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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “the at least one the plurality fluid” should be --the at least one of the plurality of fluid--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “proximate” is interpreted as “closer than an opposite side/edge”, in accordance with [0036].
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.
Claims 3, 4, and 9 are 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 3 recites the fluid outlet delivering fluid to a downwardly-extending portion, however claim 1 recite the application to an upwardly-extending portion. The disclosure generally indicates the outlets are associated with single, specified surfaces (e.g. [0054]). Accordingly, it is unclear how the outlets can be associated with multiple surfaces. See MPEP 2173.03.
Claim 4 recites the at least one fluid outlet comprising a plurality of outlets, and at least one of the plurality proximate to a base of portion, however claim 1 requires the outlets to be in a tip of the portion. It is unclear how the outlet may be in both the tip and base simultaneously.
Claim 9 recites the at least one fluid outlet comprises a plurality of outlets, with the plurality of outlets arranged to deliver fluid to the second surface. The claim does not differentiate these outlets into groups, and encompasses the plurality of outlets including the outlet of claim 1, which is on the first surface. For example, a “plurality” of two outlets would be the outlet of claim 1 plus one additional outlet. However, the disclosure generally indicates the outlets are associated with single, specified surfaces (e.g. [0054]). Accordingly, it is unclear how a single outlet would deliver fluid to two surfaces when the outlet is only associated with one surface. See MPEP 2173.03.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jackowski et al. (US 2018/0079512).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15-17, and claim 14:
Jackowski discloses providing de-icing fluid to surface outlets (pores) in an upwardly extending tail fin (218 in Fig 2 points to the vertical tail; [0095]) of an aircraft empennage.
Jackowski discloses the outlets along the length of the surface to which it is applied (e.g. Fig 10). Accordingly, some outlets would be in a surface of a tip of the fin.
However, if applicant is of the opinion that the outlets do not extend to teh tip of the tail fin, Jackowski discloses placement along the length of a wing, including the tip (Fig 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Jackowski to use outlets along the length of the tail fin for the predictable advantage of de-icing (substantially) the entire wing length, to reduce problems caused by ice at the extremities, such as overloading due to extra weight.
Regarding claims 5-7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Jackowski discloses a delivery conduit adjacent a surface of the component (a delivery conduit is necessary to deliver to the pores, and would be adjacent at least proximate the pores, particularly as generally depicted in Fig 10) to deliver fluid from a reservoir (1006).
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Jackowski discloses outlets in the leading edge (e.g. Fig 10; claim 17).
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Jackowski discloses a second surface “arranged to” be de-iced (tails have two sides).
However, if applicant is of the opinion that the tail does not have outlets on each surface, Jackowski teaches an arrangement having pores for each surface ([0087], for inner and outer nacelle surfaces).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Jackowski to use outlets for both surfaces to ensure de-icing for both surfaces, preventing unwanted buildup of ice, especially asymmetrically, which may cause adverse control/aerodynamics.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackowski et al. (‘512) in view of Blumer (US 2018/0118331).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Jackowski discloses de-icing wings, tails, etc., along the length thereof (e.g. Figs 8 and 10), but does not disclose the structure as a wing tip (winglet, as disclosed), or downwardly-extending wing-tip.
Blumer teaches an aircraft winglet (i.e. extended wing portions) with upwardly- and downwardly-extending portions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Jackowski to use a winglet as disclosed by Blumer for the predictable advantage of increasing the lift of the aircraft (winglets affecting the air about the wing to increase lift relative to the span).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackowski et al. (‘512) in view of Kelly et al. (US 2018/0099735).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Jackowski discloses de-icing wings, tails, etc., along the length thereof (e.g. Figs 8 and 10), but does not disclose the structure as a foldable wing tip (winglet, as disclosed).
Kelly teaches an aircraft folding winglet between ground (compact, folded upward) and flight (extended) configurations.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Jackowski to use a winglet as disclosed by Kelly for the predictable advantage of increasing the lift of the aircraft (winglets affecting the air about the wing to increase lift relative to the span) and to provide a compact ground configuration for space constrained airports or storage hangars.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jackowski does not disclose the outlets on the upwardly extending tail fin (the wingtip being an alternative, and thus optional, limitation), Jackowski discloses the use of the pores (outlets) in the tail ([0095]). (See discussion for use in the tail in prior remarks.) Further, Jackowski discloses the pores (outlets) along the entire length of the applicable surfaces (e.g. Figs 8 and 10), thus disclosing, or providing basis for modifying, for use in the surface at the tip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619