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
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 13-15 and 20-21 are redundant;
Claim 3, line 6, “wing tip” should be --the wing tip--;
Claim 4, line 3, “plurality fluid” should be --plurality of fluid--;
Claim 9, line 4, “fluid outlets arranged” should be --fluid outlets are arranged--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “proximate” is interpreted as “closer than to an opposite side/edge”, in accordance with [0036].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the leading edge of the wing tip extending upwardly and at an angle to a leading edge of the inboard portion of the wing. Although intending to refer to the angle between the wing and wing tip when viewed from the front, the claim implies and encompasses an angle between the leading edges of the wing and wing tip, i.e. a twist, however no twist is provided for in the disclosure.
Claim 3 recites the wing tip including a downwardly-extending portion, however the disclosure does not provide for a fluid outlet on the tip (per claim 1) of the downwardly-extending portion, but rather the base thereof.
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 wing tip comprising a downwardly-extending portion, however claim 1 requires the wing tip edge surface to face upwardly. It is unclear how the edge can be upward on a downwardly-extending portion, which would render the edge surface facing downward.
Claim 3 recites the fluid outlet delivering fluid to a downwardly-extending portion, however it is unclear how the fluid could be provided to the surface when the outlet is at the tip (per claim 1), which would render fluid dripping from the tip edge rather than coating the surface of the wing tip.
Claim 4 recites the at least one of the plurality of outlets proximate to a base of the portion, however claim 1 recites the outlet at the tip. It is unclear how the outlet can be at both the base and tip simultaneously.
Claim 9 recites the plurality of outlets arranged to deliver fluid to a second surface, however only the outlet at the tip is defined. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights