Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/615,260

ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS FOR DEPLOYING A TRAILING EDGE FLAP OF AN AIRCRAFT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Examiner
CONLON, MARISA V
Art Unit
3643
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
BOMBARDIER INC.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
39%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 39% of cases
39%
Career Allow Rate
139 granted / 355 resolved
-12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 355 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claims 22-27 and 29 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “guiding the aft portion of trailing edge flap” should instead say “guiding the aft portion of the trailing edge flap.: Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 22-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 22 recites “guiding an aft portion of the trailing edge flap along an elongated track member” and then goes on to say “guiding the aft portion of [the] trailing edge flap… with a curvilinear aft track of the elongated track member.” It is unclear whether the first recitation (i.e., guiding an aft portion of the trailing edge flap along an elongated track member) is referring to guiding the aft portion of the trailing edge flap along the curvilinear aft track, or, alternatively, whether the recitations “guiding an aft portion of the trailing edge flap along an elongated track member” and “guiding the aft portion of [the] trailing edge flap… with a curvilinear aft track of the elongated track member” refer to guiding the aft portion along two different paths. Accordingly, claim 22 and dependent claims 23-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 29 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the aft track.” One of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 22-24, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,070,106 to Engelbrecht et al. (“Engelbrecht”). Regarding claim 22, Engelbrecht discloses a method for deploying a trailing edge flap of an aircraft wing, the method comprising: guiding an aft portion (21) of the trailing edge flap along an elongated track member (20a) as the trailing edge flap moves toward a deployed position (FIGS. 8, 11; Col. 4, lines 27-39); guiding a forward portion (31a, 32a) of the trailing edge flap along the elongated track member (20a) as the trailing edge flap moves toward the deployed position (FIGS. 8, 11; Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 15); accommodating transverse movement of the forward portion of the trailing edge flap relative to the elongated track member (FIGS. 2, 8, 11; Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 15; Col. 2, lines 26-36); and guiding the aft portion of the trailing edge flap in a spanwise direction relative to the aircraft wing with a curvilinear aft track of the elongated track member and deviating in the spanwise direction relative to the aircraft wing to cause a spanwise skewing movement of the trailing edge flap relative to an adjacent flap during deployment of the trailing edge flap (FIGS. 2, 8, 11; Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 15; Col. 2, lines 26-36; Col. 2, lines 63-66). Regarding claim 23, Engelbrecht discloses accommodating lateral movement of the forward portion of the trailing edge flap relative to the elongated track member (FIGS. 2, 8, 11; Col. 3, line 60 to Col. 4, line 15; Col. 2, lines 26-36; Col. 2, lines 63-66). Regarding claim 24, Engelbrecht discloses causing the trailing edge flap to undergo Fowler motion as the trailing edge flap moves toward the deployed position (FIGS. 8-11; Col. 2, lines 51-57). Regarding claim 26, Engelbrecht discloses guiding the trailing edge flap generally toward a streamwise direction (FIGS. 2, 7). Regarding claim 27, Engelbrecht discloses wherein the elongated track member is at least partially embedded into the trailing edge flap. Regarding claim 29, Engelbrecht discloses guiding the forward portion of the trailing edge flap along a forward track of the elongated track member where the aft track and the forward track define separate and different respective guide paths (FIG. 11). 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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelbrecht, as applied to claim 22 above. Regarding claim 25, Englebrecht teaches each and every element of claim 22, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach guiding the aft portion of trailing edge flap toward an outboard direction relative to the wing. Rather, Englebrecht teaches guiding the aft portion of the trailing edge flap towards an inboard direction relative to the wing. It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. Here, applicant has not shown patentable significance of guiding the aft portion of the trailing edge flap towards an outboard direction, rather than towards an inboard direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Englebrecht so that the aft portion of the trailing edge flap is guided toward an outboard direction, in order to optimize the alignment of airflow. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 22-27 and 29 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 MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00. 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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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. /MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 21, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 27, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599107
MATTRESS FOR LIVESTOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12568896
Stackable Modular Planter
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565303
UAV Having Lower Cargo Bay Door(s)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12559231
TANDEM TILTROTOR AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557782
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING FEED TO PRESELECTED RECIPIENTS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
39%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 355 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month