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
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata (US 6663047 B1) in view of Riggins (US 9308987 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Arata teaches a cavity system for use on a vehicle, comprising: a cavity (Fig. 6 element 18) having a front edge and/or a rear edge and longitudinal edges (Shown in Fig. 7), the front and/or rear edges defining an opening (Fig. 6 opening within cavity 18); and at least one elongate flow partition protruding from a surface adjacent each longitudinal edge of the cavity into an ambient flow outside of the cavity (Fig. 6 elements 48), the at least one elongate flow partition comprising an inboard surface facing predominantly towards the cavity (Fig. 6 inboard surface of elements 48) and an outboard surface facing predominantly away from the cavity (Fig. 6 inboard surface of elements 48).
Arata fails to explicitly teach the at least one elongate flow partition having a plurality of open channels extending from the inboard surface to the outboard surface.
However, Riggins teaches the at least one elongate flow partition having a plurality of open channels extending from the inboard surface to the outboard surface (Fig. 2 elements 36).
Arata and Riggins are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft cavity design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elongated flow partitions of Arata to have the open channels as disclosed by Riggins. Doing so would reduce the drag along the inner surface of the cavity by improving the development of downstream separation control.
Regarding Claim 2, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses a bay having a front wall, a rear wall and at least one side wall, the upper surfaces of which respectively comprising the front edge, the rear edge and longitudinal edges (Shown in Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Arata further discloses the at least one elongate flow partition protrudes from an upper surface of the at least one side wall (Fig. 6 elements 48 protrude out from longitudinal cavity walls).
Regarding Claim 6, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses the inboard surface and/or outboard surface of the at least one elongate flow partition is non-planar (Fig. 6 elements 48).
Regarding Claim 7, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses the at least one elongateflow partition is undulating in a vertical plane (Fig. 6 element 48).
Regarding Claim 11, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses the inboard surface of the at least one flow partition lies at an acute angle with respect to the longitudinal edge of the cavity (Shown in Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 13, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses a motor for driving the at least one elongate flow partition to ascend from or descend into the surface adjacent the cavity longitudinal edge (Fig. 6A element 35).
Regarding Claim 14, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses a motor and wherein the at least one elongate flow partition comprises a hinge, wherein the motor is arranged to drive the at least one elongate flow partition to rotate about the hinge to be selectively petitioned in the ambient flow or positioned to rest against the surface adjacent each longitudinal edge of the cavity (Fig. 6A hinge element 37).
Regarding Claim 16, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses a releasable payload (Fig. 6 elements 23).
Regarding Claim 17, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata further discloses an aircraft comprising the cavity system according to claim 1 (Fig. 6 element 14).
Regarding Claim 19, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Arata further discloses an upper surface of the at least one flow partition is undulating in a vertical plane (Fig. 6 elements 48).
Regarding Claim 20, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 5.
Arata further discloses at least one shock stabilizer arranged on either side of the cavity to protrude into the ambient flow (Fig. 6A element 31 considered a shock stabilizer protruding into the ambient flow).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata (US 6663047 B1) in view of Riggins (US 9308987 B1) and further in view of Colosimo (US 10017250 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Arata and Riggins fail to explicitly teach the bay is a rotary payload bay.
However, Colosimo teaches the bay is a rotary payload bay (Shown in transition between Figs. 1A-1B).
Arata, Riggins and Colosimo are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft payload bays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bay of Arata in view of Riggins to be a rotary payload bay as disclosed by Colosimo. Doing so would provide easier loading of the payloads into the aircraft by the ground crew.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata (US 6663047 B1) in view of Riggins (US 9308987 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata and Riggins fail to explicitly teach the at least one flow partition is between 2cm and 20cm tall.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dimensions of the flow partition of Arata in view of Riggins to be in the claimed range. This range would be obvious in relation to the size of the cavity in which the cavity system is implemented on and the amount of noise acoustic suppression is needed at a given airspeed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata (US 6663047 B1) in view of Riggins (US 9308987 B1) and further in view of Patience (US 20160031549 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Arata and Riggins teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Arata and Riggins fail to explicitly teach a transverse spoiler arranged across or in front of the cavity relative to the actual or intended direction of travel of the vehicle.
However, Patience teaches a transverse spoiler arranged across or in front of the cavity relative to the actual or intended direction of travel of the vehicle (Fig. 1 element 104).
Arata, Riggins and Patience are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft cavities. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity system of Arata in view of Riggins to have the transverse spoiler as disclosed by Patience. Doing so would reduce the noise caused by the airflow into the cavity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 21, there is no prior art nor any reasons to modify any prior art to have a door-less cavity system for use on a vehicle, comprising at least one elongate flow partition protruding from a surface adjacent each longitudinal edge of the cavity into an ambient flow outside of the cavity, and when in the opened position the at least one elongate flow partition protruding from the surface and when in the closed position there is a gap between distal edges of the at least one elongate flow partition associated with different longitudinal edges of the cavity. The limitations stated along with the other limitations of the independent claim give reason for allowance. Claims 22 is allowable as being dependent on Claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objections to the specification/drawings have been considered and are persuasive. The specification/drawing objections from the previous action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot due the new ground of rejection using the newly cited prior art of Riggins (US 9308987 B1) as shown above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights