19442235DETAILED 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12545395. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1-3 are anticipated by patent claim 1. Patent claim 1 of ‘395 recites all of the limitations of claims 1-3. The following claims are similarly anticipated by Patent ‘395 as outlined below:
Claim 4 is anticipated by patent claim 4.
Claim 5 is anticipated by patent claim 5.
Claim 6 is anticipated by patent claim 6.
Claim 7 is anticipated by patent claim 7.
Claim 10 is anticipated by patent claim 8.
Claim 11 is anticipated by patent claim 9.
Claim 12 is anticipated by patent claim 10.
Claim 13 is anticipated by patent claim 11.
Claim 14 is anticipated by patent claim 12.
Claim 15 is anticipated by patent claim 13.
Claim 16 is anticipated by patent claim 14.
Claim 17 is anticipated by patent claim 15.
Claim 18 is anticipated by patent claim 16.
Claim 21 is anticipated by patent claim 17.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Para. [0049]: #8
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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 6 and 16 are 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer skin panel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “an outer skin panel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the tip region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “a tip region”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hernandez et al. (ES 2277715 B1), hereafter Hernandez.
Regarding Claim 1, Hernandez discloses an aircraft assembly (Fig. 7) comprising:
an aircraft structure (5 and 2, Fig. 7);
a flexible panel (1, Fig. 7) having a supported end fixedly attached to the aircraft structure (1b, Figs. 6-7), wherein the flexible panel is configured to bend about the supported end relative to the aircraft structure (as depicted in Figs. 7-8);
a rigid stopper extending from and fixedly attached to the aircraft structure (pointed extension on right end of 5, from 5a to the distal end, Fig. 7);
wherein the rigid stopper is configured to restrict bending of the flexible panel about the supported end in a first direction (as depicted in Fig. 8) and permit bending of the flexible panel in a second direction opposing the first direction (as depicted in Fig. 7),
wherein the flexible panel has a first deformed configuration in which the flexible panel is bent towards the rigid stopper in the first direction and abuts the rigid stopper such that the rigid stopper restricts bending of the flexible panel in the first direction (configuration of Fig. 8, examiner notes 1 is capable of this function), and wherein the flexible panel has a second deformed configuration in which the flexible panel is bent away from the rigid stopper in the second direction and the flexible panel is spaced from the rigid stopper in the second direction (configuration of Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the aircraft structure is an outer aerodynamic skin panel, (outer panel 5, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the flexible panel forms a substantially continuous aerodynamic surface with the outer skin panel (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the flexible panel has an undeformed configuration in which a tip region of the flexible panel opposite to the supported end is spaced from the rigid stopper (Fig. 7, tip of 1 is spaced from right extension of 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 7, wherein the tip region of the flexible panel is spaced apart from the rigid stopper in the second direction when the flexible panel is in the undeformed configuration (Fig. 7, tip of 1 is spaced from right extension of 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 7, wherein portions of the flexible panel away from the supported end of the flexible panel are spaced from the rigid stopper such that a gap is provided therebetween when the flexible panel is in the undeformed configuration (Fig. 7, tip of 1 is spaced from right extension of 5, and there is a gap between the two elements at reference #7, for example).
Regarding Claim 10, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein a distal portion of the flexible panel extends beyond the rigid stopper so as to be unconstrained by the rigid stopper (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 11, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the rigid stopper is attached to the flexible panel (attached via fasteners 10, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the rigid stopper is fastened to the aircraft structure using a plurality of fasteners (fasteners 10, Fig. 7).
Regarding Clam 13, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the flexible panel is fastened to the aircraft structure using a plurality of fasteners (fasteners 10, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 14, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the flexible panel and rigid stopper are fastened to the aircraft structure using a plurality of fasteners, each fastener extending through the flexible panel and rigid stopper (fasteners 10, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 13, wherein each fastener has a fastener head that abuts a surface of the rigid stopper (top heads of fasteners 10, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1wherein the flexible panel decreases in thickness in a direction extending from the supported end of the flexible panel to a tip region of the flexible panel opposing the supported end (shape of 1, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 19, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein the rigid stopper comprises an abutment surface arranged to abut the flexible panel in the first deformed configuration (angled right edge of 5 is capable of this function, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 20, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1, wherein, in the second configuration the flexible panel is spaced from a tip region of the rigid stopper (configuration of Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 21, Hernandez discloses an aircraft comprising the aircraft assembly of claim 1 (aircraft of Fig. 1).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leon-Dufour et al. (DE 602005002761 T2), hereafter Leon-Dufour.
Regarding Claim 16, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1.
Hernandez is silent about wherein the rigid stopper comprises one or more reinforcement ribs extending in a direction aligned with a bending axis of the flexible panel that extends from the supported end of the flexible panel to the tip region of the flexible panel.
Leon-Dufour teaches one or more reinforcement ribs (2, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rigid sopper of Hernandez with the one or more reinforcement ribs as taught by Leon-Dufour, whereby Leon-Dufour’s reinforcement ribs extend in a direction aligned with a bending axis of Hernandez’s flexible panel, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reinforce the strength of the rigid stopper.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balzer et al. (US 10501166 B2), hereafter Balzer.
Regarding Claim 17, Hernandez discloses the aircraft assembly of claim 1.
Hernandez is silent about wherein the rigid stopper has a width that increases in a direction extending from the supported end of the flexible panel to a tip region of the flexible panel opposing the supported end.
Balzer teaches a similar rigid stopper has a width that increases in a direction extending from the supported end of the flexible panel to a tip region of the flexible panel opposing the supported end (rub block 2102 increases in width from left to right, for example, Fig. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rigid stopper of Hernandez so the width increases in a direction extended from the supported end of the flexible panel to a tip region of the flexible panel as taught by Balzer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to accommodate different aircraft structure shapes and ensure sufficient strength of the rigid stopper. Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are 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.
The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of Claims 2-4. The closest prior art of record is Hernandez (ES 2277715 B1), which teaches the combined limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 2-4, while Hernandez discloses a moveable device (12, Fig. 7) which contacts the flexible panel to form a seal therebetween in a retracted configuration (Fig. 7), Hernandez’s moveable device is not spaced from the flexible panel in a deployed configuration (Fig. 8), and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hirai et al. (US 20100084508 A1) teaches an aircraft structure (4); a flexible panel (12); and a rigid stopper (underside of 9, for example).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights