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
Claims 1, 2-5 and 10 are 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.
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 1-15 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 1-5 , 9 and 12-14 the phrase " high lift body” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " high lift body” 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.
Re claim 9 the phrase "flexible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "flexible” 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.
Re claims 12-14 the terms “a wing of an aircraft” are improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether “a wing of an aircraft” is the same “a wing of an aircraft” recited in claim 1 or different.
Re claims 12-13 the terms “at least one kinematics assembly” are improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether “at least one kinematics assembly” is the same “at least one kinematics assembly” recited in claim 1 or different.
Re claim 15 the terms “an aircraft” are improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether “an aircraft” is the same “an aircraft” recited in claim 14 or different.
Reference of prior art
Cole. (US 3941334, Variable Camber Airfoil).
Vormezeele et al. (US 20100163685, WING).
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 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cole.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, McKinney discloses:
A kinematics assembly (depicted in figs. 1, 2, 8 and 9) for a high lift body configured to be mounted to a main body of a wing of an aircraft (items 12, 11), comprising:
an actuation organ providing a drive mounting point (items 26, 26a, 25 and 25a) configured to mount the kinematics assembly to a drive organ for moving the high lift body with respect to the main body between a stowed position and a deployed position (figs. 1,8, 2, 9, items 23, 23a), and
a deflection organ (items 18, 18a) configured to be connected to the actuation organ (items 30, 32, 33, 30a, 32a and 33a) and comprising a central hinge point (items 19, 19a) for hinging the high lift body at the main body movably between the stowed position and the deployed position (figs. 1,8, 2, 9);
wherein, at least in the stowed position, the drive mounting point is located aft of the central hinge point with respect to a travel direction of the aircraft (figs. 1,8, 2, 9).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, wherein the deflection organ further comprises a lower high lift body interface point configured to be connected to the high lift body (item 16a).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, wherein the deflection organ further comprises and/or is connected to an upper high lift body interface point configured to be connected to an upper actuation interface point of the high lift body (item 17).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 3, wherein the deflection organ further comprises an intermediate interface point configured to be connected to an intermediate actuation member comprising the upper high lift body interface point (item 17a).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 2, wherein the deflection organ further comprises an intermediate interface point configured to be connected to an intermediate actuation member comprising the upper high lift body interface point, and wherein the intermediate interface point is located aft of the lower high lift body interface point with respect to the travel direction (item 17a).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a drive unit connected to a drive strut of the actuation organ comprising the drive mounting point (item 23, 24).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, wherein the deflection organ comprises at least one central plate member comprising the drive mounting point and the central hinge mounting point (item 31).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, further comprising at least one panel connecting member configured to link the high lift body to a flexible panel for at least partially cover the kinematics assembly in the deployed state (figs. 8, 9 item 39).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, wherein the deflection organ is configured to be connected to a stabilisation arrangement for taking up lateral forces acting upon the kinematics assembly in a transverse direction (figs. 1, 2, 8, 9 items 14, 15).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
A support station for supporting a high lift body at a main body of a wing of an aircraft, the support station comprising at least one kinematics assembly according to claim 1 (figs. 1, 2, 8, 9 item 11).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
A high lift body arrangement for a wing of an aircraft, comprising at least one kinematics assembly according to claim 1 (figs. 1, 2, 8, 9 item 11).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses:
A wing for an aircraft, comprising at least one high lift body arrangement according to claim 13 (depicted in figs. 1, 2, 8 and 9, abstract).
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole discloses: An aircraft comprising at least one wing according to claim 14 (depicted in figs. 1, 2, 8 and 9, abstract).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole in view of Vormezeele.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Cole fails to teach as disclosed by Vormezeele: The kinematics assembly according to claim 1, wherein the deflection organ comprises at least one limit stop element for limiting a rotation of the deflection organ (item 66).
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 Vormezeele teachings of the deflection organ comprises at least one limit stop element for limiting a rotation of the deflection organ into the Cole, to inhibit further movement of the deflection organ.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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