CTNF 19/394,401 CTNF 97581 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is o bjected to because of the following informalities: C laim 8, line 16 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “a plurality of hard stops elements”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “a plurality of hard stop elements”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claim 8, line 17 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “and plurality of hard stop elements”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “a plurality of hard stop elements”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. 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 1-10 are 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 1 recites “…the joint assembly comprises a moveable panel…” in line 11. This limitation is indefinite because the joint assembly has not been positively claimed. Examiner notes lines 1-2 recite “a wing tip device rotatable about a joint assembly…”, which includes functional language and does not positively claim the joint assembly. It is unclear how limiting the system in relation to the joint assembly serves to further limit the claim, when the joint assembly is not positively claimed. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 and 9 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 1 recites “an adjacent cover of the joint-bordering structure” in lines 15-16. This is indefinite because Claim 1 previously introduced “a joint bordering structure…comprising…an upper cover and a lower cover.” It is unclear if “an adjacent cover” of line 15 is intended to reference the upper or lower cover, or if there is an additional third cover, for example. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-7 and 9 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 2 recites “a multiplicity of first hard stop elements” and “a corresponding second hard stop element”. It is unclear if these hard stop elements of claim 2 are intended to reference “a first hard stop element, and…a second hard stop element” of Claim 1, or if these are an additional plurality of hard stop elements in addition to the hard stop elements introduced in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 4-7 fail to cure the deficiency. Claim 3 is similarly rejected for the recitations of “a tip rib”, “fixed wing upper and lower covers”, “a root rib”, and “wing tip upper and lower covers”. Claim 6 is similarly rejected for “three hard stop elements” and “three corresponding second hard stop elements”. Claim 3 recites “a plurality of the second hard stop elements” and “a plurality of the second hard stop elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 recites “the root of the wing tip device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 fails to cure the deficiency. 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. 07-21-aia AIA C laim (s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paez (US 5372336 A) . Regarding Claim 1, Paez discloses a wing assembly for an aircraft (5, Fig. 1), the wing assembly comprising a fixed wing (10, Fig. 1) and a wing tip device (25, Fig. 1) rotatable about a joint assembly at the tip of the fixed wing (joint formed by 47 and 48 and 32, additionally see Col. 3, lines 7-13), wherein the wing assembly is configurable between: (i) a flight configuration for use during flight (Figs. 1-3) and (ii) a ground configuration for use during ground-based operations, in which ground configuration the wing tip device is rotated away from the flight configuration such that the span of the aircraft wing is reduced (Fig. 4), wherein the wing assembly comprises a joint-bordering structure (41, lower cover of 10, rib of 10, 101, rib of 25, and lower cover of 25, Fig. 3) located adjacent the joint assembly (Fig. 3), the joint-bordering structure comprising a rib (rib at left side of 25, Fig. 3), an upper cover (101, Fig. 3) and a lower cover (lower cover of 25, Fig. 3), wherein the joint assembly comprises a moveable panel (32, Fig. 3) arranged such that, when the wing assembly is in the ground configuration the panel is in an open position to accommodate relative movement between the fixed wing and the wing tip device (as depicted in Fig. 4), and when the wing assembly is in the flight configuration the panel is in a closed position (Fig. 3, closed position of 32), in which closed position, the panel is substantially flush with an adjacent cover of the joint-bordering structure (32 is flush with 101 in closed position, see Fig. 3), wherein the panel comprises a first hard stop element (150 and 135, Fig. 2), and the joint-bordering structure comprises a second hard stop element (123 and 82, Fig. 3), wherein when the panel is in the closed position, the first hard stop element abuts the second hard stop element (Fig. 3 and Col. 5, lines 54-65), and wherein the first hard stop element is integrally formed in the panel (Fig. 2 and Col. 5, lines 25-27), and the second hard stop element is formed in one of the rib, the upper cover or the lower cover of the joint-bordering structure (123 is formed in the rib of 25 and cover 101; 82 is formed in the rib of 10 and cover 41). Paez does not specifically teach the second hard stop element is integrally formed in one of the rib, the upper cover or the lower cover of the joint-bordering structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to integrally form the second hard stop in one of the rib or the upper cover, for more efficient installation of the assembly, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Regarding Claim 2, modified Paez teaches the wing assembly according to claim 1, wherein the panel comprises a multiplicity of first hard stop elements (150 and 135) and in the closed position, the first hard stop elements each abut a corresponding second hard stop element of the joint-bordering structure (123 and 82), wherein each of the first hard stop elements is integrally formed in the panel (Fig. 2 and Col. 5, lines 25-27), and each of the corresponding second hard stop elements is integrally formed in the rib, the upper cover or the lower cover of the joint-bordering structure (123 is formed in 101 and the rib of 25; and 82 is formed in 41 and the rib of 10, see Fig. 3, additionally see para. 15 above) Regarding Claim 3, modified Paez teaches the wing assembly according to claim 2, wherein the joint-bordering structure comprises a fixed wing joint-bordering structure inboard of the joint assembly (82, 135, 41, and lower cover of 10, Fig. 2) and a wing tip joint-bordering structure outboard of the joint assembly (150, 123, 101, and bottom cover of 24), wherein the fixed wing joint-bordering structure comprises a tip rib (rib of 10 depicted in Fig. 3) and fixed wing upper (41, Fig. 3) and lower covers (lower cover of 10, Fig. 3), and the wing tip joint-bordering structure comprises a root rib (rib of 25 depicted in Fig. 3) and wing tip upper (101, Fig. 3) and lower covers (lower cover of 25, Fig. 3), and wherein a plurality of the second hard stop elements are integrally formed in the root rib of the wing tip joint-bordering structure, and a hard stop element of the second hard stop elements is formed in the fixed wing upper cover of the fixed wing joint-bordering structure (45, Fig. 3). Modified Paez is silent about wherein a plurality of the second hard stop elements are integrally formed in the root rib of the wing tip joint-bordering structure, and a plurality of the second hard stop elements are integrally formed in the fixed wing upper cover of the fixed wing joint-bordering structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to divide each of the second hard stop elements formed in the root rib of the wing tip joint-bordering structure and the second hard stop elements of the fixed wing upper cover into multiple elements, in order to divide the larger hard stop elements into multiple smaller hard stop elements and reduce the weight of the hard stop element, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to integrally form the second hard stop in the fixed wing upper cover, for more efficient installation of the assembly, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Regarding Claim 4, modified Paez teaches the wing assembly according to claim 2, wherein each of the first hard stop elements is shaped to self-align with the corresponding second hard stop element when the panel is closed (150 is shaped to align with 123 and 135 is shaped to align with 82, Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 5, modified Paez teaches the wing assembly according to claim 4, wherein each of the first hard stop elements is shaped to self-align with the corresponding second hard stop element along a contact line (the inner curved edge of 150 and the flat top edge of 135, for example, Fig. 4), and wherein the first hard stop elements are orientated such that the contact lines are non-parallel to one another (Fig. 4, inner curved edge of 150 is non-parallel to the flat top edge of 135). Regarding Claim 6, modified Paez teaches the wing assembly according to claim 5. Modified Paez is silent about wherein the panel comprises three first hard stop elements for abutting three corresponding second hard stop elements on one of the fixed wing joint-bordering structure or the wing tip joint-bordering structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to divide each of the second hard stop elements formed in the root rib of the wing tip joint-bordering structure and the second hard stop elements of the fixed wing upper cover into three elements, in order to divide the larger hard stop elements into multiple smaller hard stop elements and reduce the weight of the hard stop element, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Regarding Claim 7, modified Paez teaches the wing assembly according to claim 4, wherein the panel is biased into the closed position by a biasing force (locking plate 115 provides a biasing force, see Col. 4, lines 59-66). Regarding Claim 8, Paez discloses a folding wing tip arrangement in an aircraft wing (5, Fig. 1), the arrangement comprising a fixed wing (10, Fig. 1) and a wing tip device (25, Fig. 1) rotatable about a hinge at the tip of the fixed wing (joint formed by 47 and 48 and 32, additionally see Col. 3, lines 7-13), wherein the wing is configurable between: (i) a flight configuration for use during flight (Figs. 1-3) and (ii) a ground configuration for use during ground-based operations, in which ground configuration the wing tip device is rotated away from the flight configuration such that the span of the aircraft wing is reduced (Fig. 4), wherein the arrangement comprises a moveable panel (32, Fig. 3) arranged such that, when the wing is in the ground configuration the panel is in an open position to accommodate relative movement between the fixed wing and the wing tip device (as depicted in Fig. 4), and when the wing is in the flight configuration the panel is in a closed position (Fig. 3, closed position of 32), in which closed position, the panel is substantially flush with an adjacent cover on the fixed wing and an adjacent cover on the wing tip device (32 is flush with 101 in closed position, see Fig. 3), wherein the panel comprises a multiplicity of hard stop strike faces integrally formed in the panel (150 and 135, Fig. 2), and wherein a hard stops element is formed in a rib at the tip of the fixed wing (82, Fig. 2, is formed at the top of the rib of 10, Fig. 3), and a hard stop element is formed in the cover at the root of the wing tip device (123 is formed in 101, Fig. 3), the wing assembly being arranged such that when the panel is in the closed position, each of the hard stop strike faces abuts a corresponding hard stop element (Fig. 3 and Col. 5, lines 54-65), and wherein each hard stop strike face and each corresponding hard stop element, is shaped such that the hard stop strike face self-aligns with the corresponding hard stop element, when the panel is closed (150 is shaped to align with 123 and 135 is shaped to align with 82, Fig. 4). Paez is silent about a plurality of hard stop elements are integrally formed in the rib at the tip of the fixed wing, and a plurality of hard stop elements are integrally formed in the cover at the root of the wing tip device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to divide the hard stop element formed in the rib at the of the fixed wing and the hard stop element formed in the cover at the root of the wing tip device into multiple elements, in order to divide the larger hard stop elements into multiple smaller hard stop elements and reduce the weight of the hard stop element, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to integrally form the plurality of hard stop elements in the rib at the tip of the fixed wing, and integrally form the plurality of hard stop elements in the cover at the root of the fixed wing tip device, for more efficient installation of the assembly, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983). Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Regarding Claim 9, modified Paez teaches an aircraft comprising the wing assembly (Col. 2, line 66 – Col. 3, line 1) according to claim 1. Regarding Claim 10, modified Paez teaches an aircraft comprising the folding wing tip arrangement (Col. 2, line 66 – Col. 3, line 1) of claim 8 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Walega et al. (US 20230257099 A1) teaches a rotatable wing tip device with a moveable cover. Horwood et al. (US 20220024558 A1) teaches a moveable cover. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm. 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. /ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 2 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 4 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 5 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 6 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 7 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 8 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 9 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 10 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 11 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 12 Art Unit: 3642 Application/Control Number: 19/394,401 Page 13 Art Unit: 3642
Prosecution Insights