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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 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 10 is to a wing assembly for the aircraft according to Claim 1 but there is no new structure claimed other than the “wing assembly”. Additionally, “a fixed wing”, “a wing tip device”, “a wiring harness”, and “a protective sleeve” are claimed which are already defined in Claim 1 which it depends on. Are these different then “a wing tip device”, “a fixed wing”, “a wiring harness”, or “a protective sleeve” as defined by Claim 1? As such Claim 10 is indefinite.
Claim 11 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 11, “a fluorosilicone polymer” is defined, however, Claim 1 which Claim 11 depends on defines a fluorosilicone polymer. As such it is unclear if this is further defining the claim of if this is a repeat of already defined claim language.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US PgPub #2023/0242245) in view of Wang (CN Patent #111261327).
For Claims 1-2 and 10, figures 1a-1b and 8 of Edwards ‘245 disclose an aircraft comprising a wing (3), the wing comprising a fixed wing (5) and a wing tip device (6) moveably mounted at a joint (8) at the end of the fixed wing, the wing tip device being moveable about the joint between a flight configuration for use during flight, and a ground configuration for use during ground-based operations, in which ground configuration the wing tip device is moved relative to the fixed wing such that the span of the wing is reduced, wherein the aircraft comprises a wiring harness (43) extending between the fixed wing and the wing tip device, the wiring harness comprising a plurality of conductors and being arranged to transmit electrical power to the wing tip device.
While Edwards ‘245 discloses a wiring harness, it is silent about it having a protective sleeve formed of fluorosilicone polymer. However, the abstract of Wang ‘327 teaches a sleeve formed from fluorosilicone polymer to form an ultra-soft, high temperature resistant protective layer. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Edwards ‘245 with the protective sleeve of Wang ‘327. The motivation to do so would be to provide a high temperature resistant layer.
For Claim 3, while Edwards ‘245 is silent about a specific hardness of the sleeve. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to design a protective sleeve with a specific hardness so as to protect the harness based one expected conditions. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Edwards ‘245 to have a specific hardness on the Shore A hardness scale to provide proper protection to the harness based on expected conditions.
For Claim 4, the combination of Edwards ‘245 and Wang ‘327 disclose a first end proximal the fixed wing and a second end proximal the wing tip device such that the harness modified with the sleeve would extend over a length of the wiring harness spanning the joint.
For Claim 5, figure 3b of Edwards ‘245 discloses that the movement of the wing tip in the ground configuration exposes the wiring to the external environment.
For Claim 6, while Edwards ‘245 in view of Wang ‘327 is silent about a slit extending along the length of the sleeve so as to allow the harness to be removed from the sleeve, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have a slit in a sleeve so as to be able to place the sleeve on the harness as well as to remove the sleeve so as to be able to replace the sleeve if needed. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Edwards ‘245 in view of Wang ‘327 with the known slit in the sleeve. The motivation to do so would be to be able to place and remove the sleeve on the harness as needed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US PgPub #2023/0242245) in view of Wang (CN Patent #111261327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perrier (US PgPub #2020/0235555).
For Claim 7, while Edwards ‘245 discloses that the wiring harness (43) is a first and a second wiring harness extending between the fixed wing and the wing tip device, and wherein the position of the first channel is fixed, relative to the second channel, such that the first and the second wiring harnesses are held apart, it is silent about the protective sleeve comprising a first and second channel. However, the figures of Perrier ‘555 teach a wiring harness (11) having a first (13) and second wiring harness (12), the second wiring harness comprising a plurality of conductors (2), wherein the protective sleeve comprises a first channel in which the first wiring harness is received and a second channel in which the second wiring harness is received. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Edwards ‘245 in view of Wang ‘327 with the first and second channel protective sleeve of Perrier ‘555. The motivation to do so would be to provide a protective sleeve for two wire harnesses.
For Claims 8-9, while Edwards ‘245 is silent about one harness being high voltage and the other being low voltage, the figures of Perrier ‘555 teach that one harness (12) teaches a larger cable bundle (F2) then the other harness’ (13) cable bundle (F3). While this variation in cable bundles size is taught it is silent about specifically having a high voltage conductor and a low voltage conductor on respective harnesses. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to provide different voltages as they are needed and the above references teach that it is known to provide different sized conductors in the same system. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in he art before the effective filing date to modify Edwards ‘245 with the known different voltage systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights