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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 12th February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 13th November 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, 12, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 5, “…the first direction…” should read “…a first direction…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 line 6, “…in a first direction…” should read “….in the first direction…” to resolve antecedent issue.
In claim 2 line 1, “The attachment interface…” should read “The interface…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of a term.
In claim 5 line 2, “…and width…” should read “…and a width…”.
In claim 8 lines 2-4,
“…wherein, optionally:
the central region defines an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the first direction and that passes through the centroid of the internal surface and wherein the attachment pad…” should read
“…wherein, optionally:
the attachment pad…” to avoid repetition of the limitation.
In claim 9 lines 1-2, “…claim 1, the interface comprising a further…” should read “…claim 1, wherein the interface comprises a further…”.
In claim 10,
“The interface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the central region defines an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the first direction and that passes through a centroid of the internal surface,
wherein the interface comprises one or more open end(s),whereby the axis of rotation passes through the open end(s).” should read
“The interface as claimed in claim 1, wherein the interface comprises one or more open end(s), whereby the axis of rotation passes through the one or more open end(s).” to avoid repetition of the limitation and for the purpose of consistency in the use of a term.
In claim 12 line 9, “…the axis of rotation…” should read “…an axis of rotation…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 12 line 14, “…for a wing folding mechanism of an aircraft…” should read “…for the wing folding mechanism of the aircraft…”.
In claim 14 line 3, “…said open end(s)…” should read “…said one or more open end(s)…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of a term.
In claim 14 line 5, “…the open end(s)…” should read “…the one or more open end(s)…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of a term.
In claim 20 line 2, “…interface…” should read “…the interface…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. A “further attachment pad extending away from the central region in the first direction” is subject to new matter as the disclosure discloses only an attachment pad and a lug extending away from the central region in the first direction.
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.
Claims 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 are 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 recites “the interface optionally further comprising a lug extending away from the central region in the first direction, wherein a second portion of the mounting structure is mounted to the lug” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1, on which claim 11 depends, recite “a lug extending away from the central region in the first direction” thus it is unclear if a “lug” of claims 1 and 11 is referring to a same lug or different lugs. For the examination purpose they are considered to be referring to the same lug.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the first and second interfaces are arranged such that there is an axis of rotation ….that passes through a centroid of the internal surface of the first interface…” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 12, on which claim 13 depends, recite “the first interface comprising:…….the axis of rotation…” and since axis of rotation passes through the centroid it is unclear if “axis of rotation” in claim 12 is a part of “axis of rotation” in claim 13 or they are two different axes. For the examination purpose they are considered to be referring to the same axis of rotation.
Claims 16 and 19 recite “wherein the second interface is configured to rotate relative to the first interface about an axis of rotation…..that passes through a centroid of the internal surface of the first interface…” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 12, on which claims 16 and 19 depends, recite “the first interface comprising:…….the axis of rotation…” and since axis of rotation passes through the centroid it is unclear if “axis of rotation” in claim 12 is a part of “axis of rotation” in claims 16 and 19 or they are two different axes. For the examination purpose they are considered to be referring to the same axis of rotation.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veile (US 5,558,299) in view of Burandt (US 4,721,016).
Regarding claim 1, Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) an interface/a casing (28) for a wing folding mechanism of an aircraft, the interface comprising:
a central region/ region surrounded by the casing comprising an internal surface (clearly shown in the figure below), the internal surface engaging a driven gear/planetary gear (38) of a rotary actuator, the central region defines an axis of rotation (clearly shown in the figure below) that is perpendicular to a first direction and that passes through a centroid/center of the internal surface (clearly shown in the figure below) (interface/casing (28) is circular and the centroid of a circle is the center of the circle) (Col. 3 Lines 55-67; Col. 4 Lines 1-7; sun gear (42) and planetary gear (38) together form a rotary actuator), and
an attachment pad (clearly shown in the figure below) extending away from the central region in the first direction (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 65-66), and
a lug extending away from the central region in the first direction, the lug comprising a lug hole/bore (32) to receive a lug bolt (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 63-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the interface comprising:
the attachment pad comprising an attachment surface that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and that extends in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation, the attachment surface comprising an attachment surface hole configured to receive an attachment surface bolt, and
the lug hole being oriented substantially perpendicular to the attachment surface hole.
Burandt ‘016 teaches (figures 1-2) a multiple-stage geared rotary actuator with a housing made up of a serios of relatively rotatable annular housing sections/interfaces (10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 32, 34)) have brackets/attachment pad (18, 20, 22, 24, 36, 38, 40) with openings/holes (26, 42) through which fastening means/bolt extends, wherein each bracket/attachment pad comprises an attachment surface (surface of attachment pad that comes in contact with the aircraft frame member/flight control surface) that extends in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation/axis of rotation is center of drive shaft (46) (Col. 3 Lines 65-68; Col. 4 Lines 1-14, 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veile ‘299 to incorporate the teachings of Burandt ‘016 to configure the interface comprising:
the attachment pad comprising an attachment surface that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and that extends in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation, the attachment surface comprising an attachment surface hole configured to receive an attachment surface bolt, and
the lug hole being oriented substantially perpendicular to the attachment surface hole (lug hole is oriented parallel to the axis of rotation and attachment surface hole is oriented perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would directly attach the attachment pad to the mounting body and establish a firm connection.
Claim 2 is optional.
Regarding claim 4, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the interface/ casing (28) wherein the attachment pad comprises a first access opening, wherein the first access opening comprises a cut out region providing access to a space for receiving a nut or bolt behind the attachment surface (as modified by Burandt ‘016; clearly shown in the figure below).
Regarding claim 5, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the interface/ casing (28) wherein a plane defined by a length and a width of the first access opening extends in a direction substantially parallel to the first direction (clearly seen in the figure below; first access opening has a length, width and height in x, y and z direction respectively).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the interface/ casing (28) wherein the attachment pad comprises a removable nut behind the attachment surface hole, the nut being configured to receive the attachment surface bolt (as modified by Burandt ‘016).
Regarding claim 7, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the interface/ casing (28) wherein the attachment pad comprises a threaded region behind the hole, the threaded region behind capable of receiving the attachment surface bolt (as modified by Burandt ‘016; bolt is threaded, thus the attachment pad has a threaded region which interacts with the thread on a bolt).
Claim 8 is optional.
Regarding claim 10, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the interface/ casing (28) wherein the interface/casing (28) comprises one or more open end(s), whereby the axis of rotation passes through the one or more open end(s) (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
595
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) an aircraft joint, the aircraft joint comprising the interface/ casing (28) for a wing folding mechanism as claimed in claim 1, and a mounting structure/inner wing component, wherein a first portion of the mounting structure is mounted to the attachment pad (Col. 3 Lines 6-67, Col. 4 Line 1; attachment pad and lug are connected to mounting structure/ inner fixed wing component at two different portions of the mounting structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) a casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism of an aircraft, the casing comprising:
a first interface/outer casing (28) for a wing folding mechanism, the first interface/ outer casing (28) comprising:
a central region/ region surrounded by the casing comprising an internal surface (clearly shown in the figure below), the internal surface engaging a driven gear/planetary gear (38) of a rotary actuator (Col. 3 Lines 55-67; Col. 4 Lines 1-7; sun gear (42) and planetary gear (38) together form a rotary actuator), and
a first attachment pad (clearly shown in the figure below) extending away from the central region of the interface in a first direction and an axis of rotation (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 65-66), and
a first lug extending away from the central region in the in the first direction, the first lug comprising a first lug hole/bore (32) to receive a first lug bolt (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 63-65).
a second interface/inner casing (26) for the wing folding mechanism of the aircraft, the second interface/inner casing (26) comprising:
a central region/ region surrounded by the casing comprising an internal surface (clearly shown in the figure below), the internal surface being suitable for engaging the driven gear/planetary gear (38) of the rotary actuator (Col. 3 Lines 55-67; Col. 4 Lines 1-7; sun gear (42) and planetary gear (38) together form a rotary actuator), and
a second attachment pad (clearly shown in the figure below) extending away from the central region of the second interface in a second direction substantially opposite to the first direction (clearly shown in the figure below) (Col. 3 Lines 65-66).
PNG
media_image4.png
610
713
media_image4.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism comprising:
the first attachment pad comprising a first attachment surface that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and that extends in a direction parallel to an axis of rotation, the first attachment surface comprising a first attachment surface hole configured to receive a first attachment surface bolt, and
the first lug hole being oriented substantially perpendicular to the first attachment surface hole.
Burandt ‘016 teaches (figures 1-2) a multiple-stage geared rotary actuator with a housing made up of a serios of relatively rotatable annular housing sections/interfaces (10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 32, 34)) have brackets/attachment pad (18, 20, 22, 24, 36, 38, 40) with openings/holes (26, 42) through which fastening means/bolt extends, wherein each bracket/attachment pad comprises an attachment surface (surface of attachment pad that comes in contact with the aircraft frame member/flight control surface) that extends in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation/axis of rotation is center of drive shaft (46) (Col. 3 Lines 65-68; Col. 4 Lines 1-14, 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Veile ‘299 to incorporate the teachings of Burandt ‘016 to configure the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism comprising:
the first attachment pad comprising a first attachment surface that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction and that extends in a direction parallel to an axis of rotation, the first attachment surface comprising a first attachment surface hole configured to receive a first attachment surface bolt, and
the first lug hole being oriented substantially perpendicular to the first attachment surface hole (first lug hole is oriented parallel to the axis of rotation and the first attachment surface hole is oriented perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would directly attach the attachment pad to the mounting body and establish a firm connection.
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism as claimed in claim 12, wherein the first/outer (28) and second/inner (26) interfaces/casings are arranged such that there is an axis of rotation (clearly shown in the figure above) that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and that passes through a centroid of the internal surface of the first interface/outer casing (28) and a centroid/center of the internal surface of the second interface/inner casing (26) (interfaces/casings are circular and the centroid of a circle is the center of the circle).
Regarding claim 14, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism as claimed in claim 13, wherein the first interface/outer casing (28) comprises one or more open end(s), whereby the axis of rotation passes through said one or more open end(s) of the first interface (clearly shown in the figure above; each interface has two open ends), and
wherein the second interface/inner casing (26) comprises one or more open ends, whereby the axis of rotation passes through the one or more open end(s) of the second interface/inner casing (26) (clearly shown in the figure above; each interface has two open ends).
Regarding claim 15, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism as claimed in claim 12 wherein the rotary actuator comprises the driven gear/planetary gear (38) configured to engage with the at least the internal surface of the first interface (clearly seen in the figure above).
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood), modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) a wing assembly for a folding wing, the wing assembly comprising the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism as claimed in claim 12,
wherein the second interface/inner casing (26) is configured to rotate relative to the first interface/outer casing (28) about an axis of rotation (clearly shown in the figure above) that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and that passes through a centroid of the internal surface of the first interface, and a centroid of the internal surface of the second interface (Col. 4 Lines 4-7; interfaces/casings are circular and the centroid of a circle is the center of the circle).
wherein a fixed wing portion/inner fixed wing component (clearly shown in the figure below) is mounted to the first attachment pad and a movable wing portion/ outer folding wing component (clearly shown in the figure below) is mounted to the second attachment pad such that the moveable wing portion is configured to rotate relative to the fixed wing portion by rotation of the second interface relative to the first interface about the axis of rotation (Col. 3 Line 51)
PNG
media_image5.png
356
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) the wing assembly wherein the wing assembly further comprises the rotary actuator, the rotary actuator comprising the driven gear/planetary gear (38) configured to engage with at least the internal surface of the second interface/inner casing (26) (clearly seen in the figure above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) a method of attaching a mounting structure to an interface for a wing folding mechanism of an aircraft, the method comprising steps of:
providing the interface/casing (28) for a wing folding mechanism of an aircraft as claimed in claim 1; and
attaching a mounting structure/an inner fixed wing component to the attachment pad of the interface (Col. 3 Lines 65-67, Col. 4 Line 1).
Regarding claim 19 (as best understood), modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) a method of assembling a wing assembly, the method comprising providing the casing for a Geared Rotary Actuator for a wing folding mechanism, as claimed in claim 12,
wherein the second interface/inner casing (26) is configured to rotate relative to the first interface/outer casing (28) about an axis of rotation (clearly shown in the figure above) that is perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction and that passes through a centroid of the internal surface of the first interface/outer casing (28) and a centroid/center of the internal surface of the second interface/inner casing (26) (interfaces/casings are circular and the centroid of a circle is the center of the circle), and
wherein the method further comprises a mounting a fixed wing portion/inner fixed wing component (clearly shown in the figure below) to the first attachment pad and a movable wing portion/ outer folding wing component (clearly shown in the figure below) to the second attachment pad such that the moveable wing portion can rotate relative to the fixed wing portion by rotation of the second interface relative to the first interface about the axis of rotation (Col. 3 Line 51)
PNG
media_image5.png
356
692
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, modified Veile ‘299 teaches (figures 1-3) an aircraft (10) comprising:
the interface/ casing (28) as claimed in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12th February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument are explained in the rejection above.
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642