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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-10 third paragraph, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to claims 1-10 and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) of 4/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with regards to prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner holds prior art EP 2716543 A1 Beyeler Antoine et al. teaches amended limitations of claims including the “mouth shape” of the upper and lower arm element of Beyeler, and the arm connecting to the second wing portion. The claims do not limit the second wing portion to be “without” intermediary elements connected to the mouth portion.
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.
Claims 5-9 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 5, line 1 recites limitation “an arm”. This is the second introduction of an arm. It is unclear if this is the same arm or a different arm? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5-10 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2716543 A1 Beyeler Antoine et al.
Regarding claim 1 Beyeler teaches, a system comprising: an assembly configured to maintain a wing on an aircraft (fig. 1a and 1b), the assembly comprising: a connector configured to removably connect to a first portion of the wing (fig. 2); and an actuator (element 10) having an arm (element 8) configured to removably engage a second portion of the wing (element 9), the arm comprising a top portion and a bottom portion defining a mouth shape (see annotated fig 3), the top portion and the bottom portion configured to receive at least a portion of the second portion of the wing therebetween (figs 2-3, elements 7, 8 and 9), wherein the second portion of the wing is configured to be moveable (element 9), and wherein the actuator is configured to control the second portion of the wing (para 0021).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (bottom portion)][AltContent: textbox (Top portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 1, wherein the connector includes one or more first apertures (element 5 and 6); wherein the connector is configured to removably connect to the first portion of the wing by receiving one or more spars (elements 3 and 4) of the first portion of a wing via the one or more first apertures (para 0016).
Regarding claim 5 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 1, wherein the connector includes one or more first apertures (element 5 and 6); wherein the connector is configured to removably connect to the first portion of the wing by receiving one or more spars (elements 3 and 4) of the first portion of a wing via the one or more first apertures (para 0016).
Regarding claim 6 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein when the first portion of the wing is received by the connector (fig. 2), the top portion of the arm is configured to face a top surface of the second portion of the wing, and the bottom portion of the arm is configured to face a bottom surface of the second portion of the wing (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 6, wherein the top portion and the bottom portion of the arm are configured to receive the second portion of the wing from a side edge of the second portion of the wing (element 7).
Regarding claim 8 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the arm comprises a mouth shape including the top portion and the bottom portion (element 8).
Regarding claim 9 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the arm of the actuator is configured to adjust a position of the second portion of the wing relative to the connector via movement of the arm by the actuator (para 0021).
Regarding claim 10 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 1, wherein the assembly is configured to be connected to a spine of a fuselage of the aircraft (element 1).
Regarding claim 16 Beyeler teaches, A system comprising: an assembly configured to maintain a plurality of wings on an aircraft, the assembly comprising: a connector comprising a plurality of connecting portions (fig. 2), wherein each connecting portion of the connecting portions is configured to removably connect to a first portion of each wing of the plurality of wings (elements and 4), respectively; and a plurality of actuators wherein each actuator of the plurality of actuators is configured to have an arm (element 8) configured to removably engage a second portion of each wing of the plurality of wings (element 10), respectively, the arm comprising a top portion and a bottom portion defining a mouth shape (see annotated fig 3), the top portion and the bottom portion configured to receive at least a portion of the second portion of the wing therebetween (figs 2-3, elements 7, 8 and 9), wherein the second portion of each wing is configured to be moveable (element 9); wherein each actuator of the plurality of actuators is configured to control the movable portion of the wing of the plurality of wings (para 0021).
Regarding claim 17 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 16, wherein each actuator of the actuators is configured to control the second portion of the wing of the plurality of wings, independently (element 10).
Regarding claim 18 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 16, wherein the assembly is configured to be connected to a spine of a fuselage of the aircraft (element 1).
Regarding claim 19 Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 18, wherein the assembly is configured to maintain at least two of the plurality of wings in different directions (para 0011).
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) 3, 4, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beyeler as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20220316509 A1 You; Tiesda.
Regarding claim 3, Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 2, but fails to t each, further comprising at least one pin, wherein the at least one pin is configured to be inserted through one or more second aperture of the connector into a notch of at least one spar of the one or more spars such that the wing is prevented to be removed from the connector.
However, You teaches, further comprising at least one pin, wherein the at least one pin (element 118) is configured to be inserted through one or more second aperture of the connector into a notch of at least one spar of the one or more spars (elements 108 and 126) such that the wing is prevented to be removed from the connector (para 0060).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Beyeler with the pin taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is for the pressure bolt to behave “in a “quick-release” manner, enabling quick and convenient connection (and disconnection) of the modular components” (para 0060).
Regarding claim 4, Beyeler as modified teaches, the system of claim 3, You teaches, wherein while the one or more spars are configured to be slid into the connector via the one or more first apertures in a first direction, the at least one pin is configured to slid into the connector via the one or more second aperture in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (fig. 1A), and wherein the at least one pin is configured to be interlocked with the notch of at least one spar of the one or more spars (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Beyeler teaches, a method, but fails to teach, comprising: pulling one or more pins of a connector.
However, You teaches, pulling one or more pins of a connector (para 0059);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Beyeler with the pin taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is for the pressure bolt to behave “in a “quick-release” manner, enabling quick and convenient connection (and disconnection) of the modular components” (para 0060).
Beyeler further teaches, inserting one or more spars of a first portion of a wing into the connector (fig. 3); inserting a second portion of the wing into an actuator (fig. 3);
You teaches, releasing the one or more pins to secure the wing to the connector (para 0059);
Beyeler teaches, and adjusting a position of the second portion of the wing via movement of the actuator (para 0021).
Regarding claim 12, Beyeler as modified teaches, the method of claim 11, wherein inserting the second portion of the wing into the actuator includes inserting the second portion of the wing between a top portion and a bottom portion of a mouth-shaped arm of the actuator (fig. 3), and wherein adjusting the position of the second portion of the wing includes adjusting the position of the second portion of the wing via movement of the mouth-shaped arm of the actuator (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Beyeler as modified teaches, the method of claim 11, wherein inserting the one or more spars of the first portion of the wing into the connector includes inserting the one or more spars into one or more first apertures of the connector (fig. 2),
You teaches, and wherein pulling the one or more pins of the connector includes pulling the one or more pins from one or more second apertures of the connector (para 0059).
Regarding claim 14, Beyeler as modified teaches, the method of claim 13, You teaches, wherein releasing the one or more pins to secure the wing to the connector includes releasing the one or more pins through the one or more second apertures of the connector such that an end of the one or more pins is snapped into a notch (element 116) of the one or more spars that are inserted through the one or more first apertures of the connector.
Regarding claim 15, Beyeler as modified teaches, the method of claim 13, further comprising: pulling the one or more pins that are snapped into the notch of the one or more spars until the one or more pins are released from the notch; removing the one or more spars of the first portion of the wing from the connector; and removing the second portion of the wing from the actuator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
