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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 04 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-5 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 May 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0023] – The sentence in lines 3-4, reads as follows: “A high lift device, such as a flap or slat, has the function of increasing when lift when deployed.” In this sentence, the phrase “increasing when lift when deployed” does not make sense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 – In line 3, “a leading-edge spoiler device” is introduced. In line 10 the limitation “the spoiler device” is cited. If this is the same limitation as introduced in line 3, the limitation in line 10 should read “the leading-edge spoiler device.” For example, in claim 2 lines 2 and 4, the limitation “the leading edge spoiler device” is correctly cited as per this limitation being introduced in line 3 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends. To keep this limitation from rising to the level of a 35 USC § 112(b) rejection for insufficient antecedent basis, and to establish clarity and consistency throughout the claim, the limitation in line 10 of claim 1, should be written the same as the limitation in lines 2 and 4 of claim 2.
Claims 2-3 and 7-12 – Each of these claims cite the same “the spoiler device” limitation as in line 10 of claim 1, and is objected to for the same reasons, and is required to be amended as in the objection of claim 1 for the same reasons.
Claim 2 – In lines 2-3, the limitation “the aircraft wing” is recited. In line 5, the limitation “the wing” is recited. If this is the same wing as recited in lines 2-3, the claim limitation in line 5 should read “the aircraft wing” for clarity and consistency, and to avoid the limitation rising to the level of a 35 USC § 112(b) rejection for insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 12 – In lines 2-3, the limitation “a moveable leading edge high lift device” is recited. In line 6, the limitation “the moveable leading edge high lift device” is correctly recited. In line 8, the limitation “the high lift device” is recited. If this is the same moveable leading edge high lift device as recited in lines 2-3, the claim limitation in line 8 should read “the moveable leading edge high lift device” for clarity and consistency, and to avoid the limitation rising to the level of a 35 USC § 112(b) rejection for insufficient antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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 9 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 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 USC § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 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.
The term “substantially rigid” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As disclosed in paragraph [0017] of the specification, i.e., “By substantially rigid in this context is meant that the spoiler device does not appreciably deform under load on the spoiler device in normal operation” the relative term “appreciably” does not make the meaning of “substantially rigid” clear and definite. What does “appreciably” mean? For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the term “substantially rigid” in the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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, 2, 6, 8-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorsett, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170341730 A1 (hereinafter called Dorsett).
Regarding claim 1, Dorset teaches an aircraft wing comprising:
a fixed wing portion (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 120) and
a leading-edge spoiler device (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 130; ¶ [0020]),
wherein the aircraft wing has a leading edge (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 230) and a trailing edge (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 240),
the spoiler device is rotatably mounted relative to the fixed wing portion adjacent the wing leading edge by a hinge (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 320) and is moveable between a retracted position (See e.g., FIG., 3A) and a deployed position (See e.g., FIG., 3B);
the fixed wing portion has an upper aerodynamic surface (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B top of element 120) and a lower aerodynamic surface (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B bottom of element 120),
wherein in the retracted position, the spoiler device has a spoiler surface forming a continuous surface with the upper aerodynamic surface of the fixed wing portion (See e.g., FIG., 3A, where the upper surfaces of elements 320 and 120 form a continuous surface; ¶ [0033]), and in the deployed position, the spoiler surface is rotated at an angle to the upper aerodynamic surface of the fixed wing portion (See e.g., FIG., 3B, where the upper surface of element 320 is rotated at an angle to the upper surface of element 120), and
wherein in the retracted position, the spoiler surface has a first portion forward of the hinge (See e.g., FIG., 3A element 250) and a second portion aft of the hinge (See e.g., FIG., 3A element 260).
Regarding claim 2, Dorsett teaches wherein when the leading edge spoiler device is in the retracted position the aircraft wing has an airfoil profile (See e.g., FIG. 3A element 120 as shown in the cited figure), and wherein when the leading edge spoiler device is in the deployed position the spoiler device extends outside of the airfoil profile (See e.g., FIG. 3A element 250 of element 130 as per ¶ [0020]) to spoil lift generated by the wing.
Regarding claim 6, Dorsett teaches wherein the hinge is a simple hinge (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 320).
Regarding claim 8, Dorsett teaches wherein the first portion of the spoiler surface is inclined forwardly away from the hinge with respect to a chord extending between the wing leading and trailing edges when the spoiler device is in the deployed position (See e.g., FIG. 3A elements 250, 320, 230, & 240).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Dorsett teaches wherein the spoiler device is substantially rigid (See e.g., FIGS., 3A & 3B element 130; ¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Dorsett teaches further comprising a releasable locking mechanism configured to prevent rotation of the spoiler device (See e.g.., FIGS. 5A-5B; ¶ [0018], “The first deflector and the second deflector may be configured to simultaneously pivot from the closed positions to respective first and second open positions upon actuation of the shaft.”).
Regarding claim 13, Dorsett teaches wherein the hinge comprises at least one of a spring or a damping element (See e.g., ¶ [0040], “…hinge 320 may be a gooseneck hinge…” where a gooseneck hinge teaches a damping element).
Regarding claim 14, Dorsett teaches comprising a plurality of the leading-edge spoiler devices spaced spanwise across the wing (See e.g., ¶ [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Dorsett.
Regarding claim 3, Dorsett teaches wherein when in the deployed position the spoiler device extends a height outside of the airfoil profile of a local chord length of the airfoil portion (See e.g., FIG. 3B).
But Dorsett does not teach that the spoiler device extends a height outside of the airfoil profile of between 5% and 15% of a local chord length of the airfoil portion.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spoiler device extends a height outside of the airfoil profile of between 5% and 15% of a local chord length of the airfoil portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, i.e., the spoiler device extends a height outside of the airfoil profile of a local chord length of the airfoil portion (See e.g., FIG. 3B element 250), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Dorsett, and further in view of GEORGE XENAKIS, U.S. Patent 2,852,211 A (hereinafter called GEORGE).
Regarding claim 7, Dorsett teaches wherein rotation of the spoiler device from the retracted position to the deployed position is controlled by the shaft when actuated (See e.g., ¶ [0033]), and wherein rotation of the spoiler device from the deployed position to the retracted position is controlled by the shaft when actuated (See e.g., ¶ [0034]).
But Dorsett does not teach wherein rotation of the spoiler device from the retracted position to the deployed position is passively controlled by forces external to the aircraft wing, and wherein rotation of the spoiler device from the deployed position to the retracted position is passively controlled by forces external to the aircraft wing.
However, GEORGE teaches wherein rotation of the spoiler device from the retracted position to the deployed position is passively controlled by forces external to the aircraft wing, and wherein rotation of the spoiler device from the deployed position to the retracted position is passively controlled by forces external to the aircraft wing (See e.g., column 1 lines 39-45 and 48-52 and 65-71).
Accordingly, because Dorsett and GEORGE taught a hinge device used to rotate/pivot a spoiler to retract and deploy, impacting the aerodynamics of an aircraft wing, was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Dorsett and GEORGE before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft wing of Dorsett to incorporate rotation of the spoiler device from the retracted position to the deployed position is passively controlled by forces external to the aircraft wing, and rotation of the spoiler device from the deployed position to the retracted position is passively controlled by forces external to the aircraft wing, as taught in the analogous art of GEORGE. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing a satisfactory means of using spoilers on high-speed aircraft, by using a spoiler that is actuated in response to the pressure differential existing adjacent the surface of the wing of the aircraft and the surface of the spoiler, as suggested by GEORGE (See e.g., column 1 lines 40-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to show alone or in combination, the following, in summary, as claimed:
An aircraft wing with a fixed wing portion, and a leading-edge spoiler device that 1) is rotatably mounted and moveable between retracted and deployed positions relative to the fixed wing portion adjacent the wing leading edge by a hinge, 2) has a first portion forward of the hinge and a second portion aft of the hinge. Along with features 1) and 2), the aircraft wing with a fixed wing portion, has the following two separate indicated allowable features: a) a folding wing tip device with the leading-edge spoiler device located thereon, b) a moveable leading-edge high lift device with the leading-edge spoiler device located thereon that moves from its retracted position only when the high lift device is in the stowed position, both of which, along with all other elements, limitations, and features of all claims, overcome the cited prior art of record which does not teach or suggest these two indicated allowable limitations as claimed.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance of all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP § 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. BRAKES, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0312242 A1; EATON, JR., et al., U.S. Patent 2,070,006 A; and Jorgensen, U.S. Patent 4,553,721 A cite various relevant components that are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, such as a spoiler located on a folded wing tip device and a spoiler located on moveable leading-edge high lift device, but none of these components teach or suggest the limitations as claimed in the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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 D 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
30 June 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights