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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 3, 5, 6 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In the prior office action US 20190118932 was mistakenly listed as Baraja et al, and should read as Princen et al the inventor.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After consultation with primary examiner and further consideration of cited references, the amended limitation of “a first wing having a first winglet located at a distal end of the first wing and aft of a center of gravity of the aircraft,” reference Princen US 20190118932 is looked to.
Concerning Applicants arguments that “Baraja [Princen] does not teach, suggest or motivate “a first wing having a first winglet located at a distal end of the first wing and aft of a center of gravity of the aircraft” as recited in part by amended claim 1.” Examiner respectfully references figure 2 of said reference where a center of gravity, CG, is located such that the wingtip is aft of this location.
Applicant argues that Breitsamter teaches away from the claimed limitations of claim 1. In particular “positioning of the wing and the winglet can enable winglets to function in a rudder-like capacity, a function that is already fulfilled by the vertical tail fin in Breitsamter. Accordingly, introducing such an aft-winglet configuration into a tube-and-wing aircraft, as disclosed in Breitsamter, would be redundant and potentially disruptive. Such a placement could interfere with the function and placement of the existing vertical tail fin, leading to aerodynamic inefficiencies or control conflicts.”
As best understood Applicant argues against placement of the aft-winglet configuration into a tube-and-wing aircraft having a vertical tail rudder, however, Breitsamter is looked to in modifying the aircraft of Odle. The winglet configuration of Breitsamter is for the at least first advantage of “influencing wake eddies, which enable an accelerated eddy trail decay.”
Applicant further states “Breitsamter would discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from modifying the placement of the wings, especially by relocating the wings aft of the center of gravity, as such a configuration would be detrimental in the context of the currently amended claim 1.” However, the wings are not modified/relocated, but the center of gravity is located within the fuselage such that the wingtips and the attached winglets are aft of the center of gravity.
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 1-14, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odle et al (US 20110121130) in view of Princen et al (US 20190118932) in view of Breitsamter et al (US 20100006706).
In regards to claim 1, Odle discloses an aircraft for transonic flight comprising:
a fuselage extending to a back portion (ref. 302), wherein:
the fuselage lacks a vertical tailfin (as seen in Fig. 3);
while Odle discloses ([0044]) “one or more pitch control surfaces 310 are positioned near an aft end of the cargo door 306 along a substantially same plane as the cargo door 306”, Odle does not expressly disclose: and the back portion comprises a first main body control surface and a second main body control surface;
Princen teaches a first and second control surface on a back portion of a blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 2 ref. 120, 121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Odle with Princen by providing the back portion comprises a first main body control surface and a second main body control surface in order to providing symmetrical control surfaces for greater pitch and roll control.
Odle as combined further discloses:
a propulsor configured to generate thrust (Odle ref. 318);
a first wing having a first winglet at a distal end of the wing (Odle wing ref. 304, winglet 314), wherein the first winglet comprises at least a first control surface including a first trailing edge of the first winglet (as suggested in at least Fig. 3, at aft of ref. 314, not referenced);
a second wing having a second winglet at a distal end of the second wing, wherein the second winglet comprises at least a second control surface including a second trailing edge of the second winglet (Odle, winglet and control surface, mirrored on both left and right side of aircraft 300),
Odle does not expressly disclose as taught by Breitsamter:
wherein: the at least a first control surface and the second control surface are independently movable (Breitsamter as seen in at least Fig. 3 with regards to ref.5a and 5b, [0040] “the latter has two winglet flaps, each of which performs a motion in phase opposition”); the at least a first control surface is able to be moved from the first trailing edge of the first winglet in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the fuselage ([0047] detailed below); the at least a first control surface is able to be moved from the first trailing edge of the first winglet in a direction away from a longitudinal axis of the fuselage ([0047] “The flow flaps may be structured and arranged to perform flap excursions measuring in both directions proceeding from a reference setting one of between 10 and 40 degrees and between 15 and 25 degrees”, both directions meaning in a direction of the longitudinal axis and away from the longitudinal axis);
the at least a second control surface is able to be moved from the second trailing edge of the second winglet in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (as detailed above from Breitamter, flap function mirrored for both winglets); and the at least a second control surface is able to be moved from the second trailing edge of the second winglet in a direction away from a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (as detailed above from Breitsamter, flap function mirrored for both winglets);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Odle with Breitsamter by providing the winglet control surface means of Breitsamter where the first control surface and the second control surface are independently movable and the first control surface and the second control surface is able to be moved from the first/second trailing edge of the first/second winglet in a direction of a longitudinal axis of the fuselage; the at least a first/second control surface is able to be moved from the first/second trailing edge of the first winglet in a direction away from a longitudinal axis of the fuselage in order to increase flight performance.
Odle as combined further discloses:
at least a first actuator configured to move the at least a first control surface (Breitsamter [0018] detailed below);
at least a second actuator configured to move the at least a second control surface (Breitsamter [0018] “each of the flow flaps of the aerodynamic element can have allocated to it an actuator that can displace each of the flow flaps”); and
a controller configured to control each of the at least a first actuator and the at least a second actuator (Breitsamter [0023] “a computer with an actuator-activation module, which generates time-variable command signals for actuators”).
Odle as combined does not expressly disclose:
the first winglet located at a distal end of the first wing and aft of a center of gravity of the aircraft.
Princen teaches locating the center of gravity in the fuselage such that the wingtips are aft of the center of gravity, as seen in Fig. 2, ref. CG, where ref. 177, pitch axis, and 175, roll axis, intersect.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Odle with Princen by providing the center of gravity is located in the fuselage such that the first wing winglet is located at a distal end of the first wing and aft of a center of gravity of the aircraft in order to improve flight handling with regards to the pitch axis as well as fuel efficiency.
In regards to claim 2, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising a blended wing body (Odle as seen in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 3, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the at least a first main body control surface and the at least a second main body control surface are independently movable (Odle as combined, Princen [0050] “each of the third aerodynamics control surface 120 and the fourth aerodynamics control surface 121 includes a flap that is adjustable to adjust a roll and/or a pitch (e.g., rotation about the pitch axis 177) of the aircraft 100”).
In regards to claim 4, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface each comprise at least two control surface segments (Breitsamter Fig. 3 refs. 5a and 5b mirrored for each wing).
In regards to claim 5, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 4, wherein each control surface segment of the at least two control surface segments of the first control surface is configured to move identically to the control surface segments of the at least two control surface segments (Breitsamter discloses [0018] “displace each of the flow flaps from a reference setting proceeding in both directions running opposite to each other”, each control surface may move in consideration of the identical same limits, reference setting, angle of displacement, [0020]).
In regards to claim 6, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 4, wherein each control surface segments of the at least two control surface segments of the first control surface is configured to move independently of the control surface segments of the at least two control surface segments (Breitsamter as seen in at least Fig. 3 with regards to ref. 5a and 5b, [0040] “the latter has two winglet flaps, each of which performs a motion in phase opposition”, each has a separate actuator, thus configured to move independently).
In regards to claim 7, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 6, wherein two control surface segments of the at least two control surface segments are configured to move in opposite directions to induce drag (Breitsamter discloses [0018] “displace each of the flow flaps from a reference setting proceeding in both directions running opposite to each other”).
In regards to claim 8, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control each of the at least a first actuator and the at least a second actuator to reduce drag using the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface (Breitamter discloses reference setting, with has reduced resistance/drag, [0019] “[0019] The reference setting can be the neutral setting of the respective flow flap on the aerodynamic element, or also a setting of the respective flow flap on the aerodynamic element in which the resistance of the aerodynamic element measures at most 10% of the minimum resistance value”).
In regards to claim 9, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control one or more of the at least a first actuator and the at least a second actuator to introduce a yaw moment using one or more of the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface (Odle as combined discloses the claimed structure and is capable of performing the claimed limitation, MPEP 2112.01).
In regards to claim 10, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control one or more of the at least a first actuator and the at least a second actuator to introduce a side force using one or more of the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface (Odle as combined discloses the claimed structure and is capable of performing the claimed limitation, MPEP 2112.01).
In regards to claim 11, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control each of the at least a first actuator and the at least a second actuator to adjust wing bending using the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface (intended use, Odle as combined discloses the claimed structure and is capable of performing the claimed limitation, MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
In regards to claim 12, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control each of the at least a first actuator and the at least a second actuator to increase drag using the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface (Breitsamter [0018] “displace each of the flow flaps from a reference setting proceeding in both directions running opposite to each other” increasing drag by moving the control surfaces into the airflow).
In regards to claim 13, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the fuselage comprises a nose portion, wherein the nose portion comprises a cockpit (as seen in Fig. 3 of Odle).
In regards to claim 14, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the nose portion of the fuselage and a leading edge of a substantially swept wing creates a continuous curvilinear geometry (as seen in Fig. 3 of Odle for aircraft ref. 300).
In regards to claim 19, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the at least a first control surface and the at least a second control surface each comprise a rudder (Breitsamter ref. 4 in Fig. 2, mirrored for opposite winglet, Odle ref. 314).
In regards to claim 20, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein each winglet of the first winglet and the second winglet extends upward (as seen in Fig. 314 of Odle).
Claim 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odle, Princen, Breitsamter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sankrithi et al (US 20080308683).
In regards to claim 15, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose: wherein the first winglet and the second winglet comprise a carbon-fiber composite.
Sankrithi teaches carbon fiber material used in winglet ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Odle as combined with Sankrithi by providing the first winglet and the second winglet comprise a carbon-fiber composite in order to provide strength while saving weight.
In regards to claim 16, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein an actuator of the first actuator and the second actuator comprises a pneumatic actuator.
Sankrithi teaches pneumatic actuators for aircraft use, [0027] “The control surface 210 may be connected to the body portion 206 of the variable geometry winglet 200 by one or more actuators 212... actuators 212 may include... pneumatic actuators’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify with the reasonable expectation of success, Odel as combined with Sankrithi by providing the actuator of the first actuator and second actuator comprises a pneumatic actuator in order to provide increased force to move the control surfaces.
In regards to claim 17, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose as taught by Sankrithi: wherein an actuator of the first actuator and the second actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator ([0027] The control surface 210 may be connected to the body portion 206 of the variable geometry winglet 200 by one or more actuators 212. It will be appreciated that the one or more actuators 212 may include electromechanical actuators, hydraulic actuators, pneumatic actuators, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify with the reasonable expectation of success, Odel as combined with Sankrithi by providing an actuator of the first actuator and the second actuator comprises an electromechanical actuator in order to provide increased force to move the control surfaces, and as these devices are well known in the art.
In regards to claim 18, Odle as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose as taught by Sankrithi: wherein an actuator of the first actuator and the second actuator comprises a hydraulic actuator ([0027] The control surface 210 may be connected to the body portion 206 of the variable geometry winglet 200 by one or more actuators 212. It will be appreciated that the one or more actuators 212 may include electromechanical actuators, hydraulic actuators, pneumatic actuators, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify with the reasonable expectation of success, Odel as combined with Sankrithi by providing an actuator of the first actuator and the second actuator comprises a hydraulic actuator in order to provide increased force to move the control surfaces, and as these devices are well known in the art.
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 VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642