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 .
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 4-5, 8, 11, 16 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.
Regarding claim 4, line 3 states ““optionally” wherein the at least one apertures have a combined area of less than 20% of an area of the spoiler surface” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations are required by the invention or not. Although the term "optionally" or "optional" is generally accepted language within the claims, the terms "optionally" or "optional" do not appear to distinctly define the claimed subject matter and it is suggested that applicant reevaluate the terms usage. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, line 2 states “preferably at a spanwise location of at least 60% of the wing span” which is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations preceding the term “preferably” are required by the claim or not. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claim.
The term “away from” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “away from” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what degree the term “away from” is referring to and as claimed the term could be referring to either a small or large distance.
Regarding claim 16, line 4 states the term “their” which is indefinite as it is unclear what the term “there is referring to. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 7, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mezler (DE 202015102982).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 17-20, Mezler discloses an aircraft wing (1) comprising: a wing structure (6, 6, Fig. 3) supporting a wing cover (skin of the wing element 1), the wing cover (skin of the wing element 1) including an outer aerodynamic surface (outer surface of element 1, Fig. 1) which forms part of an aerofoil profile (Fig. 1) of the wing (1) and a recess (3) stepped back from the wing aerofoil profile (Fig. 1); and a spoiler device comprising a spoiler (2) coupled to the wing structure (6, 6) by a spoiler actuation mechanism (4, 5) configured to move the spoiler (2) between a retracted position (Fig. 1) and a deployed position (Fig. 2), wherein the spoiler (2) includes a surface (outer surface of element 2) which follows a contour of the wing aerofoil profile (Fig. 1), wherein the spoiler (2) is housed entirely in the recess (3) when the spoiler (2) is in the retracted position (Fig. 1), and wherein the spoiler surface (outer surface of element 2) is extended away from the wing cover (skin of the awing, Fig. 1) when the spoiler (2) is in the deployed position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Mezler discloses wherein the wing cover (outer surface of element 1, Fig. 1) has a substantially constant thickness (the skin of the wing is at a constant thickness across the wing) at a first portion (forward portion of the wing, Fig. 1) having the outer aerodynamic surface (outer surface, Fig. 1) and a second portion (middle portion of the wing, Fig. 1) having the recess (3).
Regarding claim 10, Mezler discloses further comprising a leading edge movable high lift device ([0048] Flap/Slat) positioned fore of the spoiler device (2).
Regarding claim 11, Mezler discloses wherein the spoiler device (2) is located at a portion of the wing (1) which is away from a contained liquid fuel volume (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Mezler discloses wherein the spoiler device (2) is located at a spanwise location of the wing (1) having no trailing edge high lift device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Mezler discloses wherein the spoiler actuation mechanism (4, 5) is configured to move the spoiler (2) in rotation or in translation from the retracted position (Fig. 1) to the deployed position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Mezler discloses wherein the actuation mechanism (4, 5) comprises at least one link (the link connection between element 4 and element 2 at the forward portion of element 2) arranged to rotate relative (Figs. 4B-C) to the wing structure (6, 6), the link (the link connection between element 4 and element 2 at the forward portion of element 2) coupled to a forward portion of the spoiler (2).
Regarding claim 15, Mezler discloses wherein the link (the link connection between element 4 and element 2 at the forward portion of element 2) comprises a curved portion (interior of the aperture on the linkage device, Fig. 1) having a constant radius of curvature (Fig. 1) relative to the point at which it is rotatably coupled to the wing structure (6, 6), and an extension portion (outer portion of link device mating elements 2 and 4 together, Figs. 1-2) extending between the curved position (interior of the aperture on the linkage device, Fig. 1) and the rotation point (the rotation point is at the aperture/pin in the linkage device, Figs. 1-2) to form a gooseneck (Fig. 1-2, 4B-4C).
Regarding claim 16, Mezler discloses further comprising a plurality of the spoiler devices (2, [0024] several such spoilers are provided) arranged in a spanwise direction of the aircraft wing (1), wherein the plurality of spoiler devices (2) are received within a common recess (3) of the wing cover (skin of the wing element 1) when in their respective retracted positions (Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barnhart (US 2041688).
Regarding claim 1, Barnhart discloses an aircraft wing (13) comprising: a wing structure (Figs. 5, 19) supporting a wing cover (21, 22), the wing cover (21, 22) including an outer aerodynamic surface (outer surface of elements 21, 22) which forms part of an aerofoil profile (Figs. 5, 19) of the wing (13) and a recess (33) stepped back from the wing aerofoil profile (Figs. 5, 19); and a spoiler device comprising a spoiler (204) coupled to the wing structure (Figs. 5, 19) by a spoiler actuation mechanism (35, 36, 48, 68) configured to move the spoiler (204) between a retracted position (stowed) and a deployed position (Fig. 5 and 19), wherein the spoiler (204) includes a surface (outer surface of element 204) which follows a contour of the wing aerofoil profile (Figs. 5, 19), wherein the spoiler (204) is housed entirely in the recess (33) when the spoiler (204) is in the retracted position (stowed), and wherein the spoiler surface (outer surface of element 204) is extended away from the wing cover (21, 22) when the spoiler (204) is in the deployed position (Fig. 5 and 19).
Regarding claim 4, Barnhart discloses wherein the spoiler actuation mechanism (35, 36, 48, 68) extends through at least one aperture (bar element 35 extends through aperture in element 34, Fig 19) in a portion of the wing cover (21, 22) having the recess (33), optionally wherein the at least one apertures have a combined area of less than 20% of an area of the spoiler surface (Fig. 19, the apertures have a combined area of less than 20% of the spoiler surface).
Regarding claim 5, Barnhart discloses wherein each aperture (aperture through element 34, Fig. 19) comprises an aperture seal (element 27 acts as a seal when closed/stowed).
Regarding claim 6, Barnhart discloses wherein the wing structure (Figs. 5, 19) includes a front spar (the bar connecting upper surface element 21 to lower surface element 22 in the forward part of the wing structure, Figs. 5 and 19), and wherein the recess (33) in the wing cover (21, 22) is located adjacent (the forward recess element 33 is adjacent and forward of the front spar and the middle wing recess element 33 is adjacent and aft of the forward spar, Fig. 19) the front spar (the bar connecting upper surface element 21 to lower surface element 22 in the forward part of the wing structure, Figs. 5 and 19).
Regarding claim 8, Barnhart discloses wherein the spoiler (204) is located at an outboard portion (23, 24, 25, 204, Figs. 2-5, 19) of the wing (13), preferably at a spanwise location of at least 60% of the wing span (each of elements 23, 24, 25, 204 extend the majority up to the entirety of the wing, Figs. 2-5, 19).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezler (DE 202015102982) in view of Mackin (US 11524764).
Regarding claim 3, Mezler discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the spoiler comprises a spoiler seal arranged to engage the wing cover to form a sealed interface between the spoiler surface and the outer aerodynamic surface of the wing cover when the spoiler is in the retracted position.
However, Mackin discloses a similar structure (Figs. 1-2) having a spoiler (200) comprising a spoiler seal (Column 9, lines 1-16 the aerodynamic brake 200 and/or the vehicle body 102 may include a seal configured to substantially close any gap that may occur between the panel perimeter 230 and the recess perimeter 144 when the rigid panel 220 is in the stowed position 204) arranged to engage the wing cover to form a sealed interface between the spoiler surface (surface of element 200) and the outer aerodynamic surface of the wing cover (130) when the spoiler (200) is in the retracted position (204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Mezler, by making the spoiler comprise a spoiler seal arranged to engage the wing cover to form a sealed interface between the spoiler surface and the outer aerodynamic surface of the wing cover when the spoiler is in the retracted position, as taught by Mackin, for the purpose of closing any gap that may occur between the panel perimeter and the recess perimeter when the rigid panel is in the stowed position (Column 9 lines 1-16).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezler (DE 202015102982) in view of O’Rourke (US 2020/0130816).
Regarding claim 9, Mexler discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the aircraft wing comprises a fixed wing portion and a folding wing tip portion rotatable relative to the fixed wing portion, and wherein the spoiler device is provided in the folding wing tip portion of the aircraft wing.
However, O’Rourke discloses a similar aircraft structure (Figs. 2a-2d, 4 and 5) comprising a fixed wing portion (7) and a folding wing tip portion (9) rotatable relative to the fixed wing portion (7), and wherein the spoiler device (93) is provided in the folding wing tip portion (9) of the aircraft wing (7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Mezler, by making the aircraft wing comprises a fixed wing portion and a folding wing tip portion rotatable relative to the fixed wing portion, and wherein the spoiler device is provided in the folding wing tip portion of the aircraft wing, as taught by O’Rourke, for the purpose of alleviating the load on the wing tips of the aircraft wings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant’s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant’s identified material and Examiner’s discovered references concerning Applicant’s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
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 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights