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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior applications (excepting 16/726,765 and 62/786,615 and those thereon) do not provide support for the cargo store located laterally outside the passenger compartment. Although the figures of such documents depict a section that could be construed as such, there is no specific disclosure indicating this feature. Without any description, the depicted feature may be the cargo store or some other components, such as a wing fuel tank. The lack of a definite disclosure prevents one of ordinary skill from ascertaining what this feature may comprise, and thus the document fails to provide adequate support for the claimed feature at least via ambiguity.
Further still, no prior document provides support for a bay of the fuselage parallel with an outer mold line, wherein the outer mold line is not parallel with a longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The prior applications (excepting 17/478,683 and those thereon) do not disclose bays. Further, 17/478,683 provides support for a single deck which may have “one or more portion” with “a slight grade”, with the grade matching or paralleling the outer mold line ([0018]). However, this is not support for the specific disclosure of a bay having the specific shape. Although a bay is a portion of the deck, the disclosure does not adequately link the “deck portion” to the “bay”. A general arrangement is not a disclosure of a specific arrangement, even if the specific arrangement is within the bounds of the general arrangement. The disclosure also fails to disclose the OML reference to be other than parallel to the longitudinal axis, as no specific direction mentioned as either indicated or prohibited. A specific directional prohibition is not disclosed, and further, the referenced Fig (Fig 1), does not adequately apprise one of ordinary skill of the direction of the mold line to be followed.
Further, no prior document discloses a multi-level (i.e. multi-deck) aircraft (claims 5 and 15). The instant application does not define “single level” or “multi-level” aircraft. However, prior document 17/478,683 equates a single level with a single deck.
Accordingly, the effective filing date of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 is 21 February 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “method” should be --aircraft--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure does not provide support for a bay of the fuselage parallel with an outer mold line, wherein the outer mold line is not parallel with a longitudinal axis of the aircraft. As noted above, there is inadequate disclosure of a bay, specifically, having the specific shape, a specific directional prohibition is not disclosed, and further, the referenced Fig (Fig 1), does not adequately apprise one of ordinary skill of the direction of the mold line to be followed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the aircraft as a multi-level aircraft. However, claim 1 requires a single deck. The disclosure does not define “multi-level” or “single level”, however, as understood in the art, this would imply a single deck or multiple decks. This is corroborated by priority document 16/726,765, [0005] which equates a single deck with a single level. Accordingly, the claim requires a single deck and multiple decks simultaneously.
Similarly for claim 15.
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 Page (US 2018/0001999) in view of Whitlock et al. (US 2020/0207476).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11:
Page discloses an aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body (Fig 2A);
a fuselage within the body (Fig 2A) comprising a single deck (Fig 2B) with a passenger compartment (125) and a cargo store (e.g. [0030]); and
a landing gear comprising a nose gear (105b) and main gear (105a) substantially aft of the passenger and cargo stores (Fig 2A; [0030]).
Page does not disclose the cargo store within the transitional portion of the body or a bay parallel with a non-longitudinal outer mold line (OML).
Whitlock teaches cargo in a transitional portion of the fuselage (Fig 2), which is parallel with the OML (as it forms the bay).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Page to use cargo holds in the transitional portion as taught by Whitlock to increase the cargo hold space by utilizing otherwise unused space, and to reduce the height of the aircraft (compared to a multi-level design) to increase aerodynamics and the lift-to-drag ratio of the lifting body fuselage portion.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 20:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Page discloses the passenger compartment between the nose and main gear (e.g. Fig 2B), and the main gear aft of the center of gravity (Figs 2A-B).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 14, and 15:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
As best understood, Page discloses a single level (deck) aircraft (Fig 2B), and a multi-level aircraft with a cockpit located above the nose gear and above the plane of the passenger compartment (Fig 2B).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17, and 18:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Page discloses engines above and aft of the passenger compartment and main gear (Figs 2A-B).
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Page discloses flaps (115) and elevons (110), and a tailless configuration (e.g. Fig 2B).
Regarding claims 21 and 22:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11 is relied upon.
Page discloses a substantially contiguous pressurized passenger compartment along the midsagittal plane (e.g. Fig 2A).
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
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 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