CTNF 19/193,161 CTNF 87081 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 April and 17 September 2025 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dege, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0152578, referred to as the “Dege application”) . For claim 1, the Dege application discloses a method of actuating a wing tip device on an aircraft, from a flight configuration to a ground configuration, the method comprising: receiving data indicative of a condition (see para. 0025); determining an actuation profile in dependence on the condition (see para. 0017, 0024, target); and actuating the wing tip device in accordance with the actuation profile, such that actuation of the wing tip device is tailored in dependence on the condition (see paras. 0024, 0026, algorithm calculating target value, actuation performed in light of target). Referring to claim 2, the Dege application further teaches wherein determining the actuation profile comprises determining the time period over which the wing tip device is to be moved from the flight configuration to the ground configuration (see paras. 0021-0022). With regards to claim 3, the Dege application further discloses wherein determining the actuation profile comprises determining a speed profile at which the wing tip device is to move, as it is actuated from the flight configuration to the ground configuration (see paras. 0021-0022). Pertaining to claim 7, the Dege application further discloses a method of actuating a folding wing tip on an aircraft from a flight configuration to a folded configuration, the method comprising: determining an actuation profile for actuating the folding wing tip (see paras. 0024, 0026, model algorithm), wherein the actuation profile is determined by setting a time period over which the wing tip may be actuated (see paras. 0022-0024, time and target), and setting a speed profile at which the wing tip is to be actuated over that time period (see paras. 0022-0024, speed and target), wherein the setting of the time period and/or the speed profile is made in dependence on at least one or more conditions of: a speed of the aircraft; a location of the aircraft in an airport; a layout of an airport; and/or a load on the folding wing tip (see para. 0025, load is parameter used for target and model); and actuating the folding wing tip, in accordance with the actuation profile, using an actuation assembly on the aircraft (see para. 0030). With reference to claim 8, the Dege application further teaches an aircraft comprising a wing tip device actuatable between a flight configuration and a ground configuration, the aircraft comprising: an actuator assembly for actuating the wing tip device between the flight configuration and the ground configuration; and a controller configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (see paras. 0017-0030). Regarding claim 9, the Dege application further discloses an actuator control system comprising: one or more processors; and memory, wherein the actuator control system is configured to perform, using the one or more processors, the method according to claim 1 (see paras. 0011, 0017-0030, 0036). For claim 10, the Dege application further teaches a computer program product arranged, when executed on a computing system comprising one or more processors and memory, to cause an actuation control system to perform, using the one or more processors, the method according to claim 1 (see paras. 0011, 0017-0030, 0036) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0152578, the “Dege application”) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dege, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,027,819, referred to as the “Dege patent”) . For claim 4, the Dege application does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, a teaching from the Dege patent discloses wherein the data comprises location data indicative of a distance between the aircraft and a target location (see col. 3:10-22). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify the Dege application with the teachings of the Dege patent based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a method for controlling actuation of a foldable wing tip section of a wing of an aircraft, which method assists the pilot in ensuring that the aircraft is in a condition safe for a change of the position of the foldable wing tip, and to provide a control unit implementing the method and an aircraft comprising the control unit (see cols. 1:61-2:3) With reference to claim 5, the Dege patent further teaches wherein the data comprises speed data indicative of a speed of the aircraft (see col. 3:32-44). Pertaining to claim 6, the Dege patent further discloses wherein the data comprises load data, indicative of a load on an actuation assembly configured to actuate the wing tip device (see col. 3:32-44). Conclusion Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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. /ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/193,161 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/193,161 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/193,161 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/193,161 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/193,161 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights