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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below.
Examiner notes that the applicant should specifically point out the support for any and all amendments and show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[a]pplicant respectfully traverses. "An anticipating reference must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient clarity and detail to establish…a prima facie case of anticipation resides with the Patent and Trademark Office." In re Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788-89 (B.P.A.I. 1986)," Examiner reminds the applicant that [t]he elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP § 2131. The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). See MPEP § 2123. Furthermore, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114. Examiner further notes that [a] question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)), whether new or amended claims are supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed (see, e.g., In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989))… See MPEP § 2163. Finally, [i]f a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). See MPEP § 2145.
In response to the applicant's argument that ‘[a]pplicant respectfully submits Claim 1 recites elements which have not been disclosed by Blanchard. For example, Claim 1 recites: ""the biasing element is configured…combiner during the crash event,"’ the Examiner traverses. With respect to Claim 1, Blanchard discloses… in which the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot (e.g., reflecting mirror 26 of optics unit displaced away from pilot field of view as seen in fig. 2);… responsive to detection of a crash event (monitoring accelerometer analog inputs; col 31, lines 60-68) by a crash detection sensor (coarse locating mode scans search pattern until a detection event occurs; col 9, lines 5-10) comprising an accelerometer (accelerometer test latch U38; col 31, lines 60-68) in data communication with at least one processor (proper accelerometer response to this test command is done by software in the HEU monitoring; col 31, lines 60-68; & central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system; col 4, lines 25-30)…with a force sufficient to overcome inertia (e.g., feedback connection at 39b allows control of CRT beam in a closed loop manner analogous to a servomechanism; col 5, lines 50-70) of the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) during the crash event (col 9, lines 5-10). See § 102(a)(1) claim rejection, § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection, and § 112(a) description requirement and new matter rejection below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[c]laim 1 expressly requires…Nowhere in Blanchard is there any teaching of an accelerometer, processor, or any crash detection functionality. Thus, the Claim 1 is patentably distinct because it requires a dedicated crash detection system (accelerometer and processor) that actuates the combiner breakaway, whereas Blanchard teaches only internal display circuitry unrelated to crash events," the Examiner traverses. As stated in the present and previous Office action, dated 24 July 2025, Blanchard explicitly discloses an accelerometer (accelerometer test latch U38; col 31, lines 60-68), processor (central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system; col 4, lines 25-30), and event detection functionality inclusive of any detected event (as described in col 9, lines 5-10). Examiner notes that the applicant has yet to provide adequate support for the recited elements, for there is no accelerometer, processor, or any crash detection functionality illustrated in sufficient structural/methodical detail within the drawings nor adequately described in the as-filed specification. In response to applicant's argument that "(test key) is used solely for diagnostic / programming modes and does not respond to a crash condition. Blanchard's disclosure of electronic feedback circuitry (e.g., photodetectors, voltage regulators) relates to beam alignment and burn protection, not crash detection. Nowhere in Blanchard is there any teaching of... any crash detection functionality," a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to the applicant's argument that "[c]laim 1 further recites that the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner…Blanchard contains no disclosure or suggestion of physically transitioning a combiner away from the pilot's line of sight," the Examiner traverses. Examiner notes that the newly amended limitation of “in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot” is new matter. See § 112(a) description requirement and new matter rejection below. The argument is also moot since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action: With respect to Claim 1, Blanchard discloses… in which the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot (e.g., reflecting mirror 26 of optics unit displaced away from pilot field of view as seen in fig. 2); See § 102(a)(1) claim rejection and § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[c]laim 1 additionally recites that the biasing element is configured… Blanchard discloses neither stored energy mechanisms nor force generation for breakaway. Its voltage cutoff circuitry is incapable of imparting any mechanical force to a combiner. Applicant's invention requires a positive force-generating element (e.g., spring, compressed gas cylinder, solenoid, or pyrotechnic actuator) that actively drives the combiner out of the pilot's path, even under crash dynamics," the Examiner traverses. Examiner notes that the applicant also fails to disclose nor provide support for “stored energy mechanisms” and “force generation for breakaway.” For the claim limitations and as-filed specification recites these function(s) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Examiner invites applicant to specifically point out the support for stored energy mechanisms and force generation mechanisms for breakaway in the original disclosure. See § 112(f) invoke below. Examiner also notes that the “positive force-generating element (e.g., spring, compressed gas cylinder, solenoid, or pyrotechnic actuator)” is not illustrated in the drawings (as well as its alternatives) nor provided in sufficient detail within the as-filed specification. The argument is also moot since applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action: With respect to Claim 1, Blanchard discloses…with a force sufficient to overcome inertia (e.g., feedback connection at 39b allows control of CRT beam in a closed loop manner analogous to a servomechanism; col 5, lines 50-70) of the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) during the crash event (col 9, lines 5-10). See § 102(a)(1) claim rejection and drawing objections below. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to the applicant's argument that "[f]or the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claim 8 is patentably distinct from Blanchard. Under Lindemann…Applicant respectfully requests allowance of Claims 8-14," the Examiner traverses. See arguments for Claim 1 above. See § 102(a)(1) claim rejection, § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection, and § 112(a) description requirement and new matter rejection below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[f]or the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claim 15 is patentably distinct from Blanchard. Under Lindemann…Applicant respectfully requests allowance of Claims 15 and 17-20," the Examiner traverses. See arguments for Claim 1 above. See § 102(a)(1) claim rejection, § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection, and § 112(a) description requirement and new matter rejection below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[a]pplicant respectfully traverses. "The PTO has the burden under section 103 to establish a prima facie case of obviousness…Dependent claims are nonobvious under section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious. "In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988)," the Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985; and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP § 2144.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[f]or the reasons set forth with respect to the rejections under § 102, the Patent Office has not shown that Blanchard teaches or suggests Claims 1, 8 or 15. None of the other references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest Claims 1, 8, or 15," the Examiner traverses. See § 102(a)(1) claim rejection below. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See § 103 claim rejections below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Rastegar relates to very low-power actuation devices for guided munitions….There is no reason or motivation to combine its projectile actuation devices with Blanchard's HUD circuitry, because the problems solved are wholly unrelated," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's argument that Rastegar is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as admitted by the applicant, Rastegar discloses a variety of energy-storage actuation techniques (e.g., springs, compressed gas, pyrotechnics). Thus, the prior art reference of Rastegar is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, for Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 17-18 recite limitations pertaining to a variety of energy-storage actuation elements (e.g., springs, compressed gas, pyrotechnics).
In response to the applicant's argument that "[m]oreover, even if one were to import Rastegar's actuators into Blanchard's system, the resulting device would still lack features recited in Claim 1: crash detection via accelerometer and processor and displacement of the combiner away from the pilot's forward field of view. These features are not suggested by either reference," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner further notes that the newly amended limitation of “in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot” is new matter. See § 112(a) description requirement and new matter rejection below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[t]he Patent Office also cited Ferri as pertinent. Ferri discloses mechanical assist mechanisms for pedestrian safety latches, not combiners or crash-actuated optical safety systems. Ferri does not cure the deficiencies of Blanchard or Rastegar, and is even further afield," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that Ferri is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as admitted by applicant, Ferri discloses mechanism assist mechanism (e.g., springs) for safety latches. Thus, the prior art reference of Ferri is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, for Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15 recite limitations pertaining to mechanical assist mechanisms (e.g., springs) within biasing elements when transitioning elements for pilot safety. Examiner reminds the applicant that the argument is moot, since the Examiner does not rely on Ferri for any of the prior art disclosures and teachings of record.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[t]he Patent Office has not shown through objective evidence that the references teach or suggest all of the features of Claims 1, 8, and 15. Absent objective evidence supporting the Patent Office's assertions…Applicant respectfully requests allowance of Claims 1-15 and 17-20," the Examiner traverses. Counsel's assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Examiner invites applicant to see objections, rejections, and prior art combination motivation, in pages 2-19, within the previous Office action, dated 27 July 2025, and to see § 102(a)(1) claim rejection, § 112(b) indefiniteness rejection, and § 112(a) description requirement and new matter rejection below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[f]urthermore, Applicant respectfully traverses all the arguments made in the office action that Applicant did not specifically address above," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds that applicant that [i]f a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). See MPEP § 2145.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification must describe every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the combiner displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot, a field of view of a pilot, the pilot, an accelerometer in data communication with at least one processor, operational state, safe state, crash event, spring, compressed gas cylinder, electromagnet, electric solenoid, expanding gas element, stored energy method, pyrotechnic device, hydraulic actuator, aircraft helmet, and accelerometer must be described and labeled with a reference numeral/letter consistent with the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. See Drawing objections below in the present Office action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: "in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot". No new matter should be entered. See § 112(a) below for further detail.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. The drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the combiner displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot, a field of view of a pilot, the pilot, an accelerometer in data communication with at least one processor, operational state, safe state, spring, compressed gas cylinder, electromagnet, electric solenoid, stored energy method, pyrotechnic device, hydraulic actuator, aircraft helmet, and accelerometer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claims 1-15, and 17-20, the claims recite the limitation "the combiner.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, for the claims originally recite “a combiner element.”
With respect to Claims 1, 8, 15 and 19, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP § 2111.04 (II). In the current instance, “responsive to detection of a crash event…” and “until/when a crash event is detected” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying the structure or whether the claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the product(s). This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets “responsive to detection of a crash event…” and “until/when a crash event is detected” as the claimed subject matter introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of an optical system. See 35 USC § 112(f) and 112(b) rejections for further details.
Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP § 2173.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation/Rejection - 35 USC § 112(f) and § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 have limitations that recite several function(s) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function(s).
Claim limitations ‘“the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner from an operational state to a safe state in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot; the release element is configured to retain the combiner in the operational state until a crash event is detected; and the release element is configured to release the combiner responsive to detection of a crash event by a crash detection sensor comprising an accelerometer in data communication with at least one processor and the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner to the safe state with a force sufficient to overcome inertia of the combiner during the crash event” in Claim 1, “the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner from an operational state to a safe state in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot, via a stored energy method; the release element is configured to retain the combiner in the operational state until a crash event is detected; and the release element is configured to release the combiner responsive to detection of a crash event by a crash detection sensor comprising an accelerometer in data communication with at least one processor and the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner to the safe state with a force sufficient to overcome inertia of the combiner during the crash event” in Claim 8, “a combiner with a breakaway mechanism comprising…and at least one processor configured via non-transitory processor executable code, wherein: the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner from an operational state to a safe state in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot; and the at least one processor is configured to: detect a crash event: actuate the biasing element responsive to detection of a crash event by the crash detection sensor in communication with the at least one processor” in Claim 15, and “the release element is configured to retain the combiner in the operational state until a crash event is detected; and the at least one processor is configured to actuate the release element when a crash event is detected” in Claim 19’ invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function(s) in the claim(s), the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function(s) in the claim(s), and no association between the structure and the function(s) can be found in the specification. Although the claims recite a “biasing element” and a “release element,” the as-filed specification merely lists broad categories of possible components (e.g., solenoids, springs, pyrotechnics, compressed gas, etc.) without identifying which specific structure performs each recited function, or how any single disclosed structure performs the entire scope of the claimed functions. This renders the claims limitations as purely functional.
For example, the specification does not disclose a concrete structure configured to store energy, selectively release that energy only upon crash detection, and generate a force sufficient to overcome combiner inertia during a crash event. The as-filed specification generically states that the biasing element may be hydraulic, solenoid, spring, compressed gas, etc., without tying any one structure to the full functional requirements presented in the claims. No parameter, mechanisms, or configurations are disclosed to establish how “stored energy” or “force sufficient to overcome inertia” is achieved. The release element is also described only in functional terms (retain, release, responsive to detection, etc.) with no disclosed structure that both retains the combiner element in the operational state and releases it upon a detected crash event. The as-filed specification, again, provides an open-ended list of possible components without identifying how any specific component performs both functions in coordination with the biasing element. The accelerometer and processor are mentioned within the specification, but the specification does not provide support on how crash detection signals are logically or mechanically coupled to the release element, nor how the processor operates the claimed release and biasing actions of the recited elements. There is no disclosed control architecture, signal path, or algorithm connecting crash detection to physical actuation of any of the elements in the above recited claim limitations. Finally, the claim recites a processor configured to perform crash-related control functions, but the specification provides no algorithm, logic flow, or executable steps corresponding to those functions at all. The as-filed specification merely stating that a processor may actuate elements is insufficient to disclose structure for computer-implemented functions. Thus, the claims recite intended functions without disclosing corresponding structure or adequately linking disclosed structures to the claimed functions. The scope of the claims cannot be reasonably ascertained, and the disclosure does not demonstrate possession of an apparatus capable of performing the full breadth of the claimed functionality (See also § 112(a) section below in the present Office action).
Therefore, Claims 1-15, and 17-20 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 1, 8, and 15, the newly added limitation, “in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot,” is not properly described nor illustrated in the application as filed (See pgs. 5, 7, and 9 of the Claims dated 24 October 2025). The specification and drawings nowhere define, depict, or characterize a “forward field of view of a pilot,” nor do they describe/illustrate displacement relative to the recited field of view as opposed to displacement generally away from a pilot or into a safe state. The original disclosure focuses on moving the combiner away from the user or into a safe state, without tying that movement to the pilot’s forward field of view as a spatial or functional reference. Examiner submits that a pilot’s forward field of view, as well as the combiner element relative to such view, are presented nowhere in any of the originally filed and as-filed drawings. Thus, this limitation introduces a new positional and functional relationship not originally disclosed.
Furthermore, the claims recite functional requirements (e.g., retaining the combiner element until a crash event is detected, releasing the combiner element in response to accelerometer-based crash detection, applying force sufficient to overcome inertia, etc., see pgs. 5, 7, and 9 of the Claims dated 24 October 2025) without the specification describing specific structural configurations or mechanisms that perform the entirety of these claimed functions. The original disclosure generally lists examples of biasing elements, release elements, processors, and sensors, but it does not disclose how any particular structure is arranged, dimensioned, controlled, or coordinated to achieve the claimed functions. Thus, the disclosure fails to reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, and there is no clear association between the claimed functions and definite corresponding structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15, and 17-20 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.
With respect to Claims 1-15, and 17-20, [a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the current instance, “the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner from an operational state to a safe state in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot; the release element is configured to retain the combiner in the operational state until a crash event is detected; and the release element is configured to release the combiner responsive to detection of a crash event by a crash detection sensor comprising an accelerometer in data communication with at least one processor and the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner to the safe state with a force sufficient to overcome inertia of the combiner during the crash event” in Claim 1, “the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner from an operational state to a safe state in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot, via a stored energy method; the release element is configured to retain the combiner in the operational state until a crash event is detected; and the release element is configured to release the combiner responsive to detection of a crash event by a crash detection sensor comprising an accelerometer in data communication with at least one processor and the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner to the safe state with a force sufficient to overcome inertia of the combiner during the crash event” in Claim 8, “a combiner with a breakaway mechanism comprising…and at least one processor configured via non-transitory processor executable code, wherein: the biasing element is configured to actively transition the combiner from an operational state to a safe state in which the combiner is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot; and the at least one processor is configured to: detect a crash event: actuate the biasing element responsive to detection of a crash event by the crash detection sensor in communication with the at least one processor” in Claim 15, and “the release element is configured to retain the combiner in the operational state until a crash event is detected; and the at least one processor is configured to actuate the release element when a crash event is detected” in Claim 19, recite methods of using the apparatus within apparatus claim limitations.
The recited claim limitations attempt to define structural components of a combiner breakaway mechanism by claiming operational steps and conditions of use (e.g., detecting a crash event, retaining the combiner element until detection, actively transitioning the combiner element with force sufficient to overcome inertia during a crash event, etc.), These limitations describe how the apparatus is utilized and operates over time in response to external events, rather than structural features that exist within the claimed device. Since the claims conflate apparatus structure with method steps of using the apparatus, the scope of these claims cannot be ascertained, and thus, these claims are unclear and indefinite.
Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows detection of a crash event and release of a combiner element in response, or whether infringement occurs when the system is actually used during a crash event such that the combiner element is retained, released, and actively transitioned to a safe state with sufficient force. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
With respect to Claims 1-14, the term “force sufficient to overcome inertia” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “force sufficient to overcome inertia” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The biasing element being configured to actively transition the combiner to a safe state and a crash event has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term appearing in these claims, for the amount of force required to overcome inertia varies with the mass of the combiner element, crash acceleration time/pulse, timing, and direction of force not specified in the claims nor specification. Since there is no measurable threshold, a person having ordinary skill in the art could not determine whether a given force satisfies the claim limitation.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a combiner element, combiner breakaway mechanism, and aircraft helmet.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanchard US 4847603 A.
With respect to Claim 1, Blanchard discloses a combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) comprising:
a biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45); and
a release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60), wherein:
the biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45) is configured to actively transition the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) from an operational state to a safe state (beam cutoff in the event of loss of the -120 VDC biasing supply is utilized to provide cutoff during HUD system comprising combiner glass 28; col 23, lines 40-45; & part of the safety circuitry to protect the CRT from burn damage from circuit failure or abnormal operating conditions is located on pc board assembly; col 20, lines 1-5) in which the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot (e.g., reflecting mirror 26 of optics unit displaced away from pilot field of view as seen in fig. 2);
the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is configured to retain the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) in the operational state until a crash event is detected (test key is continuously held down to authorize the diagnostic/programming mode of the HUD computer comprising combiner glass 28, when test key is released, voltages in the CLAMP detector amplifier circuit return to normal, and operation resumes; col 25, lines 45-60; scanning until detection event/aircraft accident occurs; col 9, lines 5-10; fig. 5); and
the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is configured to release the combiner (col 25, lines 45-60) responsive to detection of a crash event (monitoring accelerometer analog inputs; col 31, lines 60-68) by a crash detection sensor (coarse locating mode scans search pattern until a detection event occurs; col 9, lines 5-10) comprising an accelerometer (accelerometer test latch U38; col 31, lines 60-68) in data communication with at least one processor (proper accelerometer response to this test command is done by software in the HEU monitoring; col 31, lines 60-68; & central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system; col 4, lines 25-30) and the biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45) is configured to actively transition the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) to the safe state (col 23, lines 40-45; & col 20, lines 1-5) with a force sufficient to overcome inertia (e.g., feedback connection at 39b allows control of CRT beam in a closed loop manner analogous to a servomechanism; col 5, lines 50-70) of the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) during the crash event (col 9, lines 5-10).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). When the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 7, Blanchard discloses the combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) of Claim 1, wherein the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is an electromagnet (test key encompassed by CRT mounted inside its electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield; col 5, lines 35-40 & col 12, lines 5-45).
With respect to Claim 8, Blanchard discloses a combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) comprising:
a biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45); and
a release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60), wherein:
the biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45) is configured to actively transition the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) from an operational state to a safe state (beam cutoff in the event of loss of the -120 VDC biasing supply is utilized to provide cutoff during HUD system comprising combiner glass 28; col 23, lines 40-45; & part of the safety circuitry to protect the CRT from burn damage from circuit failure or abnormal operating conditions is located on pc board assembly; col 20, lines 1-5) in which the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot (e.g., reflecting mirror 26 of optics unit displaced away from pilot field of view as seen in fig. 2) via a stored energy method (stored energy in filter capacitors gets used up, HEU power supply then can’t put out enough current to keep beam at commanded position, then supply pulls out of regulation, and thus, processors in HEU lose 5 VDC logic supply required to function, and HUD system comprising the combiner glass 28 dies; col 37, lines 60-65);
the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is configured to retain the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) in the operational state until a crash event is detected (test key is continuously held down to authorize the diagnostic/programming mode of the HUD computer comprising combiner glass 28, when test key is released, voltages in the CLAMP detector amplifier circuit return to normal, and operation resumes; col 25, lines 45-60; scanning until detection event/aircraft accident occurs; col 9, lines 5-10; fig. 5); and
the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is configured to release the combiner (col 25, lines 45-60) responsive to detection of a crash event (monitoring accelerometer analog inputs; col 31, lines 60-68) by a crash detection sensor (coarse locating mode scans search pattern until a detection event occurs; col 9, lines 5-10) comprising an accelerometer (accelerometer test latch U38; col 31, lines 60-68) in data communication with at least one processor (proper accelerometer response to this test command is done by software in the HEU monitoring; col 31, lines 60-68; & central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system; col 4, lines 25-30) and the biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45) is configured to actively transition the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) to the safe state (col 23, lines 40-45; & col 20, lines 1-5) with a force sufficient to overcome inertia (e.g., feedback connection at 39b allows control of CRT beam in a closed loop manner analogous to a servomechanism; col 5, lines 50-70) of the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) during the crash event (col 9, lines 5-10).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). When the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 15, Blanchard discloses an aircraft helmet (aircraft head up display system; col 1, lines 35-45; fig. 2) comprising:
a combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) with a breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) comprising:
a biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45);
a crash detection sensor (coarse locating mode scans search pattern until a detection event occurs; col 9, lines 5-10) comprising at least one accelerometer (accelerometer test latch U38; col 31, lines 60-68);
a release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60); and
at least one processor (central processor 15; col 4, lines 25-30) configured via non-transitory processor (implemented utilizing a commercially available sixteen bit microprocessor; col 4, lines 40-45) executable code (commands for generation, generator to execute; col 4, lines 35-40), wherein:
the biasing element (VDC biasing supply and controls of cathode ray tube (CRT); col 5, lines 50-70 & col 23, lines 40-45) is configured to actively transition the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) from an operational state to a safe state (beam cutoff in the event of loss of the -120 VDC biasing supply is utilized to provide cutoff during HUD system comprising combiner glass 28; col 23, lines 40-45; & part of the safety circuitry to protect the CRT from burn damage from circuit failure or abnormal operating conditions is located on pc board assembly; col 20, lines 1-5) in which the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) is displaced away from a forward field of view of a pilot (e.g., reflecting mirror 26 of optics unit displaced away from pilot field of view as seen in fig. 2); and
the at least one processor (central processor 15; col 4, lines 25-30) is configured to: detect a crash event (closed loop control system as seen in fig. 2 having photodetectors, two beam position sensing locations, wherein detectors sense beam position during a special automatic calibration routine, and thus, HUD system can determine bias and scaling drift within HUD system; col 6, lines 10-20): actuate the biasing element (test key held continuously actuated to authorize diagnostic/programming mode of the central processor 15, unity gain DC feedback provided, voltage raised to equal the 3.0 VDC biasing supply test level at input 121, normal operation resumes; col 12, lines 25-40) when a crash event is detected (central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system, and thus, detects events and actuates biasing supply; col 4, lines 25-30; & scanning until detection event/aircraft accident occurs; col 9, lines 5-10; fig. 5) responsive to detection of a crash event (monitoring accelerometer analog inputs; col 31, lines 60-68) by the crash detection (coarse locating mode scans search pattern until a detection event occurs; col 9, lines 5-10) in communication with the at least one processor (proper accelerometer response to this test command is done by software in the HEU monitoring; col 31, lines 60-68; & central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system; col 4, lines 25-30).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987). When the structure of a claimed system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, for “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114.
With respect to Claim 19, Blanchard discloses the aircraft helmet (aircraft head up display system; col 1, lines 35-45; fig. 2) of Claim 15, wherein:
the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is configured to retain the combiner (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) in the operational state until a crash event is detected (test key is continuously held down to authorize the diagnostic/programming mode of the HUD computer comprising combiner glass 28, when test key is released, voltages in the CLAMP detector amplifier circuit return to normal, and operation resumes; col 25, lines 45-60; scanning until detection event/aircraft accident occurs; col 9, lines 5-10; fig. 5); and
the at least one processor (central processor 15; col 4, lines 25-30) is configured to actuate the release element (col 12, lines 25-45; & central processor 15 manages the entire operation of the HUD system; col 4, lines 25-30) when a crash event is detected (scanning until detection event/aircraft accident occurs; col 9, lines 5-10; fig. 5).
With respect to Claim 20, Blanchard discloses the aircraft helmet (aircraft head up display system; col 1, lines 35-45; fig. 2) of Claim 15, wherein the release element (test key; col 25, lines 55-60) is an electromagnet (test key encompassed by CRT mounted inside its electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield; col 5, lines 35-40 & col 12, lines 5-45).
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.
Claims 2-6, 9-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard US 4847603 A in view of Rastegar et al. US 20130206897 A1 (herein after "Rastegar").
With respect to Claim 2, Blanchard discloses the combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) of Claim 1.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a spring.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises a return spring for biasing a piston in a retracted position ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a spring, for the purpose of allowing a spring to drive an element from an extended position to a retracted position, significantly reducing power requirements during actuation within small and medium caliber munitions, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0079]).
With respect to Claim 3, Blanchard discloses the combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) of Claim 1.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a compressed gas cylinder.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises in-cylinder gas generation charges to be employed ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a pressurized gas cylinder, for the purpose of achieving independent actuation, significantly reducing power requirements during actuation within small and medium caliber munitions, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0079]).
With respect to Claim 4, Blanchard discloses the combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) of Claim 1.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is an electromagnet.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein means such as electromagnetic forces are typically utilized for biasing and acceleration within aircraft technologies and actuation devices ([0005-6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be an electromagnet, for the purpose of accelerating elements within aircraft technologies and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0005-6] & [0029]).
With respect to Claim 5, Blanchard discloses the combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) of Claim 1,
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is an electric solenoid.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein electric motors of various types, including solenoid type actuation devices, have dominated the guidance and control of aircraft technologies and actuation devices ([0005-6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be an electric solenoid, for the purpose of achieving actuation of control surfaces for guidance and control of elements within aircraft technologies, while also increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0005-6] & [0029]).
With respect to Claim 6, Blanchard discloses the combiner element (optics unit comprising combining elements e.g., reflecting mirror 26 & combiner glass 28; col 5, lines 35-45) of Claim 1.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is an expanding gas element.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises an exhaust port for exhausting gas from a housing generated by a plurality of gas generation charges ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be an expanding gas element, for the purpose of achieving gas activation that results in an increase in pressure for driving an element from a retracted position to an extended position, significantly reducing power requirements during actuation within small and medium caliber munitions, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0054]).
With respect to Claim 9, Blanchard discloses the combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) of Claim 8.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a spring.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises a return spring for biasing a piston in a retracted position ([0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a spring, for the purpose of allowing a spring to drive an element from an extended position to a retracted position, significantly reducing power requirements during actuation within small and medium caliber munitions, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0079]).
With respect to Claim 10, Blanchard discloses the combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) of Claim 8.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a compressed gas cylinder.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises in-cylinder gas generation charges to be employed ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a pressurized gas cylinder, for the purpose of achieving independent actuation, significantly reducing power requirements during actuation within small and medium caliber munitions, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0079]).
With respect to Claim 11, Blanchard discloses the combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) of Claim 8.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is an electromagnet.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein means such as electromagnetic forces are typically utilized for biasing and acceleration within aircraft technologies and actuation devices ([0005-6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be an electromagnet, for the purpose of accelerating elements within aircraft technologies and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0005-6] & [0029]).
With respect to Claim 12, Blanchard discloses the combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) of Claim 8.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is an electric solenoid.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein electric motors of various types, including solenoid type actuation devices, have dominated the guidance and control of aircraft technologies and actuation devices ([0005-6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be an electric solenoid, for the purpose of achieving actuation of control surfaces for guidance and control of elements within aircraft technologies, while also increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0005-6] & [0029]).
With respect to Claim 13, Blanchard discloses the combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) of Claim 8.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a pyrotechnic device.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an miniature inertial igniter/actuation device comprises a pyrotechnic material, lead styphnate, utilized in an acceleration event towards a target ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a pyrotechnic device, for the purpose of performance and reliability within munitions, generating large actuation forces in emergency situations where a one-time use may be tolerated, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029], [0072], and [0091]).
With respect to Claim 14, Blanchard discloses the combiner breakaway mechanism (beam burn protection circuitry located on pc board assembly; col 23, lines 35-40; fig. 11 & 20b) of Claim 8.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a hydraulic actuator.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises an external power source for actuation, such as hydraulic pumps or air compressors that are typically utilized for biasing and acceleration within aircraft technologies and actuation devices ([0005-6] & [0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a hydraulic actuator, for the purpose of generating large actuation forces in emergency situations and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0091-92]).
With respect to Claim 17, Blanchard discloses the aircraft helmet (aircraft head up display system; col 1, lines 35-45; fig. 2) of Claim 15.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is a compressed gas cylinder.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein an actuator comprises in-cylinder gas generation charges to be employed ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be a pressurized gas cylinder, for the purpose of achieving independent actuation, significantly reducing power requirements during actuation within small and medium caliber munitions, and increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0029] & [0079]).
With respect to Claim 18, Blanchard discloses the aircraft helmet (aircraft head up display system; col 1, lines 35-45; fig. 2) of Claim 15.
Blanchard does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the biasing element is an electric solenoid.
However, in another field of endeavor, Rastegar teaches an actuation device ([0073]), wherein electric motors of various types, including solenoid type actuation devices, have dominated the guidance and control of aircraft technologies and actuation devices ([0005-6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the biasing element of Blanchard to be an electric solenoid, for the purpose of achieving actuation of control surfaces for guidance and control of elements within aircraft technologies, while also increasing safety, as taught by Rastegar ([0005-6] & [0029]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 18 December 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights