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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 13, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the distance from the center point of the wing coordinate system to the center portion of the ball stud, as the radius of the sphere recited in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the phrase, “the measuring unit is configured for measuring a center portion…” is understood to mean, “the measuring unit is further configured for measuring a center portion…”
Regarding claim 14, the term, “the measurement unit” lacks antecedent basis, but is understood to refer to the previously claimed “measuring unit.”
Regarding claim 15, the term, “Aircraft assembly” lacks antecedent basis, but is understood to refer to the previously claimed “aircraft assembly system.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) include:
Claim 1 – “a measuring unit configured for measuring positions of the fuselage and the wing" which corresponds to a laser tracker; laser tracker irradiates lasers to points on fuselage/wing to detect position; transmits detected position signals to control unit 150 [paragraph 0053];
Claim 1 - “the measuring unit is further configured to set a fuselage coordinate system and a wing coordinate system for the fuselage and the wing, respectively,” which is interpreted to correspond to measuring unit 120 measuring the center portion of the wing coupling unit and fuselage coupling unit and generating or setting coordinate systems therefrom, as disclosed in paragraphs [0054] and [0075]-[0078].
Claim 1 – “position adjusting unit is configured to move the jig unit so that the wing coordinate system coincides with the fuselage coordinate system,” which corresponds to multi-axis movement, 6DOF implementation [see paragraphs 68-72].
Claims 2 and 3 - the “measuring unit” limitations of claims 2 and 3 are understood in light of the same corresponding structure disclosed for claim 1.
However, claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim recites sufficient structure, including a ball stud and a socket fastened in a ball-joint manner. Claims 10-15, which depend from claim 9, likewise are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Airbus, “In the Making: Air Astana’s A320neo” [online video], YouTube, November 8, 2016, at 0:27 [retrieved on June 9, 2026]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en1GtDfiPg4 (“Airbus”) in view of Hull (USPN 10393504; “Hull”).
Regarding claim 1, Airbus discloses in the reproduced screenshot below, an aircraft assembly system comprising: a jig unit [130] coupled to a wing [20] to move integrally with the wing [20]; a transfer unit [110] connected to the jig unit [130 around green area] and transferring the wing [20] toward a fuselage [10]; a position adjusting unit [140] detachably connected to the jig unit [130] and adjusting a position of the jig unit [130]; and a measuring unit [120].
Airbus does not explicitly disclose that the measuring unit is configured for measuring positions of the fuselage and the wing, wherein the fuselage is relatively fixed to the movement of the wing, wherein the measuring unit is further configured to set a fuselage coordinate system and a wing coordinate system for the fuselage and the wing, respectively, and wherein the position adjusting unit is configured to move the jig unit so that the wing coordinate system coincides with the fuselage coordinate system.
However, the Examiner contends that a measuring unit which scans the wing and fuselage and then sends information to a position adjusting unit which moves the jig so that the wing coordinate system coincides with the fuselage coordinate system is an obvious method inferred from Airbus.
Furthermore, even if Airbus didn’t disclose or teach this function, Hull clearly states and evidences that using digital twins (optically-scanned replicas) aid in airplane manufacturing to obtain more accurate positional information for aircraft components during assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the airplane of Airbus by using an optical scanner, such as in Hull, for the wings and fuselage, since this will provide a cheaper, faster, and more accurate assembly system.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, specifically, “an aircraft assembly system.” The recitations that the measuring unit is configured to set a fuselage coordinate system and a wing coordinate system and that the position adjusting unit is configured to move the jig unit so that the wing coordinate system coincides with the fuselage coordinate system describe how the recited apparatus is used or what result is achieved during operation. Under MPEP § 2113, patentability of an apparatus claim depends on the claimed apparatus itself, not on the process or manner of using the apparatus, unless the functional language imparts a structural difference. Here, Applicant’s claim positively recites a jig unit, a transfer unit, a position adjusting unit, and a measuring unit, but does not recite structural details of the apparatus that distinguish it from the prior art by virtue of the coordinate-setting or alignment-result language. Applicant has not shown that these operational limitations impart a structural difference to the claimed aircraft assembly system. Therefore, claim 1 is interpreted based on the structure of the recited assembly system, and the recited coordinate-setting and alignment language does not patentably distinguish the claim over prior art disclosing the same or an obvious aircraft assembly apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
970
1553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Airbus discloses the fuselage [10] includes a plurality of wing coupling units [11] to which the wing [20] is coupled. See below.
Hull teaches using optical measurement data to define positional relationships of aircraft components during assembly.
Furthermore, while Airbus is explicitly silent to the measuring unit [120] is configured for measuring a center portion [34] of the plurality of wing coupling units [11] and set the fuselage coordinate system [30] at the center portion [34] of the wing coupling units [11], the examiner takes official notice that this is a well-known method, as this is typically referred to as the centering, or center wing box, to which Outboard wing panels are attached, i.e. to the center wing box at the wing root.
And as discussed above, per MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
PNG
media_image2.png
946
1428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the method of Airbus to build an airplane with the recited measured center portion of the wing coupling units to allow for faster and more accurate alignment.
Regarding claim 3, Airbus discloses the wing [20] includes a plurality of fuselage coupling units [25] coupled to the plurality of wing coupling units [11].
While Airbus is silent to the exact method for measuring method employed, using the measuring unit [120] configured for measuring a center portion [44] of the plurality of fuselage coupling units [25] and set the wing coordinate system [40] at the center portion [44] of the fuselage coupling units [25] is an obvious configuration in view of Hull’s teaching of optical measurement in aircraft manufacturing, in order to provide a corresponding positional reference for aligning the wing to the fuselage with improved accuracy and efficiency since this will allow for better accuracy and faster building.
And as discussed above, per MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the device of Airbus with the recited method for measuring since this is known to be a faster and more accurate method of building.
PNG
media_image3.png
806
1431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Airbus discloses the jig unit [130] includes a first jig unit [130a] and a second jig unit [130b] coupled to first and second sides [22, 23] of the wing [20], respectively, and wherein the first jig unit [130a] and the second jig unit [130b] are coupled to a symmetrical position [not found] of the wing [20] with respect to a center portion [x] of the wing [20] (inherent based on its movement shown in the video and shown below).
PNG
media_image4.png
859
1428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Airbus shows the wing [20] includes a first jig coupling unit [26a] to which the first jig unit [130a] is coupled and a second jig coupling unit [26b] to which the second jig unit [130b] is coupled, and wherein the first jig coupling unit [26a] and the second jig coupling unit [26b] are formed to be symmetrical with respect to a central unit [21] of the wing.
Regarding Claim 6, Airbus discloses the wing [20] includes a first wing unit [22] on a first side of the wing [20] and a second wing unit [23] on a second side of the wing [20], and wherein the central unit [21] connects the first wing unit [22] and the second wing unit [23].
PNG
media_image5.png
950
1432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, it appears that Airbus infers the position adjusting unit [140] is provided as a pair to be connected to first and second end portions of the jig unit [130], respectively, and the pair of position adjusting units are independently driven, respectively based on the overall layout of the workspace. And the pair of the position adjusting units [140a, 140b] include a pair of first position adjusting units [140a] connected to the first jig unit [130a] and a pair of second position adjusting units [140b] connected to the second jig unit [130b]. However, it is not clearly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide paired, independently driven position adjusting units at opposite end portions of the jig unit in order to achieve finer control of wing position and orientation during assembly, thereby improving alignment precision for a large aircraft structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the position adjusting units to be connected to the first and second end portions of the jig unit to allow for finer and easier alignment of the wings.
PNG
media_image6.png
961
1428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Airbus discloses the jig unit [130, green area] includes a ball stud [131] formed at first and second end portions [green areas] of the jig unit [130], and wherein the position adjusting unit [140] includes a socket [145] to which the ball stud [131] is fastened in a ball joint manner.
Regarding Claim 10, Airbus is silent to the exact configuration of the position adjusting units. However, a person of skill in the art would understand immediately that this A1 and A2 movement is required in combination of A3 to allow for proper placement and fine tuning to allow for exact manufacturing at a faster pace.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the device with the recited position adjusting units to allow for better, finer tuning to increase efficiency and accuracy of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 11, while Airbus is silent to the wing coordinate system [40], the recited axes are inherent, and wherein, in response to the movement of the jig unit [130], the wing [20] linearly moves in at least one direction of the wing X-axis [41], the wing Y-axis [42], and the wing Z-axis [43], and rotates around at least one direction of the wing X-axis [41], the wing Y-axis [42], and the wing Z-axis [43].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct the device of Airbus with the recited jig unit to allow for finer precision construction.
Regarding claim 15, Airbus suggests the wing coordinate system [40] is aligned to face a same direction as the fuselage coordinate system [30], but is spaced from a center point [34] of the fuselage coordinate system [30] with a predetermined distance [not found] in a fuselage Z-axis direction [33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the wing in an aligned orientation while still separated from the fuselage by a predetermined distance in the fuselage Z-axis direction as an intermediate positioning state prior to final engagement, because such staged alignment facilitates controlled final assembly of large aircraft components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to construct Airbus’ wing to fuselage in the recited method, since this method is proven to be better in large-scale builds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, Airbus is silent the jig unit [130] moves along a surface of a sphere [S] including a center point [44] of the wing coordinate system [40] as a center portion of the sphere [S] and a distance [not found] from the center point [44] of the wing coordinate system [40] to a center portion of the ball stud [131] as a radius of the sphere [S], in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
The dependent claims are likewise indicated allowed.
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 20160185467 to Lim is evidence that a position adjusting element (shown in fig. 6) is known to move in three axes.
USPN 6230382 to Cunningham is evidence that using a digital twin to help manufacture an airplane is known.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights