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 Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “light beam” and “beam” are used interchangeably. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Referring to claim 1, the limitation “using the calculator, as a function, at the very least, of the successive values of the parameter(s)” is unclear. The limitation “at the very least” and “successive values” make it unclear if there is at least one specific parameter (i.e. one parameter as defined in the beam generator limitation that is acquired multiple times) or if there are multiple different parameters that are acquired successively (i.e. one parameter that is associated with the beam generator (acquired successively) and a second parameter that is associated with the aircraft (acquired successively).
The claim does make clear that both parameters of the beam generator and the aircraft are used however it is unclear if both parameters of the beam generator and the aircraft are acquired successively.
Referring to claim 1, the limitation “determining a NOHD distance relative to the light beam as a function of the parameters of the beam, using the calculator”. The NOHD appears to be an acronym however the acronym is not defined in the claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Referring to claim 1, Ghelam (20120179326) shows a method for continuous in-flight management of a beam generator on board an aircraft (see figure 3), the aircraft comprising:
the beam generator emitting a light beam (see figure 2 Ref 3 also see paragraph 105;
sensors (see figure 11 Ref 122, 43, 44 and 42);
a calculator (see paragraph 190);
a display device (see figure 11 Ref 6;45); and
a tracking device (see paragraph 207 note the memory),
the method comprising the following steps:
continuously acquiring a value of at least one parameter of the beam generator by means of at least one of the sensors (see paragraph 22 also see paragraph 105);
continuously acquiring a value of at least one parameter of the aircraft by means of at least one of the sensors, the parameter(s) of the aircraft being distinct from the parameter(s) of the beam generator (see paragraph 215-220);
continuously estimating at least one piece of information relating to the reliability of the beam generator over a predetermined time period using the calculator, as a function, at the very least, of the successive values of the parameter(s) of the beam generator and the parameter(s) of the aircraft, and data from a stored history of the beam generator (see paragraph 105-107 note the continual monitoring of the LRU based on stored data); and
displaying at least one indication relating to the beam generator on the display device, the indication(s) being dependent on the piece of information (see figure 11 note the display device Ref 6 also see paragraph 106),
However Ghelam fails to show wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining a position of the aircraft, using the tracking device;
determining parameters of the beam, the parameters of the beam being distinct from the parameter(s) of the aircraft and the parameter(s) of the beam generator;
determining a NOHD distance relative to the light beam as a function of the parameters of the beam, using the calculator; and
determining at least one value relating to the risk of injury likely to be caused by the beam generator in at least one zone on the ground, as a function of the position of the aircraft, the NOHD distance, the parameters of the beam and the piece of information relating to the reliability of the beam generator, using the calculator,
at the time of the displaying step, the indication(s) relating to the beam generator is/are a function of the value(s) relating to the risk of injury associated with the zone(s) on the ground.
O’Keeffe (20180088214) shows a device that specifically looks at parameters of a laser and the location of humans and develops a “keep out zone” for a laser based on the parameters of the laser and location of the vehicle (see paragraph 73-75). However, none of the references alone or in combination render obvious claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645