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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the second structural interface disposed above a cabin floor of the fuselage portion” of claim 28 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20-23 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieve (US 8016236 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Grieve (US 8016236 B2) discloses a method for assembling a wing unit (Grieve, figure 1, item 102 and 104) with a fuselage portion of an aircraft (Grieve, figure 1, item 106) where the wing unit comprises a first wing for extending in a first lateral direction relative to the fuselage portion (Grieve, figure 1, item 102) and a second wing for extending in an opposite second lateral direction relative to the fuselage portion (Grieve, figure 1, item 104) and where the first wing and the second wing are attached together (Grieve, figures 1 and 5, item 102, 104, and 508), the method comprising:
attaching the fuselage portion and the wing unit together at a first structural interface between the fuselage portion and the wing unit, the first structural interface being configured to permit relative positional adjustment between the wing unit and the fuselage portion (Grieve, claim 1, fittings attached to the body frame and to the wing spar are attached together);
performing relative positional adjustment between the wing unit and the fuselage portion (Grieve, claim 1, wing positioned with respect to the body of the aircraft for attachment);
finishing the second structural interface between the fuselage portion and the wing unit (Grieve, claim 4, second fittings attached to the rear spar and to a second body frame); and
attaching the fuselage portion and the wing unit at the second structural interface after finishing the second structural interface (Grieve, claim 4, second fittings attached together), except:
performing relative positional adjustment between the wing unit and the fuselage portion while the fuselage portion and the wing unit are attached at the first structural interface and while the fuselage portion and the wing unit are unattached at an unfinished second structural interface.
finishing the second structural interface between the fuselage portion and the wing unit while the wing unit and the fuselage portion are in their adjusted configuration after the relative positional adjustment between the wing unit and the fuselage portion; and
attaching the fuselage portion and the wing unit at the second structural interface after finishing the second structural interface.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Grieve to perform the steps in the prescribed sequence with positioning the wing and fuselage then finishing a second interface and subsequently attaching the fuselage and wing at this second interface with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the requirement for precise initial alignment and holding the wings and fuselage in place while not attached at interfaces, since it has been held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141 (I)(E)). Here:
a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
There is a design need to connect the wings and fuselage together
a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
There is only a finite number of predictable ways to attach the wings and fuselage together using two structural interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art might: align both interfaces one after the other then attach one and then the other (this may fail due to interfaces becoming unaligned); or align one interface, attach this interface, then align the other interface, and then attach this other interface. Additionally, finishing any of the interfaces may be performed at any time prior to the step of attaching such an interface.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the prior art teaching all of the steps required individually and then could have ordered the steps in any manner that would result in assembly of the aircraft.
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 21, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, except:
wherein the relative positional adjustment comprises a pitch adjustment of the wing unit relative to the fuselage portion.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Grieve to perform relative positional adjustment by adjusting wing pitch with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the wing to be positioned and to align interfaces, since it has been held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141 (I)(E)). Here:
a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
There is a design need to connect the wings and fuselage together
a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
There is only a finite number of predictable ways to change relative positions of wings attached at one interface to a fuselage. The wing may be pitched, yawed, rolled, or any combination thereof to adjust the relative positions and align the wing and fuselage together.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the prior art teaching all of positioning the wing and fuselage together and determined that pitching, yawing, and/or rolling the wing could be a part of this .
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 22, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, except:
wherein the relative positional adjustment comprises a yaw adjustment of the wing unit relative to the fuselage portion.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Grieve to perform relative positional adjustment by adjusting wing yaw with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the wing to be positioned and to align interfaces, since it has been held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141 (I)(E)). Here:
a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
There is a design need to connect the wings and fuselage together
a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
There is only a finite number of predictable ways to change relative positions of wings attached at one interface to a fuselage. The wing may be pitched, yawed, rolled, or any combination thereof to adjust the relative positions and align the wing and fuselage together.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the prior art teaching all of positioning the wing and fuselage together and determined that pitching, yawing, and/or rolling the wing could be a part of this .
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 23, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, except:
wherein the relative positional adjustment comprises a roll adjustment of the wing unit relative to the fuselage portion.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Grieve to perform relative positional adjustment by adjusting wing roll with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the wing to be positioned and to align interfaces, since it has been held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141 (I)(E)). Here:
a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
There is a design need to connect the wings and fuselage together
a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
There is only a finite number of predictable ways to change relative positions of wings attached at one interface to a fuselage. The wing may be pitched, yawed, rolled, or any combination thereof to adjust the relative positions and align the wing and fuselage together.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the prior art teaching all of positioning the wing and fuselage together and determined that pitching, yawing, and/or rolling the wing could be a part of this .
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 25, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, except:
wherein the relative positional adjustment comprises rotating the wing unit about the first structural interface.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Grieve to perform relative positional adjustment by rotating the wing about the first structural interface with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the wing to be positioned and to align the wing with the second interface, since it has been held that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141 (I)(E)). Here:
a finding that at the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem;
There is a design need to connect the wings and fuselage together
a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem;
There is only a finite number of predictable ways to change relative positions of wings attached at one interface to a fuselage. Given that the wing is attached at the first interface, in order to perform positional adjustment to wing must be rotated in some manner about the first interface.
a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and
One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the prior art teaching all of positioning the wing and fuselage together and determined that rotating the wing around the interface that the wing is attached at would allow for such positioning.
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 26, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, wherein finishing the unfinished second structural interface comprises finishing a hole for receiving a fastener (Grieve, claim 4 and figures 5-8, portions of the interface are attached to the wing and fuselage respectively; these interfaces include holes for receiving a fastener).
Regarding claim 27, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, wherein the second structural interface comprises a plurality of joints external to the wing unit (Grieve, figures 1 and 5-8, joints external to the wing unit).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieve (US 8016236 B2) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Sadri (US 5125778 A).
Regarding claim 24, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, except:
wherein attaching the fuselage portion and the wing unit at the first structural interface comprises torqueing a bolted joint of the first structural interface to a value that is less than a final torque value for the bolted joint.
Sadri (US 5125778 A) teaches torqueing a bolted joint of the first structural interface to a value that is less than a final torque value for the bolted joint (Sadri, col 1 lines 33-65).
Grieve and Sadri are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of methods of fastening two structures together. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bolted joints of Grieve by not fully torquing the bolted joint of Sadri with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permit adjustment of the wing (Sadri, col 1 lines 38-40).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieve (US 8016236 B2) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Kooiman (US 20170158306 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Grieve teaches the method as defined in claim 20, except:
wherein at least part of the second structural interface is disposed above a cabin floor of the fuselage portion.
Kooiman (US 20170158306 A1) teaches a structural interface is disposed above a cabin floor of the fuselage portion (Kooiman, figures 3 and 6, items 210 and 132, intefaces above a floor of the fuselage).
Grieve and Kooiman are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft wing to fuselage attachment. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of attachment between the wing and fuselage of Grieve with the wing mounted above the fuselage of Kooiman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase aircraft roll stability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keeler (US 7887009 B2) teaches a wing attached at forward and aftward interfaces
Berlin (US 2211089 A) teaches a wing attached to the underside by positioning snuggly and then bolting a left and right side into place
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642