Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-03-19)

CLAIMS:
Amendments to the Claims:

Reply to Office Action of November 13, 2024 TC/A.U. 3647

1\. (Currently Amended) An aircraft wing comprising a flap system that is mounted at a leading or trailing edge of the wing and comprises at least two movable flap devices spaced apart in a spanwise direction Y from each other,wherein each movable flap device is supported by at least one support station and is driven about a hinge axis by at least one drive system,
wherein the flap system comprises a synchronizing torque element connected to the movable flap devices,
wherein the synchronizing torque element is supported by a plurality of side stay struts that are each connected to a corresponding flap master support,
wherein the synchronizing torque element is configured to transmit a torque between the movable flap devices to actuate a rotational movement of the movable flap devices, and
wherein the synchronizing torque element is positioned between the movable flap devices and around an adjacent system or structural component that is also positioned between the flap devices.

2\. (Original) The aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the synchronizing torque element comprises an axis of rotation that is parallel and eccentric to a hinge line of the movable flap devices.

3\. (Original) The aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the synchronizing torque element is connected to at least one movable flap device using a universal joint.

4\. (Canceled)

5\. (Currently Amended) The aircraft wing according to claim 1, wherein the structural component is an aircraft pylon containing a H2 storage tank.

Reply to Office Action of November 13, 2024 TC/A.U. 3647

6\. (Original) An aircraft comprising a wing according to claim 1.

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 & 5-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the synchronizing torque element is supported by a plurality of side stay struts that are each connected to a corresponding flap master support” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Summary
Claims 1-6 are pending in this application, each of which presently stands rejected. Claim 4 is canceled, and claim 1 is amended by the present amendment. No new matter has been introduced by the present amendments. Although the present communication may include alterations to the application or claims, or characterizations of claim scope or referenced art, applicant is not conceding in this application that previously pending claims are not patentable over the cited references. Rather, any alterations or characterizations are being made to facilitate expeditious prosecution of this application.
Reconsideration of the application as amended and based on the remarks set forth hereinbelow is respectfully requested.
Obj
ections to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). In particular, the Examiner contends that the support station, drive system, synchronizing torque element, adjacent system, structural component, universal joint, side stay struts, flap master support, aircraft pylon, and H2 storage tanks, are not clearly shown. The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include reference characters not mentioned in the description.
The specification is amended as indicated above to include appropriate reference numbers for each of the illustrated elements. These amendments coincide with the text of the foreign patent application to which the present patent application claims priority. As a result, it is respectfully submitted that no new matter has been introduced by the present amendments.
In view of these amendments, it is respectfully submitted that the features of a support station 203/205, drive system 115, synchronizing torque element 113, adjacent system or structural component (general characterization of propulsion unit 116), universal joint 201, side stay struts 301, flap master support 205, aircraft pylon (structure of propulsion unit 116), and H2 storage tanks (specific characterization of propulsion unit 116), are clearly identified.
In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the requirements of 37 CFR 1.83(a) and 1.84(p)(5) are satisfied, and thus it is requested that the objections to the drawings be withdrawn at this time.
Obj
ections to the S
p
ecification
The disclosure is objected to because of the various alleged informalities.
In particular, the Examiner contends that none of the reference numbers from the figures are in the specification, making it unclear what the reference numbers are referring to. As discussed above, the specification is amended as indicated to include appropriate reference numbers for the illustrated elements.
The Examiner further contends that there is not a description of the figures, and it is unclear if the Applicant has support for the claimed subject matter. It is respectfully submitted, however, that the specification as filed includes a brief description of the drawings at pages 4-5, paragraphs [0013]-[0016]. Furthermore, by updating the specification to include reference numbers corresponding to the elements shown in the Figures, it is further respectfully submitted that the specification provides a description of the structures shown in the drawings.
As a result, it is respectfully requested that the objections to the specification be withdrawn at this time.
Claim Re
j
ections -
35 U.S.C.
&
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In view of the amendments to the specification to more particularly identify the elements illustrated in the figures by including corresponding reference numbers, it is
respectfully submitted that the amended description, taken in coordination with the figures, provides a detailed description of the way in which the claimed elements are arrangedrelative to one another and interact to provide the disclosed functionality. As a result, it is
respectfully requested that the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) be withdrawn.
In addition, claim 5 stands 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 a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 is amended as indicated above and in accordance with the Examiner's interpretation to replace the term "the system component" with the term "the structural component," which refers to the feature of"an adjacent system or structural component" recited in claim 1. In view of this amendment, it is respectfully submitted that claim 5 particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. As a result, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) also be withdrawn.
Claim Re
j
ections - 35 U.S.C.
&
Claims 1, 2, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 4,789,119 to
Bellego et al.
(hereinafter
"Bellego").
In addition, claims 1-3, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 4,441,675 to
Boe
h
rin
g
er et al.
(hereinafter
"Boe
h
rin
g
er").
The positions of the Examiner with respect to claims 1-3 and 6 are respectfully traversed as described below.
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner contends that both
of
Bellego
and
Boe
h
ringer
disclose each feature of the claimed aircraft wing. Despite any alleged similarities between the general configuration of the claimed aircraft wing and the structures of
Belle
g
o
or
Boe
h
rin
g
er,
it is respectfully submitted that significant differences exist. In particular, for example, in some embodiments, the synchronising torque element is supported by a plurality of side stay struts that are each connected to a corresponding flap master support. In this configuration, the support principle of the torque element is simplified by avoiding the need for separate support fittings which adds weight and complexity to the overall wing design and would occupy valuable space. Also, use is made of existing master support stations and allows for spanwise loads to be transferred between adjacent devices via the synchronising torque element, thereby reducing weight and complexity.
To more particularly recite this configuration, claim 1 is amended as indicated above to include the features of claim 4 to recite that the synchronizing torque element is supported by a plurality of side stay struts that are each connected to a corresponding flap master support. Support for this feature can be found in the specification as originally filed, for example at page 6, lines 10-17; in Figure 3; and in original claim 4. It is respectfully submitted that neither of
Belle
g
o
or
Boe
h
rin
g
er
discloses such a configuration for a synchronizing torque element.
As a result, it is respectfully submitted that neither of
Belle
g
o
or
Boe
h
rin
ger
discloses every element of the aircraft wing of independent claim 1. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) be withdrawn and the claim allowed at this time. In addition, claims 2, 3, and 6 depend upon claim 1. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the above remarks apply equally to these claims, and therefore the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 6 should likewise be withdrawn and the claims allowed at this time.
Claim Re
j
ections - 35 U.S.C.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Belle
go
in view of
Boe
h
rin
g
er.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Belle
g
o
in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0371743 Al to
Allain et al.
(hereinafter
"Allain").
The positions of the Examiner with respect to claims 3 and 5 are respectfully traversed as described below.
As discussed above, claim 1 is amended as indicated to recite that the synchronizing torque element is supported by a plurality of side stay struts that are each connected to a corresponding flap master support. It is respectfully submitted that none of
Belle
go,
Boehrin
g
er,
or
Allain
discloses, teaches, or suggests such a configuration for a synchronizing torque element. It is further assumed that the Examiner acknowledges this feature as being distinguishable from the features of the cited references since none of the present rejections identifies a correspondence to the subject matter of previously presented claim 4.
As a result, it is respectfully submitted that
Belle
g
o,
taken either alone or in combination with one of
Boe
h
rin
g
er
or
Allain,
fails to disclose, teach, or suggest every element of the aircraft wing of independent claim 1. Accordingly, because claims 3 and 5 depend upon claim 1, it is respectfully submitted that the above remarks apply equally to these claims. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the rejections of claims 3 and 5 should likewise be withdrawn and the claims allowed at this time.
Conclusion