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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3 objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “being” are not positive limitations inasmuch as the terms including the word "being" are passive and thus do not serve to clearly limit the structure in an active sense. Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the phrases "An aircraft wing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also It is unclear whether "An aircraft wing” is the same "An aircraft wing” cited earlier in claim 1 or different.
Re claim 5 contains the trademark/trade name mylar. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe mylar and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Re claim 12 the phrases "An aerodynamic component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also It is unclear whether "An aerodynamic component” is the same "An aerodynamic component” cited in claim 1 or different.
Re claims 15 and 16 the phrases "the guide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Reference of prior art
Dos Reis et al. (US 20210070422, Noise Abatement Systems For Retractable Leading Edge Wing Slats Of An Aircraft Wing Assembly).
Turner et al. (US 20120097791, Autonomous Slat-Cove-Filler Device For Reduction Of Aeroacoustic Noise Associated With Aircraft Systems).
Lorkowski et al. (US 7766281, System For Reducing Aerodynamic Noise At A Supplementary Wing Of An Aircraft).
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, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dos Rei.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
An enclosure device configured to enclose a concave surface portion of an aerodynamic component of an aircraft wing (item ES), comprising a pliable membrane extending along a spanwise direction and chordwise direction (item 24), the pliable membrane further comprising: a first distal edge configured to be fixedly attached at a corresponding first distal portion of the aerodynamic component (item 20), and a second distal edge configured for being attached at a second corresponding distal portion of the aerodynamic component (item 22);
wherein the pliable membrane is further configured to deform and substantially conform to a convex surface portion of a further aerodynamic component of an aircraft wing upon displacement of the aerodynamic component relative to the further aerodynamic component (figs, 3-5 depict the limitation).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
The enclosure device of claim 1, wherein the pliable membrane is formed from an elasticated material and the second distal edge is configured for being fixedly attached at a second corresponding distal portion of the aerodynamic component (¶ 0017 and items 22, 24, … any resilient material suitable for use in aerospace applications).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
The enclosure device of claim 1, wherein the pliable membrane comprises reinforcement material configured to limit deformation of the membrane in a spanwise direction (item 26).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
The enclosure device of claim 1, wherein the pliable membrane comprises reinforcement elements configured to counteract spanwise bending of the pliable membrane (item 26).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
The enclosure device of claim 1, wherein the aerodynamic component is a wing leading edge high lift device and the further aerodynamic component is a wing fixed leading edge portion (items ES, WP, figs, 3-5 depict the limitation).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
An aerodynamic component comprising the enclosure device of claim 1 attached to the aerodynamic component (¶ 0014, item ES).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
The aerodynamic component according to claim 12, wherein pliable membrane is supported on a guide with a guide surface configured to reduce friction forces acting on the pliable membrane (item 20).
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
The aerodynamic component according to claim 14, wherein the guide surface is formed from a nylon material (¶ 0014, … fabricated from any resilient material suitable for use in aerospace applications, in addition it is well known material to be used for its light weight and durability.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
An aircraft wing assembly comprising the aerodynamic component according to claim 12, and a further aerodynamic component, wherein the aerodynamic component is a leading edge high lift device, and the further aerodynamic component is a wing fixed leading edge portion (items ES, WP, figs, 3-5 depict the limitation).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
An aircraft comprising at least one wing assembly according to claim 17 (abstract).
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses:
A method of counteracting unwanted airflow circulation in a concave surface portion of an aerodynamic component of an aircraft, the method comprising the step of: a. providing the aircraft according to claim 19; and, b. displacing the aerodynamic component relative to the further aerodynamic component from a stowed position to a deployed positions in an airflow such that the pliable membrane of the enclosure device transitions from a deformed state to an undeformed state to substantially encloses a concave surface portion of an aerodynamic component of an aircraft wing such that the enclosure devices prevents the development of unwanted airflow circulation within the concave portion when the aerodynamic component is in the deployed position (items ES, WP, 24 and figs, 3-5 depict the limitation).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Rei.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis discloses the claimed invention except for the reinforcement material comprises synthetic fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the reinforcement material comprises synthetic fibers to reduce weight, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Rei and further in view of Turner.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis fails to teach as disclosed by Turner: The enclosure device of claim 8, wherein the reinforcement elements are provided by one or more battens (item 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Turner teachings the reinforcement elements are provided by one or more battens into the Dos Reis, to support the pliable membrane when deployed.
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis fails to teach as disclosed by Turner: The aerodynamic component according to claim 12, wherein the guide is provided by a roller attached to the aerodynamic component (item 158, via the structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Turner teachings the guide is provided by a roller attached to the aerodynamic component into the Dos Reis, to support the pliable membrane when deployed.
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dos Rei and further in view of Lorkowski.
Re claims 11 and 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Dos Reis fails to teach as disclosed by Lorkowski: The enclosure device, wherein the aerodynamic component is a wing fixed trailing edge portion and the further aerodynamic component is a wing trailing edge high lift device (col. 6, l 15-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Lorkowski teachings of the aerodynamic component is a wing fixed trailing edge portion and the further aerodynamic component is a wing trailing edge high lift device into the Dos Reis, to reduce the undesirable airflow when deployed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome all the rejections above.
The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP ~ 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights