surface is configured to simultaneously raise and lower the upper surface and the lower surface (55, and 57 as seen in figures 4, 5, and 7), wherein the at least an individual controllable surface is rotated below the starboard wing (55, and 57 as seen in figure 7, and Paragraph 38); a midship control surface disposed on a trailing edge of the fuselage (47 as seen in figure 4, and the central most control surfaces as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the trailing edge has control surfaces located on the main central body portion of the aircraft), but Wakayama does not explicitly teach that the first planform is a triangular planform; the midship control surface is centered between the port wing and the starboard wing, and wherein the entirety of the trailing edge of the fuselage is substantially at the same height.
However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface is centered between the port wing and the starboard wing (16, 18, and 34 as seen in figure 2), wherein the entirety of the trailing edge of the fuselage is substantially at the same height (14, 26, 28, and 34 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 control surface mounted at the center of the trailing edge of the fuselage because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having a control surface mounted at the center of the trailing edge of the fuselage is that it provides a large control surface to help control the pitch of the aircraft while not imparting a large roll or yaw force on the aircraft to help maintain stability. But Clark does not teach that the first planform is a triangular planform.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first planform a triangular planform. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The motivation for having the first planform be a triangular planform is that it can help to improve the aerodynamic performance of the flap and reduce the drag that is generated when it is deployed.
Regarding claim 2, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that the midship control surface is the aftmost control surface on the fuselage. However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface is the aftmost control surface on the fuselage (14, 30, 32, and 34 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 midship control surface be the aftmost fuselage control surface because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface be the aftmost fuselage control surface is that it allows it to generate a larger pitching moment when it is deployed.
Regarding claim 3, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 2, but Wakayama does not teach that no other control surface on the fuselage is in line with the midship control surface. However, Clark does teach that no other control surface on the fuselage is in line with the midship control surface (30, 32, and 34 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 midship control surface not be in line with the other control surfaces because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface not be in line with the other control surfaces is that it allows the midship control surface to provide an aerodynamic force when it is deployed that is different from the other control surfaces to provide more control options for the aircraft.
Regarding claim 4, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the trailing edge of the fuselage is convex (41 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 5, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein there are no vertical stabilizers on the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama, as can be seen the vertical stabilizers are located on the wings of the aircraft rather than the fuselage).
Regarding claim 6, Wakayama as modified by Dickey, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the blended wing body has no clear demarcation between the wings and fuselage along a trailing edge of the aircraft (41 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 9, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that a chord length of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of a centerbody chord length. However, Clark does teach that a chord length of the midship control surface is a small portion of a centerbody chord length (10, 14, and 34 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 chord length of the control surface be a small portion of the centerbody chord because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the chord length of the control surface be a small portion of the centerbody chord is that it helps to ensure that the control surface is properly sized for the rest of the aircraft. But Clark does not explicitly teach that the chord of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of the centerbody chord.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the chord of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of the centerbody chord, 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 chord of the midship control surface is between 3.1% and 3.5% of the centerbody chord is that it helps to ensure that that the control surface is large enough to provide adequate control movements when deployed but not so large as to over-control the system and cause undesired large movements in the aircraft.
Regarding claim 10, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that the midship control surface has elevator functionality. However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface has elevator functionality (Paragraph 16, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the midship control surface be an elevator because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface be an elevator is that it allows the aircraft to more effectively control its pitch in flight.
Regarding claim 11, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but Wakayama does not teach that the midship control surface has braking functionality. However, Clark does teach that the midship control surface has braking functionality (Paragraph 16, lines 1-7, any deployable control surface that is moved to a deployed position from a stowed position will inherently provide a degree of braking functionality as the control surface will generate more drag in the deployed position which if all else is equal will work to help slow down an aircraft). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the midship control surface provide a braking force because Wakayama and Clark are both blended wing body aircraft with trailing edge control surfaces. The motivation for having the midship control surface provide a braking force is that it can help to control the aircraft by providing an extra control on the speed of the aircraft and can help to make the landings easier.
Regarding claim 12, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising an inboard port control surface on the trailing edge of a port side of the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), further comprising an inboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of a starboard side of the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 13, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the blended wing body has no clear demarcation between the wings and the fuselage along the trailing edge of the aircraft (41 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama), wherein the inboard port control surface on the trailing edge of the port side of the fuselage is in a transition region between the fuselage and the port wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and wherein the inboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of the starboard side of the fuselage is in the transition region between the fuselage and the starboard wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 14, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the inboard port control surface is a control surface doublet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and wherein the inboard starboard control surface is a starboard control surface doublet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 49, and 51 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 15, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the inboard port and starboard control surfaces have elevator functionality (Paragraph 9, lines 1-6 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 16, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the inboard port and starboard control surfaces have aileron functionality (Abstract, lines 1-1-2, and Claim 19 of Wakayama, this teaches that the control surfaces are independently controllable and are capable of upwards and downwards deflections, this means that the control surfaces can be used in an aileron functionality).
Regarding claim 17, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising an outboard port control surface on the trailing edge of the port wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), further comprising an outboard starboard control surface on the trailing edge of the starboard wing (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 18, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 17, wherein the outboard port control surface is a control surface triplet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and wherein the outboard starboard control surface is a control surface triplet (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3, and 53, 55 and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 21, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a port wing trailing edge and a starboard wing trailing edge extend laterally outward from a side of the fuselage (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Regarding claim 22, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a port wing trailing edge and a starboard wing trailing edge comprise a rearward sweep (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama).
Claims 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) as modified by Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Page et al. (PGPub #2002/0145075).
Regarding claim 7, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the midship control surface is located at the trailing edge of the aircraft (14, 26, 28, and 34 as seen in figure 2 of Clark), but does not teach that the trailing edge is aft of a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft.
However, Page does teach that the trailing edge is aft of a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft (34, 70, and 88 as seen in figures 1, and 2, and Paragraph 30, lines 1-22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rear pressure bulkhead located in front of the trailing edge because Wakayama and Page are both blended wing body aircraft. The motivation for having the rear pressure bulkhead located in front of the trailing edge is that helps to ensure that the pressure bulkhead is protected in the event of an incident by having it spaced from the edges of the aircraft that could strike another object.
Regarding claim 8, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that there is no aft door through a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft. However, Page does teach that there is no aft door through a rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft (34, 70, and 88 as seen in figures 1, and 2, and Paragraph 30, lines 1-22, as can be seen all of the cabin structures terminate at the bulkhead and there is no passageway through the bulkhead). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have no door in the rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft because Wakayama and Page are both blended wing body aircraft. The motivation for having no door in the rear pressure bulkhead of the aircraft is that it helps to strengthen the pressure bulkhead by having it be a solid member which is less likely to fail.
Claims 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) as modified by Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dickey et al. (PGPub #2019/0367156).
Regarding claim 19, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the outboard port control surface and the outboard starboard control surface (41, and 43 as seen in figure 3 of Wakayama) each comprise a first shaped control surface (53 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), a quadrilateral shaped control surface (55 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and a second shaped control surface (57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama). But Wakayama does not teach that the first and second shaped control surfaces are triangular shaped control surfaces.
However, Dickey does teach that the first and second shaped control surfaces are triangular shaped control surfaces (400 as seen in figure 35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shaped control surfaces be triangular because Wakayama and Dickey are both control surface systems for aircraft. The motivation for having the shaped control surfaces be triangular is that it can help to reduce the weight of the control surface system while still allowing them to perform their desired tasks.
Regarding claim 20, Wakayama as modified by Clark, and Dickey teaches the aircraft of claim 19, wherein the shaped control surfaces are triangular (400 as seen in figure 35 of Dickey), and the first shaped control surface, the quadrilateral shaped control surface, and the second shaped control surface of each of the outboard port control surface and the outboard starboard control surface are positioned such that a side of the first shaped control surface is adjacent to and parallel to a first side of the quadrilateral control surface (53, and 55 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), and a side of the second shaped control surface is adjacent to and parallel to a second side of the quadrilateral control surface (55, and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama), wherein the first side of the quadrilateral control surface and the second side of the quadrilateral control surface are not adjacent sides (53, 55, and 57 as seen in figure 4 of Wakayama).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama (PGPub #2003/0197097) as modified by Clark (PGPub #2004/0245379) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Cazals et al. (PGPub #2011/0135472).
Regarding claim 23, Wakayama as modified by Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that the midship control surface is moveable in a split configuration, wherein a top surface of the midship control surface moves upward and a bottom surface of the midship control surface moves downward.
However, Cazals does teach that the midship control surface is moveable in a split configuration (7, and 8 as seen in figure 2, and Paragraph 36, lines 1-5, this teaches that the split configuration can be applied to any control surface of an aircraft), wherein a top surface of the midship control surface moves upward (7 as seen in figures 7a, and 7b) and a bottom surface of the midship control surface moves downward (7 as seen in figures 7a, and 7b). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the midship control surface be a split flap that each have a top surface move upwards and a bottom surface move downwards because Wakayama and Cazals are both trailing edge control surface systems for aircraft. The motivation for having the midship control surface be a split flap that each have a top surface move upwards and a bottom surface move downwards is that it allows the control surface to move to a wider range of positions and provide an air brake to improve the controllability of the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has amended their rejections of the claims to show how they believe the prior arts teach all of the limitations of the claim.
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