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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the assembly and mechanism must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 5, line 28 recites “FIG. 6 shows a front top perspective view of FIG. 6”. 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: mechanism in claim 1 and 16 and assembly in claim 1, 10, 16, 18 and 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 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. The specification recites "mechanism". It is unknown what included in mechanism. As such, the examiner contends its unknown as the what structure or elements make up the mechanism, as mechanism does not provide sufficient description as to what or constitutes a mechanism.
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 1-10 and 16-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 18 and 19 recite limitation “assembly”. It is unclear what this element is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 a mechanism configured to removably engage a second portion of the wing (element 8), 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).
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 actuator comprises an arm (element 8), the arm configured to transfer motion from the actuator to the second portion of the wing, wherein the arm comprises a top portion and a bottom portion, and wherein the arm is configured to receive at least a portion of the second portion of the wing when the first portion of the wing is received by the connector (para 0021).
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 a mechanism configured to removably engage a second portion of each wing of the plurality of wings (element 10), respectively, 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 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.
Regarding claim 20, Beyeler teaches, the system of claim 16, wherein each connecting portion of the connecting portions includes one or more first apertures and one or more second apertures (elements 5 and 6), wherein one or more spars of the first portion of the wing are inserted via the one or more first apertures (element 3),
But fails to teach, wherein the at least one pin is configured to be inserted via the one or more second apertures, and wherein the at least one pin inserted into the one or more second apertures is configured to be snapped into a notch of the one or more spars inserted into the one or more first apertures.
However You teaches, wherein the at least one pin is configured to be inserted via the one or more second apertures (element 118), and wherein the at least one pin inserted into the one or more second apertures is configured to be snapped (para 0060, “quick release) into a notch (element 116) of the one or more spars inserted into the one or more first apertures.
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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights