DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application filed 5 February 2025 which is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/071404 filed 2 August 2023 which claims foreign priority to ATA 60124/2022 filed 17 August 2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each independent claim begins with either “Pivoting”; “Aircraft” or “Computer-aided” and should start with “A pivoting”; “An aircraft” or “A Computer-aided”. Subsequently, each dependent claim should start with “The pivoting” and “The aircraft”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a complete wing profile (4) or a complete wing profile” which is redundant and should be corrected to “a complete wing profile (4) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a central receptacle” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tighe (US 2015/0225071).
- Regarding Claim 1. Tighe discloses a pivoting wing (13a/b made up of segments 15a/b and 17a/b, fig. 1-2; alternate wing 30/40 makeup illustrated by fig. 9 and 10) for an aircraft (10, fig. 1-10), characterized in that the pivoting wing (13) is designed as a partial-profile pivoting wing (illustrated by fig. 9 and 10 segments 31/33 or 41/43), wherein the partial-profile pivoting wing (13/30/40) is assembled from individual partial profiles (15/17; 31/33; 41/43) when these partial profiles are pivoted together (illustrated by fig. 1 and 10).
- Regarding Claim 2. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to claim 1,
- wherein the individual partial profiles (31/33 or 41/43), when the partial profiles are pivoted together (illustrated by fig. 9-10), are assembled to form a complete wing profile (30/40, fig. 9-10), and
- wherein the partial profiles (31/33 or 41/43), when the partial profiles are moved apart or pivoted out (illustrated by fig. 2), form individual profiles of the wing profile (illustrated by fig. 2).
- Regarding Claim 3. Pivoting wing according to Claim 1, wherein the partial profiles are locked when the partial profiles are pivoted together (illustrated by fig. 1 and 9-10).
- Regarding Claim 4. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 1, which comprises two or more partial profiles (15/17, 31/33, 41/43).
- Regarding Claim 5. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 1, wherein each partial profile comprises the external shape of a segment of the aerofoil profile (illustrated by fig. 9-10 and segments 31/33 and 41/43).
- Regarding Claim 6. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 1, wherein the partial profile consists of a partial wing profile segment and a spar or a plurality of spars (inherently, to provide the rigidity required for a wing to withstand flight loads, spars or a plurality of spars are required within the construction of the partial wing profile segments 31/33 or 41/43).
- Regarding Claim 7. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 6, wherein the partial wing profile segment and the spar are formed as a single component (Tighe illustrates the segment and spar as a single component, either 31/33 or 41/43).
- Regarding Claim 8. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 1, which comprises one rigid partial profile (fig. 1 and 9 illustrates 15/17 for wing 13 and 33/31 for wing 30, and given the construction of fig. 1 with one rotating collar associated with the rear wing segment, portion 15/33 is the rigid portion, and 17/31 is the pivoting portion).
- Regarding Claim 9. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 8, wherein the movable or pivotable partial profiles (31) are narrower in comparison to the rigid partial profile (33, fig. 9 illustrates the leading edge portion 33 as wider than the trailing edge portion 31 as is known in the art).
- Regarding Claim 10. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 1, wherein the pivotable partial profile (31) comprises at least one of the drives specified hereinafter, namely:
- motor-propeller combination (“thrust direction may be used to cause wing segments to separate or come together” [0041]).
- Regarding Claim 11. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 10, wherein a propulsion caused by the drive can be converted into a lifting force, in particular by a pivotable drive (“vertical flight orientation” [0040], the mode of fig. 1 is the mode in which propellers of the propulsion drive cause a lifting force).
- Regarding Claim 12. Tighe discloses the pivoting wing according to Claim 10, wherein when the configuration of the motor-propeller combination is present as the drive (see claim 10), the forward-oriented partial profile (15 or 33) of the wing profile (13 or 30) comprises a pull propeller (16, the propeller is on the front of the wing segment, making it a pull propeller) and the rearward-oriented partial profile (17 or 31) of the wing profile (13 or 30) comprises a push propeller (14, the propeller is on the rear of the wing segment, making it a push propeller).
- Regarding Claim 13. Tighe discloses an aircraft comprising a fuselage (11) configuration which, depending on the design, comprises a fuselage (11), and a pivoting wing according to Claim 1 on the left and right sides of the fuselage configuration (see claim 1 and fig. 1-2).
- Regarding Claim 14. Tighe disclose the aircraft according to Claim 13, which comprises a spar box (inherent to wing construction), wherein the partial profiles (15/17, 31/33, 41/43) are realized as individual spars (inherently required for wing construction) and are each connected to the spar box and thereby to the fuselage by individual spare bolts (fig. 1 and 2 illustrate the collars which attach the wings and components of the wings to the fuselage; while specific construction details of the connection are not provided, the use of spare bolts would be inherent to wing and fuselage connection construction).
- Regarding Claim 15. Tighe disclose the aircraft according to Claim 13, wherein the partial profiles consist (15/17, 31/33, 41/43) of spars extending from one side of the fuselage (11) to the other side of the fuselage (11, illustrated by fig. 1 and 2), wherein the continuous spars are connected to the fuselage by means of a central receptacle (23/25, the collars are equivalent to central receptacles).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe in view of Obviousness.
- Regarding Claim 16. Tighe discloses a method for operating an aircraft (10) with a pivoting wing according to Claim 1 (see claim 1) in the flight states specified hereinafter, namely:
- in a horizontal flight state (illustrated by fig. 1) in which the partial profiles of the respective partial-profile pivoting wing are pivoted together and a complete wing thus formed with the effect of a drive, in particular of the respective partial profile, generates the aircraft uplift, like a conventional aircraft (see [0030]), and
- in a transition flight state in which the partial profiles are moved apart so that partial wings are formed from the complete wing (illustrated by fig. 2), whereby the aircraft uplift of the complete wing decreases, possibly being partially taken over by the individual partial wings, whilst the drive or an effective direction of the drive is successively pivoted in such a way that the decrease in the uplift of the complete wing is compensated when the partial profiles move apart (see [0031]-[0032]), and
- in a take-off or landing or hovering flight state in which the partial profiles of the partial-profile pivoting wing are moved apart and purely the directed effect of the drive provides the necessary power for the take-off or landing or hovering flight state (see [0032]). Tighe does not explicitly disclose a computer-aided method, though it is inferred by one of ordinary skill that computer control is required to operate the vehicle of Tighe). As such since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 A-D
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYE W ABELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1500 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TYE WILLIAM ABELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644 7 September 2026
