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 § 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) 1, 8-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke (US 2020/0130816 A1) in view of McGrath et al. (US 2011/0142638 A1), hereinafter McGrath.
Regarding claim 1, O’Rourke discloses a control device (Para. [0069]) for an aircraft (figs. 1a-3), the control device comprising:
an upper flap (upper door 91, fig. 5); and
a lower flap (lower door 92, fig. 5)
wherein the upper flap and the lower flap are mountable adjacent to a slot in a wing, behind a leading edge of the wing (as shown in figs. 1a & 5, the upper door 91 and lower door 92 are adjacent to a slot in a wing behind a leading edge of the wing);
However, O’Rourke does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the upper and lower flaps are pivotably mountable. Furthermore, O’Rourke does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the control device is operable in a lift configuration, in which the upper flap and the lower flaps abut opposing surfaces of the slot, to permit airflow along the slot; and wherein, when the control device is moving to the lift configuration, the upper flap and the lower flap move towards each other to abut the opposing surfaces of the slot.
McGrath is in the field of a wind turbine rotor blade (Abstract) and teaches a control device (control mechanism 60, figs. 2 & 3), the control device comprising an upper flap (see cover 46 positioned at a suction side of the blade, figs. 2 & 3) and a lower flap (see cover 46 positioned at a pressure side of the blade, figs. 2 & 3) pivotably mountable adjacent to a slot in a wing (Para. [0040], “[t]he covers 46 pivot into the channel member 48 via any manner of suitable pivot mechanism or hinge 76”; as shown in figs. 2 & 3) behind a leading edge (as shown in fig. 2, the passage [i.e., slot] is positioned behind the leading edge 56), wherein the control device is operable in a lift configuration, in which the upper flap and the lower flap abut opposing surfaces of the slot (as shown in fig. 3, the upper and lower covers 46 are positioned towards each other to abut opposing channel members 48 of the passage 44), to permit airflow along the slot (as shown in fig. 3, when the control device is in a lift configuration and the upper and lower covers 46 are positioned toward each other, airflow as illustrated via the arrows is permitted along the passage 44); and wherein, when the control device is moving to the lift configuration, the upper flap and the lower flap move towards each other to abut the opposing surfaces of the slot (as shown in fig. 3, the upper and lower covers 46 are positioned towards each other to abut opposing channel members 48 of the passage 44).
Examiner notes, both McGrath and O’Rourke teach a closure system of upper and lower flaps for closing the slot through an airfoil at the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the closure system of O’Rourke with the actuator driven upper and lower flaps of McGrath, since the results of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 (B)(2).
Regarding claim 8, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 1, and McGrath further discloses wherein: the upper flap is pivotably mounted adjacent to a rear surface of the slot (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below); and the lower flap is pivotably mounted adjacent to a forward surface of the slot (as shown in annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
225
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: Annotated image of McGrath’s fig. 3
Regarding claim 9, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 8, and McGrath further discloses wherein, in the lift configuration, the upper flap abuts the rear surface of the slot (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above, the upper cover 46 abuts the rear surface of the slot) and the lower flap abuts the forward surface of the slot (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above, the lower cover 46 abuts the forward surface of the slot).
Regarding claim 10, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 1, and McGrath further discloses wherein the upper flap and the lower flap are both shorter than half of a length of the fixed slot (as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 1, and McGrath further discloses wherein the control device is operable in a clean configuration, in which the upper flap aligns with an upper surface of the wing and the lower flap aligns with a lower surface of the wing, to restrict airflow along the slot (as shown in fig. 2, the upper cover 46 aligns with an upper surface of the blade 22 and the lower cover 46 aligns with a lower surface of the blade 22. Furthermore, as shown in figs. 2 & 3, the airflow which is illustrated via the arrows is restricted in fig. 2 when the upper and lower cover aligns with the upper and lower surface of the blade, and the airflow is permitted when the cover 46 is adjacent to the slot as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 1, and McGrath further discloses further comprising at least one actuator configured to move the upper flap and the lower flap and thereby change a configuration of the control device (Para. [0040], “the active control mechanism 62 incorporates a suitable electric motor 72 that is powered by a power supply 74 via transmission line 75. The motor 72 rotates in opposite directions to open and close the cover 46 via any manner of appropriate linkage 86. The covers 46 pivot into the channel member 48 via any manner of suitable pivot mechanism or hinge 76”; as shown in figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 13, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses a wing assembly for an aircraft comprising: a wing structure; a slot behind a leading edge of the wing structure; and the control device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above, and figs. 1a-5 of O’Rourke).
Regarding claim 14, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses a wing for an aircraft comprising the wing assembly according to claim 13 (O’Rourke: see figs. 1a-5).
Regarding claim 15, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 14, and O’Rourke further discloses further comprising: an inboard portion; and an outboard portion; wherein the outboard portion is foldable relative to the inboard portion; and wherein the wing assembly is located in the foldable outboard portion (as shown in figs. 1a-3).
Regarding claim 19, O’Rourke discloses a wing assembly for an aircraft (figs. 1a-3) the wing comprising:
a wing structure (figs. 4 & 5);
a slot (channel 88, fig. 4) behind a leading edge of the wing structure (as shown in figs. 1a-5), the slot extending between top and bottom surfaces of the wing structure (as shown in figs. 4 & 5); and
a control device (Para. [0069], “control module (not shown)”) comprising:
a top flap (upper door 91, fig. 5);
a bottom flap (lower door 92, fig. 5).
However, O’Rourke does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the top flap is pivotably mounted downstream of the slot and adjacent to the top surface of the wing structure; a bottom flap pivotably mounted upstream of the slot and adjacent to the bottom surface of the wing structure. Furthermore, O’Rourke does not appear to specifically disclose and lower flaps are pivotably mountable. Furthermore, O’Rourke does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the control device is operable in a lift configuration to pivot the top and bottom flaps towards each other to align with opposing surfaces of the slot to permit airflow between the top and bottom surfaces of the wing structure via the slot.
McGrath is in the field of a wind turbine rotor blade (Abstract) and teaches a wing assembly comprising:
a wing structure (rotor blade 22, fig. 2);
a slot (airfoil passage 44, fig. 2) behind a leading edge of the wing structure (as shown in fig. 2, the passage is behind a leading edge 56 of the blade 22), the slot extending between top and bottom surfaces of the wing structure (as shown in figs. 2 & 3, the passage 44 extends between the suction side 42 and the pressure side 44 of the blade 22); and
a control device (control mechanism 60, figs. 2 & 3) comprising:
a top flap (see cover 46 positioned at a suction side of the blade, figs. 2 & 3) pivotably mounted downstream of the slot and adjacent to the top surface of the wing structure (Para. [0040], “[t]he covers 46 pivot into the channel member 48 via any manner of suitable pivot mechanism or hinge 76”; as shown in figs. 2 & 3, the top cover 46 is adjacent to the top surface of the blade 22);
a bottom flap (see cover 46 positioned at a pressure side of the blade, figs. 2 & 3) pivotably mounted upstream of the slot and adjacent to the bottom surface of the wing structure (Para. [0040], “[t]he covers 46 pivot into the channel member 48 via any manner of suitable pivot mechanism or hinge 76”; as shown in figs. 2 & 3, the top cover 46 is adjacent to the bottom surface of the blade 22);
wherein the control device is operable in a lift configuration to pivot the top and bottom flaps towards each other to align with opposing surfaces of the slot (as shown in fig. 3, the upper and lower covers 46 are positioned towards each other to abut opposing channel members 48 of the passage 44), thereby permitting airflow between the top and bottom surfaces of the wing structure via the slot (as shown in fig. 3, when the control device is in a lift configuration and the upper and lower covers 46 are positioned toward each other, airflow as illustrated via the arrows is permitted along the passage 44).
Examiner notes, both McGrath and O’Rourke teach a closure system of upper and lower flaps for closing the slot through an airfoil at the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the closure system of O’Rourke with the actuator driven upper and lower flaps of McGrath, since the results of the substitution would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 (B)(2).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Rourke in view of McGrath as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorsett (2013/0299643 A1).
Regarding claim 2, O’Rourke in view of McGrath discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the control device is operable in a dump configuration, in which the upper flap is extended above an upper surface of the wing to spoil airflow above the wing.
However, Dorsett is in the field of a vortex generation (Abstract) and teaches a dump configuration, in which the upper flap is extended above an upper surface of the wing (as shown in fig. 4, the upper flap seal 22 extends above an upper surface of the upper wing surface 19) to spoil airflow above the wing (Para. [0022], “[t]he vortex generator 12 may be incorporated into and along at least a portion of a trailing edge 23 of the leading-edge flap seal 22 such that the vortex generator 12 lies flat along the upper wing surface contour 19 along with the flap seal trailing edge 23 when the leading-edge flap 16 is stowed and/or is deployed”. Examiner notes, that the vortex generator increase drag and spoil airflow above the wing).
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 upper flap of modified O’Rourke to add the vortex generator of Dorsett, since O’Rourke discloses a spoiler 93 positioned on the upper side of the wing to spoil the airflow and adding a vortex generator would further contribute to that.
Regarding claim 3, O’Rourke in view of McGrath and Dorsett discloses the invention in claim 2, and Dorsett further discloses wherein, in the dump configuration the lower flap is aligned with a lower surface of the wing (as shown in fig. 4 of Dorsett, the lower flap 22 is aligned with a lower surface of the wing when upper flap is extended above an upper surface of the wing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 4-7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pp. 7-11, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 regarding claims 1, 8-15, 19, and 2-3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 11) “McGrath is completely unrelated to the hinge-actuation problem addressed by O’Rourke, nor can it reasonably be said that McGrath suggests applying turbine blade load-relief techniques to assist repositioning of a movable wing tip device. The Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion that would have motivated person having ordinary skill in the art to combine O’Rourke and McGrath in the manner alleged by the Examiner to be obvious.” Examiner notes that McGrath is used to teach a top and bottom flap pivotably mounted to a wing. Applicant’s arguments regarding McGrath’s reasons for applying these turbine blade load-relief techniques is irrelevant to the rejection since examiner is merely relying on substituting one known closure system for another. See MPEP 2143 (B)(2).
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 12) that “O’Rourke repeatedly emphasized the importance of channel geometry in producing the desired aerodynamic effect, namely, the reduction of aerodynamic lift for the wing tip device when the airflow channel is open. The interior wall shape, curvature, and relationship between the upper and lower apertures are described as being critical to creating the pressure distribution and bending moment that urge the wing tip device toward the flight configuration. In this context, O'Rourke teaches that the aerodynamic behavior of the channel is highly sensitive to its internal geometry. McGrath is alleged by the Examiner to teach inwardly pivoting covers that move into the airflow passage and, in some embodiments, rest against internal surfaces of the passage. Introducing such inwardly pivoting covers into the airflow channel of O'Rourke would necessarily alter the channel geometry, at least at the upstream and downstream ends of the channel where flow conditions are most aerodynamically sensitive. Such intrusion would change the effective cross- section of the channel and disrupt the internal flow path that O'Rourke identifies as essential to producing a controlled hinge-assisting aerodynamic moment.” Examiner notes that the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the rejection. Examiner is not adding a channel to the invention of O’Rourke [emphasis added], examiner is merely changing the way the doors are articulating. As set forth above in at least claim 1, O’Rourke teaches a slot (channel 88, fig. 4) and upper and lower flaps mountable adjacent to a slot (i.e., the channel). Applicant is focusing on McGrath’s teachings of the geometry and aerodynamic behavior of the channel, but that aspect is not relevant to the rejection since Examiner is only changing the hinge on the door [emphasis added].
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
Prosecution Insights