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.
Claims 3, 5−11, and 14−15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
NOTE: Any dependent claim is deemed indefinite where it depends from a claim that is rejected under § 112(b). For the sake of clarity, such dependent claims are omitted from the following discussion, except where the dependent claim raises additional issues under § 112(b).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the distance between the hinge axis and the latch axis exceeds 200mm,” and the claim also recites that the distance “preferably is between 200mm and 270mm,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claims 5, 8−9, and 15, the phrase “optionally…” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 6, there is no antecedent basis for “the actuator.”
In claim 8, “the centre of the latch axis” is a relative term with no clear meaning. As understood by one of ordinary skill, an axis is an infinite line having two ends, but without a reference point, it is unclear where the center is located.
In claim 14, there is no antecedent basis for “the hinge mount,” and it is unclear what is meant by claiming that it is one of a first mount and a second mount.
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.
Claims 1−2, 5−10, and 12−15 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,485,474 to Dees et al. (“Dees”).
Regarding claim 1, Dees teaches a hinge arrangement 400 for an aircraft wing 102 comprising:
a first mount 404 for securing in a first wing section (tip box 408), the first mount having a plurality of first hinge elements (506, 508, 510), and
a second mount 402 for securing in a second wing section (wing box 406), the second mount having a plurality of second hinge elements (502, 504), the first and second hinge elements being arranged along a hinge axis 210 (and labeled in fig. 5) such that the first mount is foldable about the hinge axis relative to the second mount between an unfolded condition 200 and a folded condition 300 (cf. figs. 2 and 3),
wherein the first and second mounts are arranged to be secured against relative folding movement when in the unfolded condition by a latching arrangement 412 having a latch axis 410, the latch axis being spaced from the hinge axis in a substantially spanwise direction (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Dees teaches that at least a part of the first mount overlaps at least a part of the second mount, and the latching arrangement is provided in the overlapping region (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Dees teaches that the latching arrangement comprises a plurality of first latch elements (tip hinge ribs 620−626) provided on the first mount and a plurality of second latch elements (wing hinge ribs 602−608 and wing stub ribs 610−616) provided on the second mount, in which the first latch elements extend from the first mount beyond the respective hinge elements, and wherein the second latch elements are recessed behind the second hinge elements (cf. figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Dees teaches that an actuator is provided in a first space between first and second groups of the latch elements (i.e. latch pin actuator described in col. 7 lines 23−25 is understood as being placed between outermost groups of latch elements).
Regarding claim 7, Dees teaches that the first and second latch elements each comprise latch bores 804 arranged to be aligned in the unfolded condition (fig. 8), and comprising at least one latch pin 802 arranged to be deployable along the latch axis to secure the first and second latch elements against relative folding movement when the arrangement is in an unfolded condition (col. 7 lines 21−30).
Regarding claim 8, Dees teaches two latch pins arranged between opposing ends of the latch axis and the centre of the latch axis (such as center two latch pins 802 in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Dees teaches that at least some of the first latch elements are fixed to a panel (tip transition portion 404) extending from the first mount beyond the latch axis (fig. 4) and arranged to cover a lower face of the hinge arrangement (i.e. panel 404 covers portions of hinge arrangement shown by hinge axis 210 in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dees teaches that the latch bores are arranged below the hinge axis (where lower halves of latch bores extend below hinge axis as seen in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Dees teaches that the first hinge elements are interleaved with the second hinge elements (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Dees teaches that the first wing section is a movable wing tip element 204 and the second wing section is a fixed wing element 202.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Dees teaches a hinge mount which is one of a first mount and a second mount (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Dees teaches that the first and second mounts are secured to a first wing section and a second wing section respectively (fig. 4).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Dees.
Regarding claim 3, Dees fails to teach that the distance between the hinge axis and the latch axis exceeds 200mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine a workable distance, such as above 200mm, between hinge axis and latch axis, where the distance is sufficiently long to allow for adequately applying a moment (force) to the folding wingtip, while being sufficiently short enough to fit in the required space of the wing.
Regarding claim 11, Dees fails to teach that the first and second latch elements are fewer in number than the first and second hinge elements, respectively, however Dees teaches that any number of first and second hinge elements can be used (col. 5 lines 2−8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a greater number of hinge elements for the folding wing, such that there is a greater number of hinge elements than latch elements, as taught by Dees.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Dees in view of US Patent No. 9,914,524 to Good et al. (“Good”).
Regarding claim 4, Dees teaches a folding aircraft wingtip but fails to disclose an actuator to accomplish the folding.
Good teaches an actuator for causing relative folding movement of the first and second mounts for a foldable wingtip, in which the actuator is a linear actuator 510 having a first end attached to the first mount adjacent the latch axis, and a second end arranged in use to be fixed in relation to the second mount (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the actuator of Good to actuate the folding wingtip of Dees in order to effectively reduce to practice the design of Dees, which omits the specific means of actuation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights