NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
No argument was presented with RCE. Due to the new arts in recent IDS, previous Office Action (Allowance) is withdrawn, and new rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuehl et al. (5,138,559, cited by the applicants, “Kuehl”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuehl teaches an aircraft (Fig.3) comprising: a wing (shown in Fig.3); a fuel tank (fig.1; 10, fig.3; 68, 70, 72, 74) within the wing (shown in fig.3); a first pressure sensor (fig.2; 34) that is fixed at a first position (bottom of the tank) within the fuel tank and configured to measure a pressure of a fuel within the fuel tank at the first position (col.6; lines 22-34, col.4; lines 7-47, a reference height HREF to the bottom may be considered as a first position. The differential pressure (PD) can be expressed by: PD=HREF x DF x g); a second pressure sensor (col.6; lines 22-24: pressure sensors 78 are disposed in the bottom of each of the tanks, proximate the lowest point. One of them may be considered as a second pressure sensor) that is fixed at a second position within the fuel tank and configured to measure the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank at the second position (col.6; lines 22-34: “Forward body tank 62 and aft body tank 64 each include two pressure sensors 78, since in level flight, the bottoms of each of the forward and aft tanks may be approximately level but do not include a single lower point in which the fuel will collect as the aircraft changes pitch.” Also, col.10; lines 20-50 discloses different pressures at different levels of fuel.); and a processing system (178; fig.8) configured to: receive first pressure data from the first pressure sensor (pressure at reference height HREF); receive second pressure data from the second pressure sensor (col.10; lines 20-50 discloses different pressures at different levels of fuel); and determine a bending state of the wing about a longitudinal axis of the aircraft, the bending state being determined based on the first pressure data, the second pressure data, the first position, and the second position ((Col.8; lines 33-39) discloses “As the wing tanks are filled with fuel, its weight causes the wing to deflect downwardly. During flight, the aerodynamic lift of the wing and other forces acting on the wing change its deflection angle. Wing bending sensors 82 thus deter mine the effect of wing bending on the fuel surface in the wing tanks.” (Col.10; lines 54-62) discloses “In block 214, a wing where: deflection height correction (HD) is determined based upon the following equation: HD = B1θB + B2θB2 +B3θB2 where: B1, B2, and B3=coefficients determined from wing deflection and in-flight calibration data.” As the wing tanks are filled with fuel, its weight causes the wing to deflect downwardly. Different pressures at different (the first and second, for example) levels/positions are depicted in Fig.2. The bending state or deflection angle is determined based on different pressures with respect to reference pressure at reference height/position that causes the deflections. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Kuehl.).
Regarding Claim 2, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches wherein the second position is outboard of the first position in a span wise direction of the wing (shown in fig.3-4).
Regarding Claim 3, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches wherein a bottom wall of the fuel tank is a bottom skin of the wing (shown in fig.3-4); and the first and second pressure sensors are attached to a bottom skin of the wing (col.6; lines 22-24: pressure sensors 78 are disposed in the bottom of each of the tanks, proximate the lowest point.).
Regarding Claim 4, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a volume or mass of the body of liquid based on the first pressure data and the second pressure data (col.4; line 4- col.5; line 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the aircraft further comprising a sensor (164, an accelerometer) configured to measure an acceleration of the aircraft, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine the bending state based on measured acceleration of the aircraft (col.8; lines 8-18).
Regarding Claim 8, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches wherein the processing system is configured to determine the bending state of the wing by determining a distance from each of the first and second points to a reference plane of the aircraft (col.3; lines 4-15, col.8; lines 8-22 disclose reference axis).
Regarding Claim 9, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the aircraft further comprising a sensor (attitude sensor 150) configured to measure an attitude of the aircraft, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine the bending state based on measured attitude of the aircraft (col.8; lines 8-22).
Regarding Claim 10, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the aircraft wherein the first pressure data and the second pressure data each comprise a series of pressure readings over a time period (col.8; lines 40-43).
Regarding Claim 12, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the aircraft further comprising one or more further pressure sensors, each of which is configured to measure pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank at a respective position within the fuel tank; wherein the processing system is configured to: receive further pressure data from the one or more further pressure sensors; and determine the bending state of the wing based on the further pressure data (col.6; lines 22-24: pressure sensors 78 are disposed in the bottom of each of the tanks. The bending state or deflection angle is determined based on different pressures with respect to reference pressure at reference height/position that causes the deflections. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Kuehl.).
Regarding Claim 13, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches wherein the respective position of each of the one or more further pressure sensors is outboard of the first and second positions (shown in fig.3-4).
Regarding Claim 14, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the aircraft further comprising a memory (180) configured for storing the first and second positions within the fuel tank, wherein the processing system is configured to read the first and second positions within the fuel tank to determine the bending state of the wing (col.8; lines 40-49).
Regarding Claim 15, Kuehl teaches a method of determining a bending state of a wing of an aircraft (col.6; lines 22-34, col.8; lines 33-39, col.10; lines 20-62), the wing comprising a fuel tank (fig.1; 10, fig.3; 68, 70, 72, 74) within the wing and fuel being contained within the fuel tank (Fig.3), the method comprising: obtaining, using a first pressure sensor (via 34; fig.2) within the fuel tank, first pressure data by measuring a pressure of the fuel at a first position within the fuel tank (col.6; lines 22-34, col.4; lines 7-47, a reference height HREF to the bottom may be considered as a first position. The differential pressure (PD) can be expressed by: PD=HREF x DF x g); obtaining, using a second pressure sensor (col.6; lines 22-24: pressure sensors 78 are disposed in the bottom of each of the tanks, proximate the lowest point. One of them may be considered as a second pressure sensor) within the fuel tank, second pressure data by measuring a pressure of the fuel body of liquid at a second at a second position within the fuel tank (col.6; lines 22-34: “Forward body tank 62 and aft body tank 64 each include two pressure sensors 78, since in level flight, the bottoms of each of the forward and aft tanks may be approximately level but do not include a single lower point in which the fuel will collect as the aircraft changes pitch.” Also, col.10; lines 20-50 discloses different pressures at different levels of fuel.); and determining a bending state of the wing about a longitudinal axis of the aircraft, the bending state being determined based on the first pressure data, the second pressure data, the first position, and the second position ((Col.8; lines 33-39) discloses “As the wing tanks are filled with fuel, its weight causes the wing to deflect downwardly. During flight, the aerodynamic lift of the wing and other forces acting on the wing change its deflection angle. Wing bending sensors 82 thus deter mine the effect of wing bending on the fuel surface in the wing tanks.” (Col.10; lines 54-62) discloses “In block 214, a wing where: deflection height correction (HD) is determined based upon the following equation: HD = B1θB + B2θB2 +B3θB2 where: B1, B2, and B3=coefficients determined from wing deflection and in-flight calibration data.” As the wing tanks are filled with fuel, its weight causes the wing to deflect downwardly. Different pressures at different (the first and second, for example) levels/positions are depicted in Fig.2. The bending state or deflection angle is determined based on different pressures with respect to reference pressure at reference height/position that causes the deflections. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Kuehl.).
Regarding Claim 17, the method of claim 15 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the method further comprising measuring an acceleration of the aircraft, wherein determining the bending state of the wing is also based on a measured acceleration of the aircraft (col.8; lines 8-18).
Regarding Claim 19, the method of claim 15 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches the method further comprising obtaining, using one or more further pressure sensors that are each at a respective position within the fuel tank, further pressure data by measuring a pressure of the fuel at the respective position of each of the one or more further pressure sensors, wherein determining the bending state of the wing is also based on the further pressure data (col.6; lines 22-24: pressure sensors 78 are disposed in the bottom of each of the tanks. The bending state or deflection angle is determined based on different pressures with respect to reference pressure at reference height/position that causes the deflections. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Kuehl.).
Regarding Claim 21, the method of claim 19 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl further teaches wherein the respective position of each of the one or more further pressure sensors is outboard of the first and second positions (shown in fig.3-4).
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehl in view of Pitt et al. (US 2016/0001874 A1, “Pitt”).
Regarding Claim 18, the method of claim 15 is taught by Kuehl.
Kuehl does not explicitly teach further comprising measuring an altitude of the aircraft, wherein determining the bending state of the wing is also based on a measured altitude of the aircraft.
However, Pitt teaches a method comprising measuring an altitude of the aircraft, wherein determining the bending state of the wing is also based on a measured altitude of the aircraft ([0038]: “the amount of deflection (e.g., bending) and twist may vary during flight depending upon various factors such as, for example, airspeed, weather conditions, the volume of fuel in the wings, a loading of the aircraft, a flight path of the aircraft, altitude, temperate, pressure, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huehl’s method with the teaching of Pitt since it is known in the art use altitude in determining the bending state of the wing.
Allowable Subject Matter
(i) Claims 5, 16 and Claim 6 that are depended on claim 5, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the respective claims are the reasons for allowability.
(ii) Claim 22 is allowed.
With regard to Claim 22, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest an aircraft comprising, in combination with the other recited elements, a second reference pressure sensor configured to measure a reference liquid pressure at a second reference position; and the processing system is further configured to: receive first reference pressure data from the first reference pressure sensor; receive second reference pressure data from the second reference pressure sensor; determine a reference density based on a reference distance between the first and second reference positions, the first reference pressure data, and the second reference pressure data; and determine the bending state of the wing based on the reference density; or wherein: the aircraft further comprises a sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the aircraft; and the processing system is further configured to determine the bending state based on a measured acceleration of the aircraft; or wherein: the aircraft further comprises a sensor configured to measure an attitude of the aircraft; and the processing system is further configured to determine the bending state based on a measured attitude of the aircraft.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sankrithi et al. (US 9,199,726 B2) teaches wing load alleviation measuring methods and apparatus. An aircraft includes a first winglet including a body portion having a leading edge and a trailing edge, a base portion to be coupled to an outboard end of a wing such that the body portion projects at an upward angle from the wing during all modes of airplane operation, a control surface coupled to the body portion proximate to the trailing edge; and a processor to, in response to at least one input signal indicative of one of a subset of flight conditions, command actuated deflections of both the control surface of the first winglet and the at least one of the spoiler and the aileron to create an incremental pressure field in an airflow region inboard of the first winglet [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights