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 § 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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frank (US 2,297,951 A).
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses a de-icing system of an airfoil, the de-icing system comprising:
a flexible skin (cover 20, fig. 2) coupled to a structural skin wherein the structural skin is offset from the flexible skin such that the flexible skin lies flush with a surface of the airfoil thus maintaining aerodynamic form (Page 1, para. 10, lines 16-22, “[a]s shown in the drawings there is illustrated a wing 10, which may be composed of metallic shell and which if desired may differ in contour from the ordinary wing of an airplane 23 in that substantially the entire fore part thereof, which is to be protected from icing, may be slightly recessed along the entire length thereof”; as shown in fig. 2);
one or more actuators (levers 22, fig. 2) positioned within the airfoil, wherein the one or more actuators engage an impact area for providing a displacement force; and
a plurality of stiffening elements (rollers, fig. 2. Furthermore, P. 2, lines 62-68, “[t]he shafts 21 are rotatably mounted on said journals and each shaft carries a plurality of pairs of levers 22, similar in all respects to levers 15, and also pivotally mounted to said levers 22 are rollers 23 which may be offset or eccentrically or concentrically rotatable thereon, depending upon the results desired”; see rollers 16 in fig. 6) coupled to the flexible skin (fig. 2), the elements extending substantially parallel to a leading edge of the airfoil and placed in chordwise succession proceeding away from the leading edge of the airfoil (Page 2, Para. 3, “[t]he shafts 21 are rotatably mounted on said journals and each shaft carries a plurality of pairs of levers 22, similar in all respects to levers 15, and also pivotally mounted to said levers 22 are rollers 23 which may be offset or eccentrically or concentrically rotatable thereon”; as shown in figs. 2 & 6), the stiffening elements configured to transmit the displacement force to a non-impact area of the flexible skin adjacent to or near the stiffening elements (fig. 2);
wherein the displacement force causes an outer surface of the flexible skin adjacent the impact area to be distorted and an outer surface of the flexible skin of the non- impact area to be distorted (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Frank discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the de-icing system is configured such that when the de-icing system is not functioning, the flexible skin is not distorted (page 2, para. 2, lines 28-39, “As the rollers 16 move along the recessed surface of the 'wing body 10 to distort and move increments of cover 13 away from wing body 10 the next preceding increment of some size will snap back or return to its original position contiguous with the surface of the wing body 10 and finally the rollers may be located at rest in the trough or well 12. The rollers may then be allowed to remain at rest in said trough I2 until the pilot "again desires to de-ice, which he does by actuating the shaft in the opposite direction to move the roller towards and to the well 11”; as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Frank discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more stiffening elements are rods (rollers 16, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Frank discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more actuators include one or more rotary actuators (page 1, para. 12, lines 53-55 – page. 2, para. 1, lines 1-4, “[l]ocated within the main wing body 10 and extending along the length thereof and supported thereon by means of suitable journal bearings (not shown) is a shaft 14 adapted to be rotated in said journal bearings by any appropriate means having an actuator located in the pilot’s cabin”).
Regarding claim 7, Frank discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more actuators include one or more eccentric cams (page 1, para. 9, lines 5-8, “Figure 6 is a diagrammatic sketch showing the combination of the lever actuators, the operation shaft therefor, as well as the cams mounted on the actuators”. Furthermore, page 2, lines 10-12 discloses “[t]he rollers 16 are preferably…eccentrically mounted on said levers”) having an offset center (page 2, para. 1, lines 8-12, “[b]etween each pair of said levers 15 is pivotally mounted a roller 16. The rollers 16 are preferably offset or eccentrically mounted on said levers”), wherein a distal path of the one or more eccentric cams causes the one or more eccentric cams to engage the impact area with the displacement force (as set forth above, the rollers 16 are eccentrically mounted by the lever arm and since the cams are eccentrically mounted, they are contacting the aircraft skin and actuating it).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (US 2,297,951 A).
Regarding claim 3, Frank discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses securing the flexible skin to the structural skin via rivets (page 1, para. 10, lines 37-42, “[t]he longitudinal edges of the strip 13 are firmly and securely anchored to the wing body 10 by means of suitable anchoring de- vices, such as rivets or the like, to maintain the strip 13 in said recess and snugly against the surface of the wing 10.”), but is silent regarding further comprising a bond, wherein the bond permanently bonds the flexible skin to the structural skin at edges. wherein the flexible skin is coupled to a structural skin.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Frank such that the flexible skin was permanently bonded to the structural skin, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known to bond two skins in order to avoid fasteners and provide a more secure connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647