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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 27 August 2026.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 12 have been added.
Claims 18-19 have been added.
The 112b rejection of Claims 1, 4-10, the 101 rejection, and all the art rejections from the previous office actions have been withdrawn as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15, 18-19 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
All the limitations of Claims 1, 4, 5, 10-11, 15 that were indicated in the previous office action for invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to Applicant’s amendment.
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.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Communication interface configured to receive in claim 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18-19 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a communication interface configured to receive external data from a ground station”. However, after reviewing Applicant’s specification, the Examiner is unable to find support of the subject matter of a communication interface used to receive external data from a ground station. The Examiner states that 0022-0023 and 0057 discloses communication means is used to communicate with a ground station to obtain external data; however, applicant’s specification does not clearly state that the communication means is a communication interface. Thus, while Applicant’s specification shows support for communication means being used to communicate and receive data from a ground station, Applicant’s specification is silent and shows no support that the communication means is or can be a communication interface. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to find any support within the disclosure in regards of the limitation. Therefore, since this language is not described in the specification for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this language as explained. Furthermore, Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claims are supported within the specification. Thus, since support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported, a prima facie case has been established. See MPEP 2163.04.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 11-15 remain rejected and 18-19 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.
Claim 11 discloses the limitation "A method for…using the system according to claim 1" It is unclear to the Examiner what is actually being claimed when it states "perform the ...method of claim 1.” It is unclear to the Examiner what is actually being claimed when it states "perform the... method of claim 1.” Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. Furthermore, since this feature is not clearly defined in the claims for the instant application, the examiner is forced to make a broad interpretation for this feature. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view the preamble as “A method for controlling in real time the trajectory of an aircraft on a ground runway, the method comprising:”
Therefore, Claim 11 recites the limitations/elements “the calculator”, “the aircraft data”, “the external data”, “the runway state data” “the ground weather data”, “each steering device”, “each corresponding usage parameter”, “the predetermined trajectory”, “at least one controller”, “the left thrust reverser”, “the first given power”, “the right thrust reverser”, “the second given power”, “the rudder”, and “the given angle” throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the Examiner will these limitations/elements as: “determining, by a calculator, from aircraft data and external data and including runway state data and ground weather data, a steering device for steering the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory and a corresponding usage parameter, and controlling, by at least one controller, the determined steering device in accordance with the corresponding determined usage parameter, such that a left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, a right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and a rudder is operated at a given angle.
As per claim(s) 18, all of the claim limitations containing "communication interface configured for”, are limitations that invoke 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 of each limitation listed above. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed “controller”/means/calculator. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is 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.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per claim 11, Claim 11 was amended to state the method …using the system according to claim 1; however, it is unclear how exactly the method claim is actually using the system of claim 1 since the claim fails to explain how all the elements of claim 1 are used. Furthermore, Claim 11 only discloses with the determining and controlling functionality of claim. Thus, claim 11 fails to include every limitation of the claim from what it depends on resulting the dependent claim to be broader. Therefore, claim 11 does not further limit the subject matter as originally disclosed in Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, 15, 18-19 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Turcios et al (US20200302809, pub 9/24/2020)* in further view of Hodges et al (US20190127076, 2019) in further view of Davis et al (US20210049919, EFD 8/2019)(previously cited on 7/31/25) in further view of Daidzic (US10202204, 2019)* (* = Disclosed in IDS filed on 3/28/23). Blanding et al, US20150279539, is cited as evidence regarding actuators/controllers in aircraft/field of aeronautics
As per independent claim 1, Turcios et al discloses a system for controlling in real time a trajectory of an aircraft on a ground runway (FIG 8-11; 0064-0080), the system comprising:
steering devices configured to steer the aircraft on the ground, each steering devices being associated with at least one usage parameter; wherein the steering devices include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (0064-0065: body gear and nose gear used for steering.) wherein the steering devices include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (FIG. 4; 0047, 0064-0065: nose gear landing with a wheel. Furthermore, FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747 having engines attached to the wings and also a tail. A skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts have plurality of engines, such as shown in FIG 7, which each engine is fitted with thrust reversers. In addition, a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7, have a tail in which the tail of the aircraft has a rudder.)
a calculator, the calculator being a computer storing instructions (FIG 1; 0007, 0032) and configured to receive aircraft data and external data and by executing the instructions, to: (0007, 0035-0039, 0040, 0042, 0045, 0049-0050, 0056-0057)
determine, from the aircraft data (0035-0038) and the external data ( 0007, 0039, 0050, 0056: obtain from the pilot, database, tower control) and including runway state data (0042) and ground weather data (0036), each steering device for steering the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory and each corresponding usage parameter (0038, 0052-0053: disclose calculation result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. These elements collectively used to form a path/trajectory to make a turn from taxiway 510 to taxiway 520 shown in FIG. 5 and 6. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show the displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements. (0054)
control each steering device determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. (0053-0054; 0067- 0079: based on the inputs, calculations are made for turn data to assist the pilot making a turn onto the runway. Calculations result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show a displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements (0054) . Furthermore, as explained, 0047 discloses a Boeing 747 which contain thrust reversers and a rudder. In addition, one of a skill artisan would have understand that a rudder, when in use, is set to a given angle at any time and that thrust reversers, when in use, are set to a given power at any time as well)
Furthermore, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)). In addition, FIG 7 discloses a four engine aircraft and 0047 mentions a Boeing 747 in which understand that exemplary aircrafts each have steering device such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular device. Thus, Turcios discloses a form of one controller per steering device(s). However, Turcios fails to disclose the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser and a controller controlling to control each steering device determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter which a controller gives each (left and right) thrust receiver its own given power and gives a rudder its given angle. (…a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser;; … at least one controller… configured to control each steering device such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle).
However, Hodges et al discloses an aircraft having a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser. (FIG 1). Hodges discloses multiple engines on an aircraft wherein an engine is on a left side and right side of a plane. Furthermore, each engine has its own thrust reverser. (FIG. 1; 0035) Thus, Hodges discloses a left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser. Furthermore, each thrust reverser is associated with a thrust lever which control the respective thrust lever (0048, 0069-0071: thrust level to a reverse idle position to initiate a thrust reverse command to a (particular) reverse thrust or a maximum reverse thrust ). Thus, each thrust reverser, on each engine, has a level to control its thrust (form a given power). 0046-0047 discloses a controller that controls the thrust reverser. Claim 10 and 18 discloses a processor/controller that controls both engines and thrust reversers. Further, Hodges discloses an aircraft has a vertical rudder/tail and nose landing gear. 0034 discloses several components such nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, to bolster their rationale, the Examiner further clarifies that 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls (e.g. existing systems on the airplane (e.g., nose steering, nose landing gear, vertical tail/rudder, etc.) Hodges list each system separately to be large enough to maintain control on their own. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser, explained in Hodges, are controlled independently since they are listed separately and Hodges clearly states maintain control on their own (each listed system is/has maintained control on their own). One of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular device. In addition, the Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering devices, such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). In addition, Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, discloses actuator of the rudder is moved to control the aircraft (e.g. steering). Thus, a skilled artisan would have known controlling the rudder results in placing the rudder at a given angle. Thus, as evidence provided by Blanding, Hodges discloses an actuator (controller) for a rudder, an actuator (controller) for a landing gear; and an actuator (controller) for the thrust reversers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the steering device of Turcios with the disclosed independent steering controls of different aircraft components for steering of Hodges since it would have provided the benefit of improvements needed to optimize airplane landing efficiencies. (0004)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose output each steering device determined to be used and the corresponding usage parameter to at least one controller. However, Davis et al discloses a nose wheel steering system configured to 1) steer the aircraft by rotating the nose wheel of landing gear (not numbered) to a steering angle that will achieve a desired turn of aircraft by following the received defined and approved route calculated and outputted by taxi assistance algorithm (0029) and 2) set a desired nose wheel angle based on maintaining a taxiway centerline indicated by the navigation sensors. (0048). 0027 and FIG 3 discloses calculating instructions and outputting them to the system. In other words, the nose wheel steering system receives instructions from a taxi assistance algorithm on how to control/steer nose wheel and performs the instructions to control/steer nose wheel. 0024 discloses the nose wheel steering system is a control system (form of a controller) Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) receiving instructions on controlling the steering of the nose wheel based on the provided parameter. Furthermore, Davis et al discloses an engine thrust system used to control the thrust reverser. Davis discloses the engine thrust system receives instructions (and parameter) from the taxi assistance algorithm which results in actuating thrust reverser doors as necessary to assist with control of taxi speed. (0033; the actuating the doors or not is a form of a usage parameter). 0024 discloses the engine thrust system is a control system (form of a controller). In addition, Davis discloses control system may be programmed to command the thrust reverser by deploying and stowing thrust reverser. (0039: stowing is a form of usage parameter) Furthermore, 0043 discloses a/the control system controlling the thrust reverser in concert to stop the aircraft and 0006 discloses a/the control system controlling command the thrust reverser to achieve and maintain the desired taxi speed in response to receiving the request to hold taxi speed only. Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) controlling the plurality of thrust reversers. Thus, Davis et al discloses outputting instructions for each steering devices and parameter(s) for each to at least one controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the ability to control steering, such that a specific controller is the entity/system that is used to perform the steer control, as taught by Davis et al. The combination would have provided the benefit of provide aircraft taxi assistance for pilots to facilitate a smooth taxi. (0004)
However, the cited art fails to specifically the at least one controller being connected to the nose landing gear, the rudder and the plurality of thrust reversers and configured to control each steering device determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter, such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle. However, Daidzic discloses a TRSS system that automatically controls and adjusts thrust reverse and flight control surfaces inputs, e.g., rudder, etc., depicted as computer functionality 167. (Col 9, ll. 27-30) TRSS discloses override pilot inputs and apply optimal control inputs deemed best to protect aircraft occupants and property which includes rudder steering. (Col 20, ll. 47-49) In other words, TRSS discloses will take over the control of the aircraft and apply corrective actions (thrust, reversers, brakes, spoilers, nose-wheel steering, flight-control deployment, etc.) (Col 18, ll. 34-38) Thus, since TRSS is able to control and apply inputs to thrust reversers, nose-wheel steering, and rudder then the TRSS is viewed as a controller that is connected to each of these airplane components. For example, FIG 23 and 24, Daidzic discloses the use of thrust reversers to certain power along with an amount of rudder steering used in the landing with crossroads (see depictions of the arrows showing them in use) (Col 20). One of a skilled artisan would have realized that each thrust reversers was set to a certain value of power and the rudder was set to a certain angle in order to perform the scenarios in FIG 23 and 24. Thus, as explained, Daidzic discloses the TRSS, itself, adjusts the thrust reversers AND the rudder by applying the optimal control inputs during takeoff and landings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the steering device(s) of Turicos with the disclosed cited features of Diazdic since it would have provided the benefit of a new comprehensive airplane safety system designed to take over full authority/control in all runway operations thus preventing takeoff and landing incidents and accidents and provide safety (Col 10, ll 66 – Col 11, ll. 3)
As per dependent claim 4, Turcios discloses wherein the controller include a central controller (FIG 1, 110) Furthermore, as previously explained and the rationale incorporated, the Examiner discloses a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7 and Boeing 747 mention in 0047, each have steering device such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular device. In addition, the Examiner discloses one of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular means. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering device(s), such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know an actuator, such as in Hodges, is provided for each steering device as disclosed. Furthermore, each controller/actuator for each steering device is central to that particular steering device; thus, includes a form of a central controller.
As per dependent claim 5, Turcios discloses one controller per steering device (A skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7 and Boeing 747 mention in 0047, each have steering device such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular device. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering device, such as landing gears and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know a controller is provided for each steering device) Furthermore, 0046-0047 of Hodges discloses a controller that controls the thrust reverser. Claim 10 and 18 of Hodges discloses a processor/controller that controls both engines and thrust reversers. Further, Hodges discloses aircraft has a vertical rudder/tail and nose landing gear. 0034 discloses several components such nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser, explained in Hodges, are controlled independently. One of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular device.
As per dependent claim 6, Turcios discloses wherein the aircraft data includes speed of the aircraft and/or availability data of the steering device and/or usage data of a brake of the aircraft and/or usage data of engines of the aircraft. (0035, 0049:speed)
As per dependent claim 7, Turcios discloses wherein the availability data of a steering device includes data relating to the state of the steering device and/or data relating to the cost of using the steering device (0035, 0046: steering angle)
As per dependent claim 8, Turcios et al disclose configured to communicate with a ground station (0050: connected with ATC)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art does not explicitly configured to communicate with at least one other aircraft. However, Turcios et al discloses a data link connected to the ATC (Air Traffic Control) (0050). Thus, Turcios et al discloses communications means. In addition, FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7, are equipped with radios that are typically used to communicate with other aircrafts. The use of radios on aircrafts provides the benefit of allowing pilots of aircraft to exchange information for coordinating positions and avoiding mid-air collisions.
As per independent claims 10, 11, and 15, Claims 10, 11, and 15 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Turcios discloses a medium (0007, 0040)
As per dependent claim 12, Turcios et al discloses wherein the controlling is performed automatically or manually. (FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080): providing guidance for the pilot to (manually) perform the turning/steering.)
As per dependent claim 13, Turcios et al discloses wherein the determination step wherein the determination step is performed as soon as the aircraft data and/or the external data are modified. (0055, 0059: Disclosing receiving data at any time (continuously) and updating the calculations accordingly)
As per independent claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Turcios et al discloses a system for controlling in real time a trajectory of an aircraft on a ground runway (FIG 8-11; 0064-0080), the system comprising:
a plurality of steering devices configured to steer the aircraft on the ground, the plurality of steering devices including a nose landing gear comprising at least one steerable wheel, a rudder, and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to a respective engine of the aircraft, each steering device being associated with at least one usage parameter (0064-0065: body gear and nose gear used for steering.) wherein the steering devices include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (FIG. 4; 0047, 0064-0065: nose gear landing with a wheel. Furthermore, FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747 having engines attached to the wings and also a tail. A skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts have plurality of engines, such as shown in FIG 7, which each engine is fitted with thrust reversers. In addition, a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7, have a tail in which the tail of the aircraft has a rudder.)
a communication interface (0033, receiver) configured to receive external data from a ground station, (0048, 0050: received from ATC, ATIS) the external data including runway state data comprising a coefficient of friction of the runway and ground weather data comprising a wind strength and a wind direction at the runway (0031: surface (runway) friction; 0036: wind speed (strength) and wind direction)
a calculator, the calculator being a computer storing instructions (FIG 1; 0007, 0032) and configured to receive aircraft data and external data and by executing the instructions, to: (0007, 0035-0039, 0040, 0042, 0045, 0049-0050, 0056-0057); the aircraft data including speed of the aircraft (0035, 0049:speed) and availability data of the plurality of the steering devices, the availability data indicating for each steering device whether the steering device is functioning or inoperative (0035, 0046: discloses current status; a form of functioning; steering angle)
determine, from aircraft data (0035-0038) and external data ( 0007, 0039, 0050, 0056: obtain from the pilot, database, tower control) which of the plurality of steering devices are to be used to steer the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory on the runway and, for each steering device to be used, the corresponding usage parameter (0038, 0052-0053: disclose calculation result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. These elements collectively used to form a path/trajectory to make a turn from taxiway 510 to taxiway 520 shown in FIG. 5 and 6. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show the displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements. (0054)
repeat the determination as soon as the aircraft data or the external data are modified (0055, 0059-0060, 0062-0063: calculations are continuous)
control each steering device determined to be used, in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter… so as to maintain the aircraft on the predetermined trajectory. (0053-0054; 0067- 0079: based on the inputs, calculations are made for turn data to assist the pilot making a turn onto the runway. Calculations result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show a displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements (0054) . Furthermore, as explained, 0047 discloses a Boeing 747 which contain thrust reversers and a rudder. In addition, one of a skill artisan would have understand that a rudder, when in use, is set to a given angle at any time and that thrust reversers, when in use, are set to a given power at any time as well)
Furthermore, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)). In addition, FIG 7 discloses a four engine aircraft and 0047 mentions a Boeing 747 in which understand that exemplary aircrafts each have steering device such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular means. Thus, Turcios discloses a form of one controller per steering device. However, Turcios fails to disclose the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser; the at least one usage parameter of each thrust reverser including a usage power and the at least one usage parameter of the rudder including a rudder angle; the determination including a first power for the left thrust reverser, a second power for the right thrust reverser and an angle for the rudder, and at least one controller configured to control each steering device determined to be used in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter which the at least one controller gives each (left and right) thrust receiver its own given power and gives a rudder its given angle.(… at least one controller configured to control each steering device such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle).
However, Hodges et al discloses an aircraft that having a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser. (FIG 1). Hodges discloses multiple engines on an aircraft wherein an engine is on a left side and right side of a plane. Furthermore, each engine has its own thrust reverser. (FIG. 1; 0035) Thus, Hodges discloses a left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser. Furthermore, each thrust reverser is associated with a thrust lever which control the respective thrust lever (0048, 0069-0071: thrust level to a reverse idle position to initiate a thrust reverse command to a (particular) reverse thrust or a maximum reverse thrust ). Thus, each thrust reverser, on each engine, has a level to control its thrust (form a given power). 0046-0047 discloses a controller that controls the thrust reverser. Claim 10 and 18 discloses a processor/controller that controls both engines and thrust reversers. Further, Hodges discloses aircraft has a vertical rudder/tail and nose landing gear. 0034 discloses several components such nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls (e.g. existing systems on the airplane (e.g., nose steering, nose landing gear, vertical tail/rudder, etc.) Hodges list each system separately to be large enough to maintain control on their own. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser, explained in Hodges, are controlled independently since they are listed separately and Hodges clearly states maintain control on their own (each listed system is/has maintained control on their own). One of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular device. In addition, the Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering device(s), such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know an actuator, such as in Hodges, is provided for each steering device(s) as disclosed. In addition, Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, discloses actuator of the rudder is moved to control the aircraft. Thus, a skilled artisan would have known controlling the rudder results in placing the rudder at a given angle. Thus, as evidence provided by Blanding, Hodges discloses an actuator (controller) for a rudder, an actuator (controller) for a landing gear; and an actuator (controller) for the thrust reversers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the steering device(s) of Turcios with the disclosed independent steering controls of different aircraft components for steering of Hodges since it would have provided the benefit of improvements needed to optimize airplane landing efficiencies.
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose output each steering device determined to be used and the corresponding usage parameter to at least one controller. However, Davis et al discloses a nose wheel steering system configured to 1) steer the aircraft by rotating the nose wheel of landing gear (not numbered) to a steering angle that will achieve a desired turn of aircraft by following the received defined and approved route calculated and outputted by taxi assistance algorithm (0029) and 2) set a desired nose wheel angle based on maintaining a taxiway centerline indicated by the navigation sensors. (0048). 0027 and FIG 3 discloses calculating instructions and outputting them to the system. In other words, the nose wheel steering system receives instructions from a taxi assistance algorithm on how to control/steer nose wheel and performs the instructions to control/steer nose wheel. 0024 discloses the nose wheel steering system is a control system (form of a controller) Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) receiving instructions on controlling the steering of the nose wheel based on the provided parameter. Furthermore, Davis et al discloses an engine thrust system used to control the thrust reverser. Davis discloses the engine thrust system receives instructions (and parameter) from the taxi assistance algorithm which results in actuating thrust reverser doors as necessary to assist with control of taxi speed. (0033; the actuating the doors or not is a form of a usage parameter). 0024 discloses the engine thrust system is a control system (form of a controller). In addition, Davis discloses control system may be programmed to command the thrust reverser by deploying and stowing thrust reverser. (0039: stowing is a form of usage parameter) Furthermore, 0043 discloses a/the control system controlling the thrust reverser in concert to stop the aircraft and 0006 discloses a/the control system controlling command the thrust reverser to achieve and maintain the desired taxi speed in response to receiving the request to hold taxi speed only. Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) controlling the plurality of thrust reversers. Thus, Davis et al discloses outputting instructions for each steering devices and parameter(s) for each to at least one controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the ability to control steering, such that a specific controller is the entity/system that is used to perform the steer control, as taught by Davis et al. The combination would have provided the benefit of provide aircraft taxi assistance for pilots to facilitate a smooth taxi. (0004)
However, the cited art fails to specifically the at least one controller being connected to the nose landing gear, the rudder and the plurality of thrust reversers and configured to automatically control each steering device determined to be used, in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter, such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle so as to maintain the aircraft on the predetermined trajectory. However, Daidzic discloses a TRSS system that automatically controls and adjusts thrust reverse and flight control surfaces inputs, e.g., rudder, etc., depicted as computer functionality 167. (Col 9, ll. 27-30)TRSS discloses override pilot inputs and apply optimal control inputs deemed best to protect aircraft occupants and property which includes rudder steering. (Col 20, ll. 47-49) In other words, TRSS discloses will take over the control of the aircraft and apply corrective actions (thrust, reversers, brakes, spoilers, nose-wheel steering, flight-control deployment, etc.) (Col 18, ll. 34-38) Thus, since TRSS is able to control and apply inputs to thrust reversers, nose-wheel steering, and rudder then the TRSS is viewed as a controller that is connected to each of these airplane components. For example FIG 23 and 24, Daidzic discloses the use of thrust reversers to certain power along with an amount of rudder steering used in the landing with crossroads (see depictions of the arrows showing them in use). (Col 20) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that each thrust reversers was set to a certain value of power and the rudder was set to a certain angle in order to perform the scenarios in FIG 23 and 24. Thus, as explained, Daidzic discloses the TRSS, itself, adjusts the thrust reversers AND the rudder by applying the optimal control inputs during takeoff and landings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the steering device(s) of Turicos with the disclosed cited features of Diazdic since it would have provided the benefit of a new comprehensive airplane safety system designed to take over full authority/control in all runway operations thus preventing takeoff and landing incidents and accidents and provide safety (Col 10, ll 66 – Col 11, ll. 3)
As per dependent claim 19, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)). In addition, FIG 7 discloses a four engine aircraft and 0047 mentions a Boeing 747 in which understand that exemplary aircrafts each have steering devices such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular means. Thus, Turcios discloses a form of one controller per steering device. However, Turcios fails to disclose for each steering device, a respective controller configured to control that steering device upon instruction from the central controller, the respective controllers including a thrust reverser controller configured to control the plurality of thrust reversers, and a rudder controller configured to control the rudder. However, based on the rejection of Claim 18, and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Hodges et al discloses for each steering device, a respective controller configured to control that steering device upon instruction from the central controller, the respective controllers including a thrust reverser controller configured to control the plurality of thrust reversers, and a rudder controller configured to control the rudder. (Hodges discloses a left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser. (FIG 1; 0035) Furthermore, each thrust reverser is associated with a thrust lever which control the respective thrust lever (0048, 0069-0071: thrust level to a reverse idle position to initiate a thrust reverse command to a (particular) reverse thrust or a maximum reverse thrust). Thus, each thrust reverser, on each engine, has a level to control its thrust (form a given power). 0046-0047 discloses a controller that controls the thrust reverser. Claim 10 and 18 discloses a processor/controller that controls both engines and thrust reversers. Further, Hodges discloses the aircraft has a vertical rudder/tail and nose landing gear. 0034 discloses several components such nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls (e.g. existing systems on the airplane (e.g., nose steering, nose landing gear, vertical tail/rudder, etc.) Hodges lists each system separately) to be large enough to maintain control on their own. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser, explained in Hodges, are controlled independently since they are listed separately and Hodges clearly state maintain control on their own (each listed system is has maintained control on their own). One of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular device. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering devices, such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). In addition, Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, discloses actuator of the rudder is moved to control the aircraft (e.g. steering). Thus, a skilled artisan would have known controlling the rudder results in placing the rudder at a given angle. Thus, as evidence provided by Blanding, Hodges discloses an actuator (controller) for a rudder, an actuator (controller) for a landing gear; and an actuator (controller) for the thrust reversers.)
Furthermore, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a nose landing gear controller configured to control the nose landing gear. However, based on the rejection of Claim 18 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Davis et al discloses a nose landing gear controller configured to control the nose landing gear (Davis et al discloses a nose wheel steering system configured to 1) steer the aircraft by rotating the nose wheel of landing gear (not numbered) to a steering angle that will achieve a desired turn of aircraft by following the received defined and approved route calculated and outputted by taxi assistance algorithm (0029) and 2) set a desired nose wheel angle based on maintaining a taxiway centerline indicated by the navigation sensors. (0048). 0027 and FIG 3 discloses calculating instructions and outputting them to the system. In other words, the nose wheel steering system receives instructions from a taxi assistance algorithm on how to control/steer nose wheel and performs the instructions to control/steer nose wheel. 0024 discloses the nose wheel steering system is a control system (form of a controller) Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) receiving instructions on controlling the steering of the nose wheel based on the provided parameter.) In addition, Davis teaches the respective controllers including a thrust reverser controller configured to control the plurality of thrust reversers (0006, 0039, 0043)
However, the cited art fails to disclose wherein the at least one controller includes a central controller; the central controller being configured to instruct each respective controller as a function of each steering device determined to be used and of the corresponding determined usage parameter.
However, Daidzic discloses a TRSS system that automatically controls and adjusts thrust reverse and flight control surfaces inputs, e.g., rudder, etc., depicted as computer functionality 167. (Col 9, ll. 27-30) TRSS discloses override pilot inputs and apply optimal control inputs deemed best to protect aircraft occupants and property which includes rudder steering. (Col 20, ll. 47-49) In other words, TRSS discloses will take over the control of the aircraft and apply corrective actions (thrust, reversers, brakes, spoilers, nose-wheel steering, flight-control deployment, etc.) (Col 18, ll. 34-38) Thus, since TRSS is able to control and apply inputs to thrust reversers, nose-wheel steering, and rudder then the TRSS is viewed as a controller that is connected to each of these airplane components. Thus, Daidzic discloses a central controller that controls the thrust reversers, nose-wheel steering, and rudders. Therefore, in conjunction with the cited art, particularly that each steering device has its own actuator as described by Hodges/Blanding, the combination of the cited art teaches a central controller that controls the actuators (controllers) of each of the steering devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (pg 14-18) pages with respect to claims 1, 4-13, 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 18, Applicant’s argues that a person of ordinary skill reading Hodges would be led away from deliberately operating the left and right thrust reversers so as to influence the aircraft's direction. Applicant states A reference that "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]" the claimed solution teaches away from it according to MPEP § 2141.02(VI). However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states that MPEP § 2141.02(VI) does not state “A reference that "criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]" the claimed solution teaches away from it”. However, MPEP § 2141.02(VI) clear states “However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP § 2123” Thus, MPEP § 2141.02(VI) actually the disclosure of an alternative does not teach away from other disclosure just because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Therefore, in response to applicant's argument that the reference teaches away from the invention, it is noted that a reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994) In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the
embodiment disclosed in, for example, 0033 of Hodges, is only one embodiment. This embodiment is only one EXAMPLE of all embodiments being taught and used by Hodges. Thus, one embodiment of disclosure does not apply or represent any other embodiments that may be used by Hodges regardless of the effects. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 18-19, in response to Applicant’s argument that the motivation of the combination of Turcios and Hodges is legally insufficient, the Examiner respectfully states 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). In this case, motivation for combining Hodges can be found in 0004. Thus, some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the Hodges reference itself. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On page 19, in response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner have take official notice with the skilled artisan statements, the Examiner indicates that the rejections, within the Office Action, do not state that any Official Notice has been taken. Furthermore, in the event that the Examiner did used official notice for “each steering means has "their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft's cockpit," that Hodges' nose landing gear, rudder and thrust reversers "are controlled independently," and that "controlling the rudder results in placing the rudder at a given angle”, which the Examiner does not agree to, the Examiner refers the Applicant to 2144.03. According to MPEP 2144.03(c), it states "To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art… A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the examiner's assertion of official notice would be inadequate. If applicant does not traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice or applicant's traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner's assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate. "
MPEP 2144.03 which states the Examiner must provide (documentary) evidence in the next Office action if applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice. However, Applicant has not adequately traverse the finding(s). Upon review of Applicant’s response, the Examiner has concluded that Applicant’s traverse is inadequate because Applicant provided no evidence that Applicant concluded showing each steering means has does not have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft's cockpit," that Hodges' nose landing gear, rudder and thrust reversers are not controlled independently, and that controlling the rudder does not result in placing the rudder at a given angle. Applicant’s arguments(s)(“ Applicant has explained above why cockpit pilot interfaces and per-engine thrust controllers are not a controller that controls determined steering devices in accordance with determined usage parameters” (page 19); “Even accepting that a cockpit has thrust levers, a tiller and rudder pedals, none of those is a controller "configured to control each steering device determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter"; they are pilot interfaces” (page 16), in which the Applicant provided no evidence to the Examiner showing the disclosed matter wasn’t well known in the art result in the Applicant’s argument being merely general allegations. The Examiner respectfully states providing no supportive evidence with general allegations do not "specifically pointing the supposed error, including stating why it not common knowledge". Therefore, Applicant's response is inadequate and provided an improper traversal. Thus, the subject matter of “each steering means has "their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft's cockpit," that Hodges' nose landing gear, rudder and thrust reversers "are controlled independently," and that "controlling the rudder results in placing the rudder at a given angle” stated by the Examiner is common knowledge or well-known in the art and taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
On pages 19-20, in response to Applicant’s summarized argument of using the instant application as a roadmap to combine the art is impermissible hindsight reconstruction, the Examiner respectfully states in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
Examiner's Note: Applicant added new limitations to the claims; however, failed to specifically cite from Applicant's specification where it is supported. As a result, this puts a burden on the Examiner to determine if Applicant's disclosure supports the new limitations or is viewed as new matter. It is noted that the Examiner was able to find support. MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported. If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be supported by the specification in order to meet the requirements of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2172
