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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 and 08/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Good et al. (US 2018/0105256 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Good teaches a high lift arrangement for an aircraft wing (Fig. 1-3),
wherein the wing (Figs. 1-3, wings 104, 106) comprises
a wing body (Figs. 1-3, body of wings 104, 106) and
a wing tip (Figs. 1-3, wing tips 112, 116) foldable relative to the wing body (As shown in Fig. 3; further described: “The first and second wing tips 112, 116 are actuated by respective wing tip actuators (as disclosed in further detailed herein) to move or transition the first and second wing tips 112, 116 between the extended position, as shown in FIG. 1, and the folded position, in which the first and second wing tips 112, 116 are rotated upwards.”, Para. [0029]),
the arrangement comprising:
a high lift element (Figs. 1-3, leading edge slats 124) arranged to have a deployed position in front of a leading edge (Figs. 1-3, leading edge, 126) of the wing tip (Figs. 1-3, shows leading edge slats 124 at leading edge 126 positioned forward in front of the wing tip 112 of the back swept wing 104); and
an actuator for deploying the element (Fig. 2, slat actuator 202), wherein the actuator is mounted to the wing body (As shown in Fig. 2 with slat actuator mounted to wing body 104).
Regarding claim 2, Good teaches wherein the element has a stowed position which is at least partially within the wing body (As shown in the stowed position of Fig. 1, with leading edge slats 124 overlapping within the wing body 104 at leading edge 126), at least partially within the wing tip, or at least partially within both the wing body and the wing tip.
Regarding claim 4, Good teaches wherein the actuator is a linear actuator or a rotary actuator (As shown in Fig. 2, slat actuator 202).
Regarding claim 5, Good teaches wherein the actuator is connected to the element at or adjacent an inboard part of the element, or only to an inboard part of the element (Fig. 2 shows slat actuator 202 inboard leading edge slat 124).
Regarding claim 6, Good teaches wherein the element is detachable from the actuator (As shown in Fig. 2 with leading edge slat 124 is detached from slat actuator 202 when in the deployed position).
Regarding claim 8, Good teaches wherein the wing body has a first sweep angle, and the wing tip has a second sweep angle greater than the first sweep angle, the element having a third sweep angle less than the second sweep angle, or substantially a same as the first sweep angle (As shown in Fig. 2, with leading edge slat 124 and leading edge 126 having the same first sweep angle and wing tip 112 having a second sweep angle greater than the first sweep angle of the wing 104).
Regarding claim 9, Good teaches wherein the element forms a gap with the leading edge of the wing tip which increases in an outboard direction (As shown in Fig. 2, when leading edge slat 124 is in the deployed position, extending away with a gap from the leading edge 126, the slat 124 increases in an outboard direction).
Regarding claim 11, Good teaches wherein the element has a retracted position at least partially within the wing body (As shown in the stowed position of Fig. 1, with leading edge slats 124 overlapping within the wing body 104 at leading edge 126), or within a nose portion of the wing body, or within a slat of the wing body.
Regarding claim 14, Good teaches an aircraft wing comprising the high lift arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (See above claim 1 rejection and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Good teaches an aircraft (Fig. 1) having the aircraft wing as claimed in claim 14 (See above claim 1 and claim 14 rejections; also see Figs. 1-3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good et al. (US 2018/0105256 A1) in view of Gerhardt (US 4,181,277).
Regarding claim 3, Good does not expressly disclose wherein the element is housed at least partially in the wing body and is arranged to be deployable in a spanwise direction from the wing body, or is arranged to be deployable in the spanwise direction from the wing body to extend parallel to a leading edge of the wing body when deployed.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Gerhardt discloses wherein the element is housed at least partially in the wing body and is arranged to be deployable in a spanwise direction from the wing body, or is arranged to be deployable in the spanwise direction from the wing body to extend parallel to a leading edge of the wing body when deployed (Fig. 4, extendible wing segments 33 and Flap/flaperons 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Good wherein the element is housed at least partially in the wing body and is arranged to be deployable in a spanwise direction from the wing body, or is arranged to be deployable in the spanwise direction from the wing body to extend parallel to a leading edge of the wing body when deployed, as disclosed by Gerhardt, with a reasonable expectation for success, because the variable span wing of Gerhardt would provide “improved high lift characteristics” (Gerhardt, Col. 3, Line 27).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good et al. (US 2018/0105256 A1) in view of Rudolph (US 5,039,032).
Regarding claim 7, Good does not expressly disclose comprising at least one guide member mounted on the wing tip for guiding movement of the element.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Rudolph discloses comprising at least one guide member mounted on the wing tip for guiding movement of the element (Figs. 9-14 show slat 28 having guide members or a track for guiding the forward and down motion for the 20 degree droop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Good comprising at least one guide member mounted on the wing tip for guiding movement of the element, as disclosed by Rudolph, with a reasonable expectation for success, since this was a well-known means for extending and retracting slats in the art and “can be used to reduce wing area, skin friction drag, and structural weight. A main wing having a high taper wing tip may allow deletion of one slat per side and will reduce gust loads” (Rudolph, Col. 3, Lines 28-31).
Regarding claim 10, Good does not expressly disclose wherein the element has a retracted position at least partially within the wing tip.
However, Rudolph further discloses wherein the element has a retracted position at least partially within the wing tip (Fig. 3, slat 28 of wing tip extension member 12 is shown and described as retracted at least partially within the wing tip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Good wherein the element has a retracted position at least partially within the wing tip, as disclosed by Rudolph, with a reasonable expectation for success, since this “can be used to reduce wing area, skin friction drag, and structural weight. A main wing having a high taper wing tip may allow deletion of one slat per side and will reduce gust loads” (Rudolph, Col. 3, Lines 28-31).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good et al. (US 2018/0105256 A1) in view of Thurston (US 1,466,551).
Regarding claim 12, Good does not expressly disclose wherein the wing body comprises a slat, and the element comprises a slat extension mounted within the slat and deployable out of the slat in a substantially spanwise direction and/or substantially parallel to the leading edge of the wing body, or wherein deployment of the slat causes deployment of the element.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Thurston discloses wherein the wing body comprises a slat (Figs. 8-9, slats 53), and the element comprises a slat extension mounted within the slat and deployable out of the slat in a substantially spanwise direction and/or substantially parallel to the leading edge of the wing body, or wherein deployment of the slat causes deployment of the element (Figs. 8-9 shows the slats 53 being deployable from the wing body in a spanwise direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Good, wherein the wing body comprises a slat, and the element comprises a slat extension mounted within the slat and deployable out of the slat in a substantially spanwise direction and/or substantially parallel to the leading edge of the wing body, or wherein deployment of the slat causes deployment of the element, as disclosed by Thurston, with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to stow the slats when they’re not needed in order to protect them from debris or store the aircraft within a smaller hanger.
Regarding claim 13, Good teaches a high lift arrangement for an aircraft wing, wherein the wing comprises a high lift element extendable from a leading edge thereof (Figs. 1-3, shows leading edge slats 124 at leading edge 126 positioned forward in front of the wing tip 112 of the back swept wing 104).
Good does not expressly disclose wherein a secondary high lift element is deployable in a spanwise direction from the high lift element, or upon deployment of the high lift element.
However, Thurston discloses wherein a secondary high lift element is deployable in a spanwise direction from the high lift element, or upon deployment of the high lift element (Figs. 8-9 shows the slats 53 being deployable from the wing body in a spanwise direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Good, wherein a secondary high lift element is deployable in a spanwise direction from the high lift element, or upon deployment of the high lift element, as disclosed by Thurston, with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to stow the slats when they’re not needed in order to protect them from debris or store the aircraft within a smaller hanger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights