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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 – 11, 13 – 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. (US 2,650,780) in view of Dizdarevic et al. (US 2010/0163670).
Regarding claim 1, Northrop et al. discloses a blended wing body (BWB) aircraft comprising: a blended wing body, wherein the blended wing body is characterized by having no clear dividing line between wings and a main body along a leading edge of the blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 1); and a plurality of transparent panels (34, 40, 42, 43) located on a top surface of the main body, wherein the plurality of transparent panels are located within channels (formed by 41) of the main body, wherein the plurality of transparent panels allow transmission of visible light (panels of Northrop et al. are transparent – Col. 6, line 27).
Northrop et al. fails to teach that the nose portion comprises the cockpit and that the passenger cabin is located aft of the nose portion. However, Dizdarevic et al. teaches a BWB having a nose portion comprising a cockpit (Figs. 2A and 6A), and a passenger cabin (Fig. 2A) located aft of the nose portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the nose portion forward of the passenger cabin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Northrop et al. also fails to teach that the transparent panels are located aft of the nose portion such that transmission of visible light is over the passenger cabin. However, Dizdarevic et al. discloses a BWB having transparent panels (skylight, [0122]) positioned above the aisles of the passenger compartment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include these transparent panels above the passenger compartment for the comfort of the passenger.
Regarding claim 2, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that an exterior surface of the plurality of transparent panels are flush with the top surface of the main body (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that two or more transparent panels of the plurality of transparent panels are located within one or more rows of transparent panel on the top surface of the main body (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that the one or more rows of transparent panels comprises a uniform distribution (in the direction diagonal to cross section 6-6 in Fig. 5) between each transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels.
Regarding claim 9, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that the one or more rows of transparent panels comprises an uneven distribution (in the direction along the axis perpendicular to cross section 6-6 in Fig. 5 – the panels are offset in this direction) between each transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels.
Regarding claim 10, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that the one or more rows of transparent panels runs along a midline of the aircraft (some panels are adjacent to the midline in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that each row of transparent panels of the one or more rows of transparent panels is oriented parallel to one another (in the direction diagonal to cross section 6-6 in Fig. 5) .
Regarding claim 13, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that the plurality of transparent panels are positioned to form a grid (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., inherently discloses that the aircraft additionally comprises one or more light sources configured to illuminate at least on transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels (the aircraft of Northrop et al. will have light sources within the cabin that would illuminate the panels).
Regarding claim 15, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses at least one transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels (34) is located near a rear of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 17, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic, more specifically Northrop et al., discloses that the plurality of transparent panels comprises an outer pane (Figs. 1 – 5).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of Nordman (WO 2005/042344).
Regarding claim 3, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach at least a transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels is made of fiberglass. However, Nordman discloses a transparent fiberglass window panel (claim 1, Nordman). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to use fiberglass in the transparent panel of Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic in order to provide a panel that is durable and can withstand and insulate against extreme temperatures.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 5,110,071).
Regarding claim 4, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach that at least a transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels is made of plexiglass. However, Hunter et al. discloses a plexiglass windshield (30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to use plexiglass in the panel of Northrop et al. in order to provide durability and shatter/impact-resistance.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of Kamei et al. (US 2011/0204682).
Regarding claim 5, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach that the blended wing body aircraft further comprises a plurality of retractable shades mechanically attached to each transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels. However, Kamei discloses a shade device (40) on an inner surface of a transparent roof panel of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include a shade on the panel of Northrop et al. in order to control the amount of ambient light entering the cabin and/or regulate cabin temperature.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of McMaster (US 2,497,507).
Regarding claim 6, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach that at least one transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels comprises a deicing element. However, McMaster teaches a deicing element on windshields and windows of an aircraft (Col. 4, lines 36 – 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include a deicing element on the panel of Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic for safety and visibility.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of Rukavina et al. (US 2002/0135881).
Regarding claim 12, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach that at least one transparent panel of the plurality of transparent panels is tinted. However, Rukavina et al. teaches a window comprising a transparent substrate that is tinted (paragraph [0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a tinted panel in order to reduce glare and regular cabin temperature.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of Goodwin et al. (US 2017/0100865).
Regarding claim 16, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach that at least a transparent panel from the plurality of transparent panel is a translucent panel. However, Goodwin et al. discloses a translucent window panel (paragraph [0079]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a translucent panel in order to control the amount and strength of ambient light entering the cabin.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and further in view of Monfette (US 2019/0351991).
Regarding claim 18, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic fails to teach that the plurality of transparent panels further comprises a scratch pane, wherein the scratch pane is in contact with an interior atmosphere in the blended wing body aircraft and is located below the outer pane. However, Monfette discloses an aircraft cabin window having a scratch pane located next to the outer pane (paragraph [0003]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a scratch pane in the blended wing aircraft of Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic in order to prevent passengers from accessing the outer panes (paragraph [0003], Monfette).
Regarding claim 19, Northrop et al. as modified by Dizdarevic and Monfette teaches that the plurality of transparent panels further comprises an inner pane located between the outer pane and the scratch pane (paragraph [0003], Monfette).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of references than that applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zha, WO 2010/129210 – Supersonic Flying Wing
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 VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642