DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 March 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11 March 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 3-11, and 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eakins et al. (US 2003/0213870) in view of Lieven et al. (US 2014/0319274).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11:
Eakins discloses a manufactured aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body (as seen in e.g. Fig 2A);
a fuselage (202) comprising passenger (308) and cargo (470) compartments;
landing gear, comprising:
at least a nose gear (692), a main gear (594) aft of the cargo compartment ([ 0039] indicates the cargo door is between the main gear, thus the cargo compartment depicted is forward thereof), and landing gear housings (inherent to hold the retractable gears; gear well doors can be seen in e.g. Fig 2B).
Eakins discloses main gear at the aft of the plane (e.g. Fig 6), but does not specifically disclose the main gear aft of the passenger compartment.
Lieven teaches a blended body aircraft having landing gear aft of the passenger compartment (e.g. Figs 1a, 5, 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Eakins to use landing gear aft of the passenger compartment as taught by Lieven for the predictable advantage of extending the base (the distance between nose and main gear) of the aircraft, thus increasing the longitudinal stability on the ground (e.g. less likely to tip due to improper loading).
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Eakins discloses the passenger compartment between the nose and main gear (e.g. Fig 6).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 14-16:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Eakins discloses a multi-level aircraft with nose gear at the front, but does not disclose a single level aircraft of a multi-level aircraft having a cockpit above the nose gear and passenger compartment plane, or the nose gear specifically fore of the passenger compartment.
Lieven alternatively teaches single (e.g. Fig 10) and multi-level (e.g. Fig 4) aircraft, with the nose gear fore of the passenger compartment (e.g. Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Eakins to use a single or multi-level aircraft as taught by Lieven as these are art-recognized alternative layouts for providing aircraft interior spaces as desired, e.g. to improve aerodynamic performance (Lieven, [0098]) or increase the passenger capacity (by relegating the cargo underneath and the nose gear forward).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17, and 18:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Eakins discloses engines aft of the passenger compartment and main gear (Figs 3 and 6), but does not disclose the engines above the passenger compartment.
Lieven teaches engines mounted above the passenger compartment (e.g. Figs 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Eakins to use engines above the passenger compartment as taught by Lieven to reduce the likelihood of foreign debris ingestion (farther from the ground, where debris is more common and likely to be disturbed by operations).
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Eakins discloses flaps and elevons (e.g. Fig 3; [0029]), but does not disclose a tailless configuration.
Lieven teaches a tailless configuration (e.g. Fig 2).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention (as evidenced in [0033]), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Eakins to use a tailless design as taught by Lieven for the predictable advantage of reducing parasitic drag (by reducing the surfaces exposed to the airflow).
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Eakins discloses the main gear aft of the center of gravity (as seen in Figs 4 and 6, the gear in Fig 6 are well aft of the CG depicted in Fig 4).
Regarding claims 21 and 22:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Eakins discloses a substantially contiguous pressurized passenger compartment along the midsagittal plane (e.g. Fig 3).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on 11 March 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent Nos. 11 453 483 and 11 945 574 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimers have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 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, Anna Momper can be reached on 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights