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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
Claims 1−8, 12−13, and 19−20 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,216,799 to Charnock et al. (“Charnock“) in view of US Patent No. 11,130,588 to Edwards.
Regarding claim 1, Charnock teaches a modular wing portion for installation into a wing assembly as a pre-assembled unit, the modular wing portion comprising:
at least two ribs (five ribs 15 shown in fig. 5, each rib comprising two rib portions and connecting cleat, see fig. 6), each of the at least two ribs having a planar surface defining a rib plane (where the web portion of the I-beam in fig. 7 forms the planar surface).
Charnock teaches that the ribs are positioned and assembled on a framework 14, followed by installation of necessary pipework, all prior to assembling the wing by attaching upper and lower skins (col. 4 lines 15−25), however Charnock fails to teach the specifics for installing the internal fuel tank system components.
Edwards teaches a wing having a plurality of ribs 14 and at least one internal fuel tank system component (pipes 20, pipe connectors 21), wherein the at least one internal fuel tank system component passes through the at least two ribs through the rib plane of each of the at least two ribs (see figs. 2a−3b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ a system such as Edwards to carry out the installation of necessary pipework disclosed in Charnock because one of ordinary skill would need to employ some means of installing pipework to reduce Charnock to practice, and the system of Edwards allows for creating a safe and fluid-tight passageway through the ribs in a simple manner.
Regarding claim 2, Charnock as modified teaches that the at least one internal fuel tank system component and at least two ribs are configured to be spatially fixed relative to each other such that:
a. when the at least two ribs are installed into the wing assembly, the at least one fuel tank system component is installed into wing assembly (i.e. pipework installed prior to assembling wing skins, see col. 4 lines 15−25), and
b. when the at least one fuel tank system component is installed, the at least two ribs are installed into the wing assembly (i.e. pipework installed prior to assembling wing skins).
Regarding claim 3, Charnock as modified teaches that each rib plane is bounded by an outer rib boundary (understood from Charnock figs. 5 and 7), wherein the at least one internal fuel tank system component passes through the rib planes of the at least two ribs, entirely within the outer rib boundaries (see Edwards figs. 3a−3b, where one of ordinary skill would place the openings in the ribs in similar locations as Edwards figs. 3a−3b).
Regarding claim 4, Charnock as modified teaches that the modular wing portion has a length and a width (where one of ordinary skill would understand the left-right direction in Charnock fig. 5 as corresponding to the length direction), and
wherein the at least two ribs comprises at least three ribs distributed along a length of the modular wing portion (Charnock fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Charnock as modified teaches that each rib has a length, wherein the length of each rib is substantially transverse to a length of the modular wing portion, wherein each rib has a width, wherein the width of each rib is substantially parallel to a width of the modular wing portion, and wherein each rib has a depth, wherein the depth of each rib is substantially perpendicular to both the width of the modular wing portion and the length of the modular wing portion (Charnock fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Charnock as modified teaches that the modular wing portion further comprises a removable cartridge jig configured to guide assembly and installation of the modular wing portion (where “jigged cleats 17” are attached to the jig via jig location holes, see col. 4 lines 10−18), and
wherein the at least one rib and at least one internal fuel tank system component are removably mounted to the removable cartridge jig (i.e. the components making up framework 14 are assembled while attached to the jig, after which the jig is removed prior to installation of the wing skins).
Regarding claim 7, Charnock as modified teaches that the removable cartridge jig comprises a connection interface (jig location holes 22) configured to connect and align the removable cartridge jig in a predetermined position relative to a wing assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Charnock as modified teaches that the removable cartridge jig comprises an adjustment mechanism configured to allow a position of the at least two ribs to be adjusted along a length of the removable cartridge jig.
Regarding claims 12−13 and 19−20, Charnock as modified teaches an aircraft (Charnock Background) comprising a wing (Charnock Background) comprising: the modular wing portion as discussed previously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9−11 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 combination of Charnock as modified by Edwards is considered the nearest prior art. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify this combination to further mount the ribs with a secondary support integrated into the removable cartridge jig, since there is no clear need to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Applicant is apparently referencing prior art which is unpublished and has not been made of record. US Patent No. 9,527,576 to Haskins is a US patent and does not contain paragraph numbers.
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 Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights