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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/26/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “42” has been used to designate both the first aircraft engine and a bottom portion of the aircraft or the area beneath the aircraft in figure 2.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 12 shown in figures 1, and 2, and element 160B shown in figure 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification does not appear to list elements 12, and 160B which are shown in the figures.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches an aircraft defining a vertical direction, a longitudinal direction, and a transverse direction (100 as seen in figure 1a), the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (40); a propulsion system (47, and Column 9, lines 40-59) comprising a power source (Column 9, lines 40-59) and a plurality of vertical thrust electric fans (47 as seen in figure 1b) driven by the power source (Column 9, lines 40-59); and a wing (60) extending from the fuselage in the transverse direction (40, and 60 as seen in figure 1a), the wing comprising: a support structure (34, and 60 as seen in figure 2b), the support structure comprising a plurality of first support members (1, and 2 as seen in figure 3a) and a plurality of second support members (13 as seen in figure 3a), the plurality of first support members extending at least partially between the plurality of second support members (1, 2, and 13 as seen in figure 3a), the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans arranged between the plurality of first support members and the plurality of second support members (34, and 47 as seen in figure 2b); and a door movable between in open position and a close position (16, and 26 as seen in figures 1a, and 1b), and wherein the door covers one or more vertical thrust electric fans of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans in the closed position (16, and 26 as seen in figure 1a, and 16, 26, and 47 as seen in figure 1b).
Regarding claim 2, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door on a top side of the wing (16, 26, and 60 as seen in figure 1a).
Regarding claim 3, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door is on a bottom side of the wing (16, 26, and 60 as seen in figure 1a, and 26 as seen in figure 1b, as can be seen the doors wrap around to the bottom side of the wing).
Regarding claim 4, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door covers two or more vertical thrust electric fans of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans in the closed position (16, and 26 as seen in figure 1a, and 16, 26, and 47 as seen in figure 1b).
Regarding claim 8, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first support members is a plurality of transverse support members extending at least partially along the transverse direction (60 as seen in figure 1a, 34, and 60 as seen in figure 2a, and 1, 2, and 34 as seen in figure 3a), and wherein the plurality of second support members is a plurality of longitudinal support members extending at least partially along the longitudinal direction (60 as seen in figure 1a, 34, and 60 as seen in figure 2a, and 13, and 34 as seen in figure 3a).
Regarding claim 9, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second support members and the plurality of first support members together define a plurality of gaps (1, 2, 13, and 34 as seen in figure 3a), and wherein each vertical thrust electric fan of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans is positioned in a respective gap of the plurality of gaps (34, and 47 as seen in figure 2b).
Regarding claim 13, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second support members, the plurality of first support members, or both include a plurality of straight support members (1, 2, and 13 as seen in figure 3a).
Regarding claim 14, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans are each ducted fans (47 as seen in figure 2b).
Regarding claim 18, Robinson teaches a wing assembly for an aircraft, the aircraft defining a vertical direction, a longitudinal direction, and a transverse direction (100 as seen in figure 1a), the wing assembly comprising: a propulsion system (47) comprising a plurality of vertical thrust electric fans (47); and a wing (60) comprising: a support structure (34, and 60 as seen in figure 2b), the support structure comprising a plurality of first support members (1, and 2 as seen in figure 3a) and a plurality of second support members (13 as seen in figure 3a), the plurality of first support members extending at least partially between the plurality of second support members (1, 2, and 13 as seen in figure 3a), the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans arranged between the plurality of first support members and the plurality of second support members (34, and 47 as seen in figure 2b); and a door movable between in open position and a close position (16, and 26 as seen in figures 1a, and 1b), and wherein the door covers one or more vertical thrust electric fans of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans in the closed position (16, and 26 as seen in figure 1a, and 16, 26, and 47 as seen in figure 1b).
Regarding claim 19, Robinson teaches the wing assembly of claim 18, wherein the door on a top side of the wing (16, 26, and 60 as seen in figure 1a), and wherein the door covers two or more vertical thrust electric fans of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans in the closed position (16, and 26 as seen in figure 1a, and 16, 26, and 47 as seen in figure 1b).
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.
Claims 5-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377) in view of Robertson et al. (PGPub #2021/0300540).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position, wherein the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. However, Robertson does teach that the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D), wherein the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis because Robinson and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis is that it allows the doors to open in a manner that helps minimize their effect on the air flowing over the wings while also not requiring the whole surface of the wing to change.
Regarding claim 6, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position, wherein the hinge axis is oblique with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. However, Robertson does teach that the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position (26a, and 26b as seen in figures 1E, and 1F), wherein the hinge axis is oblique with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft (26a, and 26b as seen in figures 1E, and 1F). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the doors move about a hinge axis oblique with the longitudinal axis because Robinson and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the doors move about a hinge axis oblique with the longitudinal axis is that it allows the doors to open in a manner that can allow the direction of the flow of the air passing through the doors to be angled which can help to improve the stability of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 7, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that the door is one of a plurality of doors each movable between a respective open position and a closed position, and wherein two doors of the plurality of doors are each movable about a common hinge axis between the respective closed position and the respective open position. However, Robertson does teach that the door is one of a plurality of doors each movable between a respective open position and a closed position (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D), and wherein two doors of the plurality of doors are each movable about a common hinge axis between the respective closed position and the respective open position (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the door be a pair of doors that move about a common hinge axis because Robinson and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the door be a pair of doors that move about a common hinge axis is that it helps to lower the weight of the doors which makes them easier to move while also helping to keep the aerodynamic effect to a minimum.
Regarding claim 20, Robinson teaches the wing assembly of claim 18, but does not teach that the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position, wherein the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. However, Robertson does teach that the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D), wherein the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis because Robinson and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis is that it allows the doors to open in a manner that helps minimize their effect on the air flowing over the wings while also not requiring the whole surface of the wing to change.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377) in view of Griffith (US #3,056,565).
Regarding claim 10, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes two or more vertical thrust electric fans arranged along the longitudinal direction. However, Griffith does teach that the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes two or more vertical thrust electric fans arranged along the longitudinal direction (14 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least two fans in the longitudinal direction because Robinson and Griffith are both aircraft with a plurality of vertically mounted fans in the wings. The motivation for having at least two fans in the longitudinal direction is that it increases the amount of vertical thrust that can be generated which can allow the system to takeoff with a greater weight.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377) in view of Alfaro (US #11,597,509).
Regarding claim 11, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that each vertical thrust electric fan of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes a rim-driven motor. However, Alfaro does teach that each vertical thrust electric fan of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes a rim-driven motor (Column 6, lines 23-36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fans include a rim driven motor because Robinson and Alfaro are both aircraft with a plurality of ducted fans integrated into the wings. The motivation for having the fans include a rim driven motor is that it can help to improve the efficiency and cooling of the motor.
Claims 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377) in view of Morisaki et al. (PGPub #2023/0257132).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a first vertical thrust electric fan of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes a rotor blade assembly (47 as seen in figure 2a) and a shroud assembly surrounding the rotor blade assembly (47 as seen in figure 2a), wherein the shroud assembly defines a rotor blade assembly opening having a rotor blade assembly opening area (47 as seen in figure 2a), wherein the first vertical thrust electric fan, the wing, or both defines a first exhaust downstream of the rotor blade assembly having a first exhaust area (47 as seen in figure 2a, for the fan to be able to generate vertical thrust there must inherently have an exhaust area), but Robinson does not explicitly teach that the first exhaust area is greater than the rotor blade assembly opening area.
However, Morisaki does teach that the first exhaust area is greater than the rotor blade assembly opening area (31 as seen in figure 10). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust area be greater than the opening area because Robinson and Morisaki are both aircraft with vertical fans integrated into the wings. The motivation for having the exhaust area be greater than the opening area is that it can help to improve the efficiency of the fan.
Regarding claim 16, Robinson as modified by Morisaki teaches the aircraft of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach a ratio of the first exhaust area to the rotor blade assembly opening area is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 2. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a ratio of the exhaust area to the opening area be between 1 and 2, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a ratio of the exhaust area to the opening area be between 1 and 2 is that it helps to improve the efficiency of the fan by expanding the flow prior to hitting the ambient are while not over expanding the air.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377) in view of Cummings (PGPub #2020/0331589).
Regarding claim 17, Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a first vertical thrust electric fan of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes a rotor blade assembly (47 as seen in figure 2a) and a shroud assembly surrounding the rotor blade assembly (47 as seen in figure 2a), wherein the first vertical thrust electric fan, the wing, or both defines a first exhaust downstream of the rotor blade assembly (47 as seen in figure 2a, for the fan to be able to generate vertical thrust there must inherently have an exhaust area), but Robinson does not explicitly teach that the exhaust has a non-circular shape.
However, Cummings does teach that the exhaust has a non-circular shape (12 as seen in figure 4, and Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust be non-circular because Robinson and Cummings are both aircraft with ducted fans integrated into the wings. The motivation for having the exhaust be non-circular is that it allows the exhaust to use more of the space in the non-circular openings created by the intersections of the support members to help expand the flow and improve efficiency.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chichester-Miles (US #3,310,260) in view of Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377).
Regarding claim 1, Chichester-Miles teaches an aircraft defining a vertical direction, a longitudinal direction, and a transverse direction (The aircraft as seen in figure 1), the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (12); a propulsion system (16, and 24) comprising a power source (24) and a plurality of vertical thrust fans (16) driven by the power source (16, and 24 as seen in figure 1, and Column 2, lines 23-40); and a wing (11) extending from the fuselage in the transverse direction (11, and 12 as seen in figure 1), the wing comprising a support structure (13, and 14), the support structure comprising a plurality of first support members (13 as seen in figure 1) and a plurality of second support members (14 as seen in figure 1), the plurality of first support members extending at least partially between the plurality of second support members (13, and 14 as seen in figure 1), the plurality of vertical thrust fans arranged between the plurality of first support members and the plurality of second support members (13, 14, 15, and 16 as seen in figure 1); and a door movable between in open position and a close position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34); and wherein the door covers one or more vertical thrust electric fans of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans in the closed position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34, when the louvers are in the closed position, the individual louvers will cover a portion of at least one fan, and the claim as currently written does not require that the door covers the entirety of a fan). But Chichester-Miles does not teach that the fans are electric.
However, Robinson does teach that the fans are electric (Column 9, lines 40-59). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fans be electric because Chichester-Miles and Robinson are both aircraft with vertical fans integrated into the wings. The motivation for having the fans be electric is that it can allows the fans to more rapidly respond to changes in control commands.
Regarding claim 2, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door on a top side of the wing (36, and 37 as seen in figure 6 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 3, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door is on a bottom side of the wing (36, and 38 as seen in figure 6 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 8, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of first support members is a plurality of transverse support members extending at least partially along the transverse direction (13 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles), and wherein the plurality of second support members is a plurality of longitudinal support members extending at least partially along the longitudinal direction (14 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 9, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second support members and the plurality of first support members together define a plurality of gaps (13, 14, and 15 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles), and wherein each vertical thrust electric fan of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans is positioned in a respective gap of the plurality of gaps (13, 14, 15, and 16 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 10, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans includes two or more vertical thrust electric fans arranged along the longitudinal direction (16 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 12, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the wing comprises a leading edge and a trailing edge (11 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles), wherein the plurality of second support members includes a leading edge second support member extending parallel to the leading edge of the wing (11, and 14 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles, as can be seen the outermost vertically extending support member is curved to run parallel with the leading edge of the wing), and wherein the plurality of first support members includes a trailing edge first support member extending parallel to the trailing edge of the wing (11, and 13 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 13, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second support members, the plurality of first support members, or both include a plurality of straight support members (13, and 14 as seen in figure 1 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 14, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans are each ducted fans (16 as seen in figure 4 of Chichester-Miles).
Regarding claim 18, Chichester-Miles teaches a wing assembly for an aircraft, the aircraft defining a vertical direction, a longitudinal direction, and a transverse direction (The aircraft as seen in figure 1), the wing assembly comprising: a propulsion system (16) comprising a plurality of vertical thrust fans (16); and a wing (11) comprising: a support structure (13, and 14), the support structure comprising a plurality of first support members (13 as seen in figure 1) and a plurality of second support members (14 as seen in figure 1), the plurality of first support members extending at least partially between the plurality of second support members (13, and 14 as seen in figure 1), the plurality of vertical thrust fans arranged between the plurality of first support members and the plurality of second support members (13, 14, 15, and 16 as seen in figure 1); and a door movable between in open position and a close position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34), and wherein the door covers one or more vertical thrust electric fans of the plurality of vertical thrust electric fans in the closed position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34, when the louvers are in the closed position, the individual louvers will cover a portion of at least one fan, and the claim as currently written does not require that the door covers the entirety of a fan). But Chichester-Miles does not teach that the fans are electric.
However, Robinson does teach that the fans are electric (Column 9, lines 40-59). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fans be electric because Chichester-Miles and Robinson are both aircraft with vertical fans integrated into the wings. The motivation for having the fans be electric is that it can allows the fans to more rapidly respond to changes in control commands.
Claims 5-7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chichester-Miles (US #3,310,260) as modified by Robinson et al. (US #11,001,377) as applied to claims 1, and 18 above, and further in view of Robertson et al. (PGPub #2021/0300540).
Regarding claim 5, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34 of Chichester-Miles), but does not explicitly teach that the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft.
However, Robertson does teach that the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis because Chichester-Miles and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis is that it allows the doors to open in a manner that helps minimize their effect on the air flowing over the wings while also not requiring the whole surface of the wing to change.
Regarding claim 6, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34 of Chichester-Miles), but does not explicitly teach that the hinge axis is oblique with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft.
However, Robertson does teach that the hinge axis is oblique with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft (26a, and 26b as seen in figures 1E, and 1F). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the doors move about a hinge axis oblique with the longitudinal axis because Chichester-Miles and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the doors move about a hinge axis oblique with the longitudinal axis is that it allows the doors to open in a manner that can allow the direction of the flow of the air passing through the doors to be angled which can help to improve the stability of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 7, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the door is one of a plurality of doors each movable between a respective open position and a closed position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34 of Chichester-Miles), but does not teach that two doors of the plurality of doors are each movable about a common hinge axis between the respective closed position and the respective open position.
However, Robertson does teach that two doors of the plurality of doors are each movable about a common hinge axis between the respective closed position and the respective open position (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two doors that move about a common hinge axis because Chichester-Miles and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the two doors that move about a common hinge axis is that it helps to lower the weight of the doors which makes them easier to move while also helping to keep the aerodynamic effect to a minimum.
Regarding claim 20, Chichester-Miles as modified by Robinson teaches the wing assembly of claim 18, wherein the door is movable about a hinge axis between the open position and the closed position (36, 37, and 38 as seen in figures 6, and 7, and Column 3, lines 14-34 of Chichester-Miles), but does not explicitly teach that the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft.
However, Robertson does teach that the hinge axis is aligned with the longitudinal direction of the aircraft (24a, and 24b as seen in figures 1C, and 1D). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis because Chichester-Miles and Robertson are both aircraft with fans in the wings that are covered by movable doors. The motivation for having the doors move about a hinge axis aligned with the longitudinal axis is that it allows the doors to open in a manner that helps minimize their effect on the air flowing over the wings while also not requiring the whole surface of the wing to change.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights