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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites “the vortex generator surface is a first vortex generator surface” in line 2, and “a second vortex generator surface” in line 4, despite previously introducing “a first vortex generator surface” and “a second vortex generator surface” in parent claim 19. Therefore, it is unclear if these recitations in Claim 20 intend to reference the first and second vortex generator surfaces introduced in claim 19, or intend to introduce new, additional vortex generator surfaces. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 8-9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. (US 20060060721 A1), hereafter Watts, in view of Westermeier et al. (US 20220227480 A1), hereafter Westermeier.
Regarding Claim 1, Watts discloses a control surface arrangement (Fig. 4) for influencing fluid flow about a vehicle (50, Fig. 4), the control surface arrangement comprising:
a first control surface portion (wing 54, Fig. 4, detailed in Fig. 1A as portion 12);
a second control surface portion (horizontal stabilizer at tail of aircraft, Fig. 4), the second control surface portion downstream of the first control surface portion relative to a fluid flow direction (horizontal stabilizer at tail is downstream of 54, Fig. 4),
a first vortex generator surface arrangement having a wave-like profile (18, Fig. 1A) arranged to induce vortices in a fluid flow passing over the first control surface portion (para. [0009], “…introduces streamwise vortices…”),
wherein the first vortex generator surface arrangement extends upstream of a leading edge of the first control surface portion relative to the fluid flow direction (Figs. 1A-1B); and
a second vortex generator surface arrangement having a wave-like profile arranged to induce vortices in a fluid flow passing over the second control surface portion (scalloped leading edge of horizontal stabilizer at tail of aircraft, Fig. 4 and para. [0009], “…introduces streamwise vortices…”), the second vortex generator surface provided in a gap between the first control surface portion and the second control surface portion (Fig. 4), wherein the second vortex generator surface arrangement extends upstream of a leading edge of the second control surface portion relative to the fluid flow direction (Fig. 4, as depicted in detail in Figs. 1A-1B).
Watts is silent about the second control surface portion configured to be moveable relative to the first control surface portion.
Westermeier teaches a similar second control surface portion (110, Fig. 1) configured to be moveable (para. [0022], “…horizontal stabilizer 110 includes a movable elevator 128…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second control surface portion of Watts to be moveable relative to the first control portion as taught by Westermeier, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced pitch control of the aircraft (see Westermeier, para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first vortex generator surface arrangement further comprises projections which extend from the leading edge of the first control surface portion (Watts, Fig. 1B, protrusions 18 extend from leading edge 32).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the control surface arrangement is configured to be in a vertical, horizontal, or diagonal orientation with respect to the vehicle (examiner notes Watts’ wings and horizontal stabilizer, which include the control surface arrangement, extend horizontally from the vehicle, see Watts, Fig. 4, for example).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the control surface arrangement is movable from one of the vertical, horizontal and/or diagonal orientation to another one of the vertical, horizontal and/or diagonal orientation with respect to the vehicle (examiner notes Westermeier’s control surface 128 is movable from a horizontal orientation to a diagonal orientation with respect to the vehicle, see Westermeier para. [0015], for example, “..ailerons can be rotated upward or downward…”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein one or both of the first control surface portion and second control surface portion are substantially planar (Watts, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the control surface arrangement is a flap rudder or diving plane (Westermeier, para. [0015], “movable control surfaces are used to control the lift and/or attitude of the aircraft during flight…”, examiner notes a movable control surface used to control lift is a flap).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the fluid flow is liquid flow (Watts, para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Watts teaches a vehicle comprising the control surface arrangement according to claim 1 (Watts, aircraft 50, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Watts discloses a method of influencing a fluid flow using a control surface arrangement (Abstract), the control surface arrangement including a first control surface portion (wing 54, Fig. 4, detailed in Fig. 1A as portion 12), a second control surface portion (horizontal stabilizer at tail of aircraft, Fig. 4), the second control surface portion downstream of the first control surface portion relative to a fluid flow direction (Fig. 4), and a first vortex generator surface arrangement having a wave-like profile (18, Fig. 1A) arranged to induce vortices in the fluid flow passing over the first control surface portion and the second control surface portion (para. [0009], “…introduces streamwise vortices…”), wherein the first vortex generator surface arrangement extends upstream of a leading edge of the first control surface portion relative to the fluid flow direction (Figs. 1A-1B), and a second vortex generator surface arrangement having a wave-like profile arranged to induce vortices in a fluid flow passing over the second control surface portion (scalloped leading edge of horizontal stabilizer at tail of aircraft, Fig. 4 and para. [0009], “…introduces streamwise vortices…”), the second vortex generator surface provided in a gap between the first control surface portion and the second control surface portion (Fig. 4), wherein the second vortex generator surface arrangement extends upstream of a leading edge of the second control surface portion relative to the fluid flow direction (Fig. 4, as depicted in detail in Figs. 1A-1B), the method comprising:
generating vortices in the fluid flow using the first vortex generator surface and the second vortex generator surface (para. [0009], “…introduces streamwise vortices…”); and
receiving the fluid flow across the first control surface portion and second control surface portion (Fig. 4 and para. [0009]).
Watts is silent about the second control surface portion configured to be moveable relative to the first control surface portion.
Westermeier teaches a similar second control surface portion (110, Fig. 1) configured to be moveable (para. [0022], “…horizontal stabilizer 110 includes a movable elevator 128…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second control surface portion of Watts to be moveable relative to the first control portion as taught by Westermeier, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced pitch control of the aircraft (see Westermeier, para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Watts teaches a vehicle configured to carry out the method according to claim 15, the vehicle comprising the control surface arrangement (Watts, 50, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a vortex generator surface of the first vortex generator surface arrangement is provided at a side surface of the first control surface portion (Watts, Fig. 1B, 18 is provided on the front side surface of 12).
Regarding Claim 19, Watts discloses a control surface arrangement (Fig. 4) for influencing fluid flow about a vehicle (50, Fig. 4), the control surface arrangement comprising:
a first control surface portion (wing 54, Fig. 4, detailed in Fig. 1A as portion 12) extending along a plane in a direction (54 extends outwards from fuselage of 50 along a plane, Fig. 4);
a second control surface portion (horizontal stabilizer at tail of aircraft, Fig. 4), the second control surface portion downstream of the first control surface portion relative to a fluid flow direction (Fig. 4); and
a first vortex generator surface having a wave-like profile (18, Fig. 1B) extending upstream of a leading edge of the first control surface portion relative to the fluid flow direction (18 extends upstream of 32, Fig. 1B), the first vortex generator surface including a series of laterally aligned projections (protrusions 18, Fig. 1B), such that the projections extend outwardly from the leading edge of the first control surface portion and in a plane of the first control surface portion (Fig. 1B); and
a second vortex generator surface arrangement having a wave-like profile arranged to induce vortices in a fluid flow passing over the second control surface portion (scalloped leading edge of horizontal stabilizer at tail of aircraft, Fig. 4 and para. [0009], “…introduces streamwise vortices…”), the second vortex generator surface provided in a gap between the first control surface portion and the second control surface portion (Fig. 4), wherein the second vortex generator surface arrangement extends upstream of a leading edge of the second control surface portion relative to the fluid flow direction (Fig. 4, as depicted in detail in Figs. 1A-1B).
Watts is silent about the second control surface portion configured to be moveable relative to the first control surface portion.
Westermeier teaches a similar second control surface portion (110, Fig. 1) configured to be moveable (para. [0022], “…horizontal stabilizer 110 includes a movable elevator 128…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second control surface portion of Watts to be moveable relative to the first control portion as taught by Westermeier, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced pitch control of the aircraft (see Westermeier, para. [0022]).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Watts as applied above, in further view of Stephens (US 2800291 A).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first vortex generator surface arrangement includes a first vortex generator surface (Watts, 14).
Modified Watts is silent about a second vortex generator surface of the vortex generator surface arrangement is provided at a side surface of the first control surface portion.
Stephens teaches a second vortex generator surface of the vortex generator surface arrangement is provided at a side surface of a similar first control surface portion (15 is provided on the top side of 11, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control surface arrangement of modified Watts with the second vortex generator surface as taught by Stephens, whereby Stephen’s second vortex generator surface arrangement is provided at a side surface of the first control surface portion of modified Watts, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve efficiency of the wing (Stephens, Col. 1, lines 34-43).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Watts teaches the control surface arrangement according to claim 19, wherein the vortex generator surface is a first vortex generator surface (Watts, 18, Fig. 1B), the control surface arrangement comprising:
Modified Watts is silent about a second vortex generator surface provided at a side surface of the first control surface portion.
Stephens teaches a second vortex generator surface of the vortex generator surface arrangement is provided at a side surface of a similar first control surface portion (15 is provided on the top side of 11, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control surface arrangement of modified Watts with the second vortex generator surface as taught by Stephens, whereby Stephen’s second vortex generator surface arrangement is provided at a side surface of the first control surface portion of modified Watts, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve efficiency of the wing (Stephens, Col. 1, lines 34-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights