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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/1/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,286,227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the amendment to claim 1 of the instant application states that the principal axis of said propulsion unit is parallel with the composite leading edge of the center wing segment within 10 degrees, which is inherent in ‘227.
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 7 – 12, 15, 17, 18, and 19 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.
The specification fails to adequately provide support for the following recitations in
claims 7 – 9:
Claim 7: "the spanwise average of the quarter chord of said forward wing segment is swept more than 10 degrees differently than the spanwise average of the quarter chord of the center wing segment”
Claim 7: “the spanwise average of the quarter chord of said rear wing segment is swept more than 10 degrees differently than said spanwise average of the quarter chord of the center wing segment”
Claim 8: "the spanwise average of the quarter chord of said forward wing segment is swept more than 10 degrees differently than the spanwise average of the quarter chord of the center wing segment”
Claim 8: “the spanwise average of the quarter chord of said rear wing segment is swept more than 10 degrees differently than said spanwise average of the quarter chord of the center wing segment”
Claim 9: "the spanwise average of the quarter chord of said forward wing segment is swept more than 10 degrees differently than the spanwise average of the quarter chord of the center wing segment”
Claim 9: “the spanwise average of the quarter chord of said rear wing segment is swept more than 10 degrees differently than said spanwise average of the quarter chord of the center wing segment”
The specification does not adequately support the claim recitations listed above. Although claims are considered part of the disclosure under MPEP §608.01(I), claim language cannot supply missing written description where the specification is otherwise silent, as set forth in MPEP §2163. The parent application did not describe the claimed limitations but merely recited it in the claims. As such, the parent application did not demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter. Because the current (child) application relies on the same disclosure as the parent application, the unsupported claim language cannot establish written description support in the child application, nor can priority be accorded to that limitation.
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 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raghavan et al. (“Aeroelasticity and Flight Dynamics of Oblique Flying Wings”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Raghavan et al. discloses an aerial vehicle (Fig. 1), said aerial vehicle comprising an oblique flying wing (pages 1 and 2), said oblique flying wing comprising: a center wing segment (portion of the aerial vehicle that’s inboard of the left aileron and the right aileron), said center wing segment comprising a leading edge and a trailing edge (Fig. 1); and a propulsion unit (engine), said propulsion unit residing within said center wing segment, said propulsion unit comprising a principal axis, wherein said principal axis of said propulsion unit is parallel with the composite leading edge of said center wing segment within 10 degrees (or 5 degrees) (Raghavan et al. discusses on page 3 that “the engine is located at the mid-point and can be pivoted about an axis normal to the wing to be aligned in the plane of the freestream, which would allow the engine to be positioned parallel with the composite leading edge of the center wing within 5 - 10 degrees).
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) 1, 2, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (US 2019/0382098) in view of Raghavan et al. (“Aeroelasticity and Flight Dynamics of Oblique Flying Wings”).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, McDonnell discloses an aerial vehicle (Fig. 2), said aerial vehicle comprising an oblique flying wing (paragraph [0010]), said oblique flying wing comprising: a center wing segment (25), said center wing segment comprising a leading edge (where forward swept wing 27 is located) and a trailing edge (where aft swept wing 29 is located); and a propulsion unit (paragraph [0049]), said propulsion unit residing within said center wing segment, said propulsion unit comprising a principal axis (paragraph [0049] discusses the engine residing within the center body). McDonnell does not explicitly teach that the principal axis of said propulsion unit is parallel with the composite leading edge of the center wing segment within 5 - 10 degrees. However, Raghavan et al. discloses an oblique flying wing (Fig. 1) having a propulsion unit (engine) residing within the center wing segment, said propulsion unit comprising a principal axis being parallel with the composite leading edge of the center wing within 5 - 10 degrees (Raghavan et al. discusses on page 3 that “the engine is located at the mid-point and can be pivoted about an axis normal to the wing to be aligned in the plane of the freestream, which would allow the engine to be positioned parallel with the composite leading edge of the center wing within 10 degrees). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to position the engines of McDonnell parallel to the composite leading edge of the oblique wing within 5 - 10 degrees since doing so would be a routine design modification to optimize the internal volume and engine dimensions.
Regarding claim 2, McDonnell discloses that said leading edge and said trailing edge of said center wing segment are parallel within 10 degrees along their length (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, McDonnell discloses that the forward wing segment is forward swept in the range of 15 to 35 degrees (the sweep angle of the forward swept wing 27 is preferably over 15 degrees – paragraph [0027]), and wherein said center wing segment is swept in the range of 35 to 65 degrees (the modified chord line 1’ of the center oblique airfoil is swept over 20 degrees more in the forward and aft transition areas having a sweep of over 35 degrees when the sweet of the forward swept wing 27 is 15 degrees or more – paragraph [0027]), and wherein said rear wing segment is rearward swept in the range of 25 to 45 degrees (the half chord transition from the center oblique airfoil to the aft swept wing 30 adds 20 degrees to the sweet of the aft swept airfoil giving it a sweep of 35 degrees when the forward swept wing 27 is swept 15 degrees – [0027]), while in a cruise configuration (when achieving low compressibility characteristics during flights at transonic speeds – paragraphs [0026] and [0027]).
Claim(s) 3 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell (US 2019/0382098) as modified by Raghavan et al. and further in view of Flight International (“Northrop responds to US Switchblade challenge”).
Regarding claims 3 – 6, McDonnell as modified by Raghavan et al. fails to disclose that an inlet duct in a forward area of said center wing segment, wherein said inlet duct is fluidically coupled to said propulsion unit and an outlet duct, the outlet duct residing on a rear surface of said center wing segment, said outlet duct fluidically coupled to said propulsion unit. However, Flight International shows an image depicting an oblique flying wing by Northrop Grumman having an embedded propulsion unit having an inlet and outlet duct on the surface of the wing – the inlet at the forward area and the outlet at the rear surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the inlet and outlet duct at the surface as shown in the disclosure of Flight International in order to reduce drag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm.
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 Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642