DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Acknowledgement is made of the timely response to the 2/21/2025 Non-Final Rejection, filed 8/20/2025.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
4. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment(s) to the specification, claims 6, 11 and cancellation of claim 12 in the Request for Reconsideration filed 8/20/2025.
Claim Interpretation
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9 & 10 the recitation “calculation means” is NOT being treated as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 11 “…measuring means configured to measure a thickness of frost…”
Regarding claim 11 “…frost collection surface calculation means configured to determine, at determined time intervals..”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flemming (U.S. 8,779,945) in view of Somanath et al. (US 10160550 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 & 11 Flemming teaches measuring a thickness of frost deposited over a frost collection surface determining, at determined time intervals [Claim 7][Claim 14][Claim 15], an evolution (interpreted as monitoring frost / ice over time) of a frost thickness and, generating an alarm signal (via sensor system 36) when a difference in frost thickness measured between two time intervals (Tsamp) is greater than a threshold value (interpreted as “determining ice accretion includes integrating over a time period a constant K multiplied by a liquid water content (LWC) and true airspeed (TAS).”) (Abstract)[Claim 1][Claim 19]. Flemming does not explicitly teach measuring a thickness of frost deposited over a frost collection surface. Somanath et al explicitly teaches over time measuring a thickness of frost deposited over a frost collection surface (col. 4 lines 59-67 thru col. 5 lines 1-16), (Col.7 lines 58-67 thru Col. 8 lines 1-4)(figs. 5,6).
It could have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of ice / frost monitoring of aircraft before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ice monitoring device as disclosed by Flemming to over a surface directly measure a thickness of frost deposited over a frost collection surface as taught by Somanath et al. for the purpose of operating an aircraft in an icing environment and experiencing ice buildup that tends to increase aircraft weight, reduce aircraft control system effectiveness, degrade engine performance, and generally tend to result in an unsafe condition of the aircraft. (Somanath et al. Summary of Invention)
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2 & 7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2 the cited pertinent does not anticipate nor render obvious calculating an average thickness of frost deposited over a collection surface as a function of the frosting intensity to be detected and of a frost accretion rate, the time interval corresponding to the ratio between the average frost thickness and the frost accretion rate.
Claims 3-5 and 7-10 are objected to due to their dependency of objected claims 2 and / or 7.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments, see pages Applicant Arguments 7-9, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of (see rejection of record above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8462354 B2 Aircraft icing detector
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855