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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 15-18, 21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iliescu (US 11,192,627 B2), and further in view of Wasserman (US 2,425,358).
Regarding claim 1, Iliescu discloses an aircraft wing defining a chord that extends from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the wing (wing 5, chord defined from leading edge 5B to trailing edge 5C; Fig. 2), the wing comprising:
a main portion which provides the leading edge (portion providing leading edge 5B);
a movable flap comprising a main body which provides the trailing edge (flaps 10, Fig. 2); and
an actuation mechanism arranged to move the flap relative to the main portion (actuator 40, housing 42, carriages 32A and 32B, grooves 220A and 220B, to drive deployment of flaps; pg. 10, col. 6, ln. 58; Fig. 6), the actuation mechanism comprising an actuator (40 and 42) and a guide mechanism (carriages and grooves); wherein:
the guide mechanism comprises first and second tracks (220A and 220B), each of which is fixed relative to the main portion (via 30, Fig. 6);
the guide mechanism comprises first and second runners (32A and 32B), each being of which is fixed relative to the flap (as illustrated in Fig. 5);
the first runner is movable along the first track (Fig. 6);
the second runner is movable along the second track (Fig. 6);
movement of the first and second runners along the first and second tracks, respectively, co-operatively guides movement of the flap relative to the main portion (Fig. 2);
along the direction of the chord, the first and second tracks occupy different positions but overlap with one another (Fig. 6);
the first track has a first end (end opposite 222B on track 220A, Fig. 6) and a second end (222B, Fig. 6);
the second track has a first end (222A) and a second end (end opposite 223A on track 220B, Fig. 6); and
in a thickness direction that is normal to the chord of the wing and to a longitudinal axis of the wing:
the first end of the second track (222A) is higher than the first end of the first track (Fig. 6); and
the second end of the second track is lower than both of the first and second ends of the first track (track 220A), but does not appear to specifically disclose a movable tab that is aft, in a direction of the chord, of the main body of the flap, wherein the tab provides the trailing edge.
However, Wasserman teaches an aircraft wing having a chord, the wing comprising a movable flap having a main body and a movable tab, the tab aft in a direction of the chord, of the main body, thus providing the trailing edge (wing with chord, Fig. 4; movable flap comprising main body 30; tab of flap, aft of the main body in a direction of the chord and providing the trailing edge 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aircraft wing disclosed by Iliescu with the movable tab that is aft in a direction of a chord, of a main body, thus providing the trailing edge as taught by Wasserman, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the movable flap comprises the main body and the moveable tab that is aft, in a direction of the chord, of the main body thus providing the trailing edge. The benefit being the predictable outcome of counteracting unbalanced thrust on the flap and therefore the wing (Wasserman, line 9).
Regarding claim 2, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein, along the direction of the chord, the first and second tracks overlap by a percentage of a length of one or both of the tracks (Fig. 6), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the percentage of overlap is at least 30%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the percentage of overlap at least 30%, with a reasonable expectation of success, or whichever range is found to be optimal for the particular application of the invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The benefit being optimizing track overlap to achiever the desired flap trajectory, load distribution and synchronization for the particular aircraft wing. Examiner notes Iliescu discloses the particular length, shape and spacing of the forward and aft grooves 20A, 20B helps to achieve specific flap surface positions (pg. 10, col. 5, ln. 19).
Regarding claim 4, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein along the thickness direction, the first and second tracks overlap with one another (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 4, wherein, in the thickness direction, the first and second tracks overlap with each other by at least 50% of a length of one or both of the first and second tracks (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the first track has a straight portion (Fig. 6), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the straight portion runs substantially parallel to a straight portion of the second track.
However, Iliescu teaches the particular length, shape and spacing of the forward and aft grooves 20A, 20B helps to achieve specific flap surface positions, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first and second track so that the straight portion of the first track runs substantially parallel to a straight portion of the second track, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being finding the optimal arrangement for the tracks to achieve the desired flap positions for the particular aircraft. There does not appear to be any criticality to the length or arrangement of straight or parallel portions between the two tracks as is evidenced by the breadth of examples disclosed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 8, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein:
the flap comprises a common mounting member attached thereto (flap carriage 132; pg. 13, col. 11, ln.23); and
wherein first and second runners are mounted to the common mounting member (134A and 134B, Fig. 4C for example).
Regarding claim 10, Iliescu discloses an aircraft wing having:
a front edge (5B);
a movable flap comprising a main body (flaps 10, Fig. 2);
a rear edge (5C);
a chord which extends from the front edge to the rear edge (wing 5, chord defined from leading edge 5B to trailing edge 5C; Fig. 2), and
a drive assembly arranged to move the flap (actuator 40, housing 42, carriages 32A and 32B, grooves 220A and 220B, to drive deployment of flaps; pg. 10, col. 6, ln. 58; Fig. 6);
wherein the drive assembly has first and second tracks which occupy different but overlapping positions along a direction of the chord (220A and 220B, Fig. 6);
wherein the flap has first and second runners that are fixed relative to the flap (32A and 32B, as illustrated in Fig. 5 for example; or 134A and 134B in Fig. 4 for example), the first runner being movable along the first track (Fig. 6) and the second runner is movable along the second track (Fig. 6) to co-operatively direct movement of the flap (Fig. 2);
the first track has a first end (end opposite 222B on track 220A, Fig. 6) and a second end (222B, Fig. 6);
the second track has a first end (222A) and a second end (end opposite 223A on track 220B, Fig. 6); and
in a thickness direction that is normal to the chord of the wing and to a longitudinal axis of the wing:
the first end of the second track (222A) is higher than the first end of the first track (Fig. 6); and
the second end of the second track is lower than both of the first and second ends of the first track (track 220A), but does not appear to specifically disclose a movable tab that is aft, in a direction of the chord, of the main body of the flap, wherein the tab provides the trailing edge, but does not appear to specifically disclose a movable tab, wherein the flap comprises the main body and a movable tab aft of the main body so that the tab defines the rear edge of the aircraft wing.
However, Wasserman teaches an aircraft wing having a chord, the wing comprising a movable flap having a main body and a movable tab, the tab aft in a direction of the chord, of the main body, thus providing the rear edge of the wing (wing with chord, Fig. 4; movable flap comprising main body 30; tab of flap, aft of the main body in a direction of the chord and providing the trailing edge 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aircraft wing disclosed by Iliescu with the movable tab that is aft in a direction of a chord, of a main body of a flap, thus providing the rear edge of the wing as taught by Wasserman, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the movable flap comprises the main body and the moveable tab that is aft, of the main body thus providing the rear edge of the wing. The benefit being the predictable outcome of counteracting unbalanced thrust on the flap and therefore the wing (Wasserman, line 9).
Regarding claim 11, modified Iliescu discloses an aircraft comprising the wing according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Iliescu discloses a method of using the aircraft according to claim 11, the method comprising:
ascending to cruising altitude (Examiner notes the disclosed aircraft naturally takes-off and ascends to a cruising altitude); and
while at cruising altitude, moving the flap from a first position (Fig. 3A, neutral) in which the chord has a first length (CN), to a second position (Fig. 3B), in which the chord has a second length (CN), wherein the second length is shorter than the first length (Examiner notes while chord length is a fixed value inherently, the effective chord [length] decreases during the negative flap deployment in Fig. 3B; therefore the second length is shorter than the first).
Regarding claim 15, modified Iliescu discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein moving the flap from the first position to the second position comprises moving the flap substantially only in translation or the second length of the chord is a percentage shorter than the first length of the chord (Examiner notes that moving the flap from the first to second position comprises moving the flap to a large degree but not necessarily completely only in translation, as is depicted in Figs. 3-4), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the percentage of overlap is at least 3%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the percentage at least 3%, with a reasonable expectation of success, or whatever range is found to be optimal for the particular application of the invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The benefit being optimizing effective chord length(s) via routine skill to achieve the desired flap deflections for the particular aircraft wing. Examiner notes Iliescu discloses the particular length, shape and spacing of the forward and aft grooves 20A, 20B helps to achieve specific flap surface positions (pg. 10, col. 5, ln. 19).
Regarding claim 16, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the first and second tracks each comprise one or more sections which diverge away from one another (Fig. 6), such that a gap between the first and second tracks at an end of one or more sections is greater than a gap between the first and second tracks toward the other end (Fig. 6), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the gap is greater at the end that is closer to the trailing edge than the end that is further away from the trailing edge.
However, Iliescu teaches the particular length, shape and spacing of the forward and aft grooves 20A, 20B helps to achieve specific flap surface positions, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first and second track so that the gap between the first and second tracks is greater at the end of the tracks that is closer to the trailing edge than at the end of the tracks that is further away from the trailing edge, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being finding the optimal arrangement for the tracks to achieve the desired flap positions for the particular aircraft. There does not appear to be any criticality to the direction or amount of converging and diverging between tracks as is evidenced by the breadth of examples disclosed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 17, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, comprising a support beam that is lower than, in the thickness direction, the main portion and the flap (30, pg. 10, col. 5, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 18, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 17, wherein the first and second tracks are formed in the support beam (pg. 10, col. 5, ln. 10).
Regarding claim 21, Iliescu discloses an aircraft wing defining a chord that extends from a leading edge to a trailing edge of the wing (wing 5, chord defined from leading edge 5B to trailing edge 5C; Fig. 2), the wing comprising:
a main portion which provides the leading edge (portion providing leading edge 5B);
a movable flap comprising a main body which provides the trailing edge (flaps 10, Fig. 2); and
an actuation mechanism arranged to move the flap relative to the main portion (actuator 40, housing 42, carriages 32A and 32B, grooves 220A and 220B, to drive deployment of flaps; pg. 10, col. 6, ln. 58; Fig. 6), the actuation mechanism comprising an actuator (40 and 42) and a guide mechanism (carriages and grooves); wherein:
the guide mechanism comprises first and second tracks (220A and 220B), each of which is fixed relative to the main portion (via 30, Fig. 6);
the guide mechanism comprises first and second runners (32A and 32B), each being of which is fixed relative to the flap (as illustrated in Fig. 5);
the first runner is movable along the first track (Fig. 6);
the second runner is movable along the second track (Fig. 6);
movement of the first and second runners along the first and second tracks, respectively, co-operatively guides movement of the flap relative to the main portion (Fig. 2);
along the direction of the chord, the first and second tracks occupy different positions but overlap with one another (Fig. 6); and wherein:
the guide mechanism is lower than, in a thickness direction that is normal to the chord of the wing and to a longitudinal axis of the wing, the main portion and the flap (Figs. 5-6); and/or
the flap comprises a common mounting member that is attached to an underside of the flap and extends, in a plane defined by the chord and thickness direction, below the main body of the flap (30, Figs. 5-6), the first and second runner being attached to the common mounting member, at a position lower than the main body of the flap in the thickness direction (pg. 9, col. 4, beginning line 62: Each flap 10 is displaceable along one or more grooves 20, shown in greater detail in subsequent figures, which are formed or imbedded in a structural member 30 attached to the aircraft wing 5), but does not appear to specifically disclose a movable tab that is aft, in a direction of the chord, of the main body of the flap, wherein the tab provides the trailing edge.
However, Wasserman teaches an aircraft wing having a chord, the wing comprising a movable flap having a main body and a movable tab, the tab aft in a direction of the chord, of the main body, thus providing the trailing edge (wing with chord, Fig. 4; movable flap comprising main body 30; tab of flap, aft of the main body in a direction of the chord and providing the trailing edge 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aircraft wing disclosed by Iliescu with the movable tab that is aft in a direction of a chord, of a main body, thus providing the trailing edge as taught by Wasserman, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the movable flap comprises the main body and the moveable tab that is aft, in a direction of the chord, of the main body thus providing the trailing edge. The benefit being the predictable outcome of counteracting unbalanced thrust on the flap and therefore the wing (Wasserman, line 9).
Regarding claim 23, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the second end of the second track is at a height, in the thickness direction, that is below any point along an entirety of a length of the second first track (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 24, modified Iliescu discloses the aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the first track is overlapped, in the thickness direction, entirely by the second track (Examiner notes by design the tracks are overlapped entirely in the thickness direction Fig. 6; The forward and aft grooves 20A,20B are spaced apart by a portion of the structural member 30, pg. 10, col. 5, ln. 16-17).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Iliescu, as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Genito et al. (US 2016/0298985 A1), herein after Genito.
Regarding claim 14, modified Iliescu discloses the method according to claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising comparing a weight of the aircraft to a threshold, and moving the flap from the first position to the second position when the weight of the aircraft is below the threshold.
However, Genito teaches a method of using an aircraft (via an avionics device that is installed in an aircraft so as to help a pilot of the aircraft [use the aircraft] perform safer and more stable maneuvers during a plurality of flight phases, such as take-off, cruising, and landing. In some such embodiments, the system is capable of determining an angle of attack of the aircraft and anticipating a stall speed of the aircraft, §[0023]) including the step of comparing a weight of the aircraft to a threshold, and moving the flap from the first position to the second position when the aircraft is below the threshold (as is evidenced by §[0024]: the method includes a flap configuration system 70 and a Flight Management System 80 for gathering current aircraft weight. In some embodiments, the Flight Management System 80 comprises a weight sensor. In other embodiments, the Flight Management System 80 comprises a user input device so as to enable a user to input weight information, such as measured weight information and/or estimated weight information. A method of using the system to determine an angle of attack of the aircraft [i.e., via flap retraction/extension or moving the flap form a first position to a second position] includes providing the system with some information prior to a calibration process [i.e., a predetermined threshold value], generating additional information during a calibration process, using the information to estimate an angle of attack of the aircraft during flight operations, and providing an indication of the angle of attack of the aircraft to a pilot of the aircraft [i.e., providing when the weight is below the threshold, or in other words, when the flap can safely be moved based on the weight threshold and other factors that are inherently checked during a flight prior to a flap retraction or a flap extension to ensure the safe use of an aircraft); Examiner notes a configuration module is further involved in the step of comparing and moving only when the weight is below the threshold, see §[0028]: The configuration module 50 is configured to store Calibration Parameters and Installation Parameters. In some embodiments, Calibration Parameters include parameters that are generated during a calibration process, such as indicated airspeed and/or pitch angle of the aircraft. In other embodiments, Installation Parameters include Flight Manual Parameters and a Calibration Estimated Weight. In some such embodiments, Flight Manual Parameters include parameters that are usually available in a pilot operating handbook of the aircraft, such as flap up stall speed… maximum take-off weight and/or standard empty weight In other such embodiments, the Calibration Estimated Weight is the estimated take-off weight of the aircraft for a flight in which a calibration process is conducted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of using an aircraft disclosed by modified Iliescu with the step of comparing a weight of the aircraft to a threshold, and moving the flap from a first position to a second position when the weight of the aircraft is below the threshold as taught by Genito, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the method of using an aircraft comprises the step of comparing a weight of the aircraft to a threshold, and moving the flap from a first position to a second position when the weight of the aircraft is below the threshold. The benefit being to help a pilot use the aircraft to perform safer and more stable maneuvers during a plurality of flight phases, such as take-off, cruising, and landing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 and 22 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicants claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, wherein the guide mechanism is lower than, in the thickness direction, the main portion and the flap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 12/18/2025 have been considered in full. Please be advised, unfortunately, after conducting an updated search, the claim amendments proposed to claims 1 and 10 during the 12/11/2025 interview are not found allowable. See the rejections section above for detail. Please note the allowable subject matter section.
The claim objections and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments, as discussed in the 12/11/2025 interview.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC §§ 102 and 103 rejections 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Butler et al. (US 2,620,147) teaches a flap deployable between its retracted and projected positions generally chordwise of the wing comprising a cantilever carriage arm guided for movement along a straight track, and a bell crank interconnecting the carriage arm and the flap, and being guided by a curved cam track.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/Shanna Danielle Glover/Examiner, Art Unit 3642