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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment/remarks dated 08/14/2026 has been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are amended. Claims 2-3, 6, and 11 are cancelled. Claims 1,4-5,7-10, and 12-14 are currently pending and are under examination.
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 1,4-5,7-10, and 12-14 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.
It is not clear to the examiner in independent claim 1 what the difference between the claimed structures of the ‘heating element’ recited in line 13 and the ‘resistant coil’ in line 15. The recitations seem to refer to the same structure 28 (see para. [0022],[0027]) of the specification as filed. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claims 4-5,7-10, and 12-14 are rejected under the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1 above solely based on their dependency from the rejected claim 1 above.
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(s) 1, 4-5, 9-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 10,633,076) in view of Burgess et al. (US2021/0247247) and further view of Tremblay et al. (US 2017/0056973).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Bishop discloses an aircraft wing assembly (Fig. 1a), comprising:
a fixed wing (3, Fig. 1a) and a wing tip device (4, Fig. 1a) at the tip thereof, wherein the wing tip device is configurable between:
a flight configuration for use during flight (4a, Fig. 1a) and
(ii) a ground configuration (4b, Fig. 1a) for use during ground-based operations, in which ground configuration the wing tip device is rotated away from the flight configuration about a hinge axis such that the span of the aircraft wing assembly is reduced, and
the fixed wing (3) comprises a fixed wing lug (8, Fig. 2, col. 15, lines 58-60)
the wing tip device (4) comprises a wing tip lug (9, Fig. 2; col. 16, lines 22-25) and
the wing assembly further comprises
a locking pin with a load bearing body (51, Fig. 3-7) wherein in the flight configuration the fixed wing lug and wing tip device lug are aligned such that the locking pin may be inserted through the fixed wing lug and wing tip device lug into a locking position to lock the wing tip device in the flight configuration (col. 17, lines 7-15).
Bishop lacks, but Burgess teaches a locking pin with a load bearing body (120, Fig. 1) intended to be used in an aircraft wing (para. [0023]) comprises a heating element(130, Fig. 1). The Burgess do not state the locking pin 120 is hollow, but it discloses that both the heating element 130 and temperature sensors 140 are internal in the locking pin implying the requirement of hollow cavity within the pin (abstract, para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin disclosed in Bishop with the locking pin with the heating element taught in Burgess with a reasonable expectation of success because it prevents the locking components from ice build-up and freezing.
Modified Bishop lacks, but Tremblay teaches a heated pin with a heating cartridge (Fig. 1, 1A) comprises a resistance coil wound around a ceramic core (15, para. [0031], ‘…The core 15 is preferably a tube made of alumina (aluminum oxide) or mullite (including aluminum oxide and silicon oxide…’, i.e., both alumina (aluminum oxide) and mullite are technical oxide ceramics), and wherein the heating element (11, Fig. 2A, 2B) forms part of the heating cartridge (heating element/resistance coil (11) and core(15). For the purpose of examination, the examination takes the heating element and the resistance coil to be equivalent/the same structure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin with the heating element disclosed in modified Bishop by wounding the resistance coil/heating element around a ceramic core taught in Tremblay with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides fast and evenly distributed heating, strong electrical insulation, and high durability under extreme temperatures.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Bishop lacks, but Tremblay teaches a heated pin wherein the heating element comprises a resistance coil (11, Fig. 2A, 2B, 3A) or positive temperature coefficient heater.
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Bishop teaches a heated locking pin wherein the load-bearing body(Bishop 51, Fig. 3-7 is the outer most layer that is a load-bearing and the heating cartridge including the heating element in the modified Bishop would be inside the load-bearing body) surrounds the heating cartridge, or vice versa.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Bishop discloses an aircraft wing (Bishop, 1, Fig. 1b) comprising an aircraft wing assembly (Fig. 1a) claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Bishop discloses aircraft (Bishop, 2, Fig. 1b) comprising the aircraft wing of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Bishop discloses a use of locking pin in connecting a fixed wing (Bishop, 3, Fig. 1a) and a wing tip device (Bishop, 4, Fig. 1a).
In modified Bishop, Burgess also teaches a method de-icing (para. [0036])the locking pin of an aircraft wing assembly (intended to be used in an aircraft wing (para. [0023]) by activating (via actuation control computer and temperature sensor Fig. 1) the heating element(130, Fig. 1) to heat the locking pin (120, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin disclosed in modified Bishop with the activating the heating element further taught in Burgess as shown above with a reasonable expectation of success because it actively and automatically control the heating and actuation of locking pin and for the removal and continued prevention of the formation of ice on lock pin.
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(s) 7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Bishop (US 10,633,076) in further view of Backer Hotwatt (doc. “Cartridge Heaters” (referred hereinafter as ‘Backer’. (dated on wayback machine to be publicly available as early as 01/24/2023 (see attached document).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Bishop lacks, but Backer Hotwatt teaches a heating cartridge(page 28) wherein a thermal compound (3, magnesium oxide, figure, page 10) thermally couples the heating cartridge to the load bearing body (page 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating cartridge disclosed in modified Bishop with the heating cartridge having a thermal compound thermally coupling the heating cartridge to the load bearing body taught in Backer Hotwatt with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides great heat transfer and electrical insulation at elevated temperatures (page 10 second column).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Bishop discloses a locking pin (Burgess,120, Fig. 1) intended to be used in an aircraft wing (Burgess, para. [0023]) comprises a heating element(Burgess, 130, Fig. 1).
modified Bishop lacks, but Backer Hotwatt teaches a locking pin (page 28) further comprising a heating element (4, figure on page 28), a load bearing body (5, outside casing, Figure on page 28) and a heating cartridge (page 28, immersion cartridge heater) located within the load bearing body (Fig on page 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin disclosed in modified Bishop with the locking pin taught in Backer with a reasonable expectation of success because it creates a compact design as well as arranges heating elements just beneath outside surface for maximum heat transfer, efficient core temperature and faster heating.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Bishop discloses a locking pin (Burgess,120, Fig. 1) wherein the load bearing body and heating cartridge are hollow (Backer Hotwatt, Figures on page 10 and page 28; both the heating element 4 and magnesium oxide packing 3 are internal in the locking pin implying the requirement of hollow load bearing body 2; the inside of casing 2 and the center of heating cartridge containing element wire 4, see Fig. page 10).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Bishop (US 10,633,076) in view of BUTRIMAVICIUS (US 2022/0402591).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Bishop is silent, but BUTRIMAVICIUS in the same field of endeavor teaches a locking pin actuation comprising a threaded drive axle (900, Fig. 3-4, para. [0027]), and the locking pin (400, Fig. 3-4, para. [0027]) comprises a drive nut (700, Fig. 3-4, para. [0027]) engaged with the threaded drive axle, such that rotational movement of the threaded drive axle drives translational movement of the locking pin (Fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locking pin disclosed in modified Bishop with the locking pin/locking pin actuation taught in BUTRIMAVICIUS with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides a linear displacement/actuation of the locking pin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights