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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a-d) with reference to Application Number: EP22174270 filed on 05/19/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
Claim Interpretation
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: “electric power storage device” in claims 1 - 20.
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 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 2 – 8 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.
Regarding claims 2 - 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Limitations reciting “in particular” will be treated as optional, and therefore not required, for the purposes of examination.
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, 3 – 5, 7 -8, 10, 12, 14 – 16, and 18 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose (US 20170304661) in view of Rittner (US 8261744).
1. Klose discloses an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device (10, see [0027, 0029], Fig. 1, Fig. 3), comprising: an oxygen source for supplying oxygen gas (6, see [0028]); a backup electric power supply system, comprising at least one electric power storage device (battery 2, which energizes the supply device even if the external power supply fails, see [0034]; the system may additionally be interpreted to include wiring extending from the battery 2 as shown in Fig. 1, e.g. between 2 and 7 and between 2 and 1) with an electric storage capacity sufficient to effect deployment of at least one oxygen mask (see [0034]); and a controller for controlling the operation of the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device (controller(s) 1 and/or 5, see [0032]); wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device is electrically connectable to an aircraft electric power supply system for being supplied with electric power provided by the aircraft electric power supply system (connectable to power line PL, see [0034], claim 3); wherein the at least one electric power storage device is chargeable by electric power provided by the aircraft electric power supply system (see [0034], claim 3); and wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device is operational with electric power provided by the backup electric power supply system (battery 2 energizes the supply device even if the external power supply fails, see [0034]).
However, Klose dose not disclose the aircraft oxygen supply device comprising a chemical oxygen generator with an electric activator; the electric power storage device with an electric storage capacity sufficient to effect deployment of at least one oxygen mask and to operate the electric activator. Nonetheless, Rittner discloses an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device (100) comprising a chemical oxygen generator (10, see c. 10: 24 – 31) with an electric activator (10a, c. 10: 24 – 31); and, an electric power storage device (71, see c. 10: 54 – 56) with an electric storage capacity sufficient to effect deployment of at least one oxygen mask and to operate the electric activator (c. 10: 54 – 61; see also c. 10: 23 – 54 for general discussion of how the self-sustaining oxygen supply device maintains powers to all components to start oxygen flow and release the oxygen masks to passengers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electric power storage device and chemical oxygen generator of Klose with power sufficient to operate an electric activator to the chemical oxygen generator, as taught in Rittner, for the benefit of enabling mask deployment in a simple manner requiring no action on behalf of the passenger. The modification may serve as a safety measure ensuring the delivery of oxygen in the event of an incapacitated or disabled passenger during an emergency scenario.
3. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device has a power supply input terminal for receiving electric power from the aircraft electric power supply system (7, see [0034]); and wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device has at least one activation input terminal for receiving an activation signal activating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device (8, see [0029], [0032]; activation may be interpreted to additionally include testing/powering device operability, see [0036, 0037]; it is noted that the cockpit generated activation signal is a remote signal received at the microcontroller via line 8) wherein the activation input terminal is in particular provided separately and independently from the power supply input terminal (see Fig. 1).
4. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 3, wherein the activation input terminal is configured for receiving the activation signal via at least one of a wired connection or via a wireless connection (see Fig. 1, line DL).
5. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, further comprising an electric charge sensor for determining a current charging state of the at least one electric power storage device, wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device comprises in particular a charge indicator device for indicating the current charging state of the at least one electric power storage device (see [0038]).
7. The modified Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, wherein the electric activator is configured for starting the supply of oxygen gas from the oxygen gas storage device (see Rittner, c. 10: 23 – 31); and a gas supply controller for controlling the supply of oxygen gas from the oxygen storage device to at least one oxygen mask (see Rittner, controller 50 and valve 20); wherein electric storage capacity is sufficient to effect deployment of the at least one oxygen mask, to operate the electric activator, and to operate the gas supply controller (see Rittner, c. 10: 54 – 61).
8. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one activation sensor, for providing an activation signal activating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device (3, see [0032]).
10. Klose discloses an aircraft comprising: an aircraft electric power supply system; and at least one aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, which is coupled to the aircraft electric power supply system (see Fig. 3, Fig. 1).
12. Klose discloses the method of operating an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, which is installed in an aircraft comprising an aircraft electric power supply system, wherein the method includes: charging the at least one electric power storage device of the backup electric power supply system with power supplied from the aircraft electric power supply system; and during flight of the aircraft, holding power for the operation of the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device available in the at least one electric power storage device (see [0034]).
14. Klose discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the method includes receiving an activation signal and activating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device upon receipt of said activation signal (8, see [0029], [0032]; activation may be interpreted to additionally include testing/powering device operability, see [0036, 0037]; it is noted that the cockpit generated activation signal is a remote signal received at the microcontroller via line 8); and/or wherein the method includes checking the current charging state of the at least one electric power storage device and providing a status signal, indicative of the current charging state, to the aircraft crew and/or to an aircraft control system [0038].
15. Klose discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein said charging of the at least one electric power storage device of the backup electric power supply system with power supplied from the aircraft electric power supply system takes place when the aircraft is on the ground (see [0034], because the backup power covers an entire flight leg, the charging must take place while the aircraft is on ground).
16. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 3, wherein the activation input terminal is provided separately and independently from the power supply input terminal (see Fig. 1, input 7 versus input 8).
18. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one activation sensor comprises at least one air pressure sensor (3, [0032]).
19. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one activation sensor is coupled to and arranged within the controller (the controller is considered to include units 3, 4, and 5, see [0032]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Elliot (US 20150175104) in view of Mueller (US 20140309811).
2. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device is operational with electric DC power having a voltage in the range of between 15 V and 35 V, in particular a voltage in the range of between 20 and 30 V, more in particular having a voltage in the range of between 27.5 and 28.5 V. Elliot discloses an energy storage device powering an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device, wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device is operational with electric DC power, see [0012 – 0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the power supply of Klose according to DC supply as disclosed by Elliot for the benefit of improved power storage and functioning of electronics found in the passenger service unit.
However, the modified Klose in view of Elliot does not disclose a voltage in the range of between 15 V and 35 V. Nonetheless, Mueller discloses that an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device is operational at 28 V, see [0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Klose in view of Elliot to allow for operability of the emergency device at 28V as taught in Mueller for the benefit of a voltage accesible via the service bus, allowing for appropriate energizing and step-down within the passenger service unit. It is additionally noted that the airplane service bus typically provides power as DC.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Rittner (US 20130180522; hereinafter “Rittner2”).
9. Klose discloses the passenger service unit, comprising an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1 but does not disclose at least one of a reading light, a gasper, a loudspeaker, a switchable visual sign and an electric switch for switching the at least one reading light and/or for triggering a signal for calling cabin service personnel. Rittner2 discloses an aircraft emergency oxygen supply device further comprising at least one of a reading light, a gasper, a loudspeaker, a switchable visual sign and an electric switch for switching the at least one reading light and/or for triggering a signal for calling cabin service personnel see [0003, 0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the emergency device of Klose to include the reading light or gasper of Rittner2 for the benefit of providing such amenities to the passenger in conjunction with the emergency device already powered overhead the passenger.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Klockiewicz (EP 3556437).
11. Klose discloses the aircraft according to claim 10, further comprising a manual activation signal coupled to the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device for selectively providing an activation signal to the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device (8, see [0029], [0032]; activation may be interpreted to additionally include testing/powering device operability, see [0036, 0037]; it is noted that the cockpit generated activation signal is a remote signal received at the microcontroller via line 8).
However, to provide the activation signal, Klose does not explicitly disclose at least one activation switch. However, Klockiewicz discloses an activation switch, see [0010]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to generate the activation signal of Klose, e.g. the manual signal emanating from the cockpit, via an activation switch for the benefit of reliably activating the emergency device using the readily available, cost-effective, electromechanical component.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Feroy (US 20210299483).
13. Klose discloses the method according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the method further includes: in an emergency situation, operating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device with electric power supplied by the aircraft electric power supply system, in case sufficient electric power is supplied by the aircraft electric power supply system; and in an emergency situation, operating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device using electric power supplied by the backup electric power supply system, in case sufficient electric power is not supplied by the aircraft electric power supply system. However, Feroy discloses an emergency oxygen supply device that is controlled by primary power or secondary/auxiliary battery power (see [0028]), and in an emergency situation, operating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device with electric power supplied by the aircraft electric power supply system, in case sufficient electric power is supplied by the aircraft electric power supply system ([0028] discloses that the emergency oxygen is operated by primary power, and would further require the secondary/auxiliary power “if a primary loss of electrical power occurs”; thus, the system operates under the primary electrical system, and then moves to operation under the secondary/auxiliary electrical system when the primary system loses electrical power); and in an emergency situation, operating the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device using electric power supplied by the backup electric power supply system, in case sufficient electric power is not supplied by the aircraft electric power supply system ([0028] discloses that the emergency oxygen is operated by primary power, and would further require the secondary/auxiliary power “if a primary loss of electrical power occurs”; thus, the system operates under the primary electrical system, and then moves to operation under the secondary/auxiliary electrical system when the primary system loses electrical power). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Klose according to the primary/backup power as disclosed in Feroy for the benefit of providing the backup power upon primary loss of electrical power as typical in the art. Such method allows for full powering of the emergency power device and its associated passenger service unit, and saves valuable life-saving backup power for when it is absolutely necessary. Examiner notes that while primary and backup electrical components add weight, such components already exist in Klose.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Laib (US 20070068520).
6. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 5, wherein the backup electric power supply system is configured for issuing at least one of an electric status signal, visual status signal, or an acoustic status signal, indicative of the current charging state of the at least one electric power storage device (see [0038]). Klose does not explicitly disclose wherein the backup electric power supply system is configured for issuing at least one of an electric status symbol, visual status symbol and/or acoustic alarm signal, in case the current charging state of the at least one electric power storage device is below a predefined threshold. Nonetheless, Laib discloses a issuing at least one of an electric status symbol, visual status symbol and/or acoustic alarm signal, in case state of the at least one device is below a predefined threshold, see [0046, 0050]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery of Klose according to the threshold alarm of Laib for the benefit of notifying personnel when the battery is about to run out of charge, or is at an unsafe/insufficient level.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Hollm (US 20140000591).
17. Klose as modified by Rittner discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 1. Rittner discloses wherein the electronic actuator is an electric actuator configured for starting a chemical reaction within the chemical oxygen generator after it has been electrically triggered, see c. 10: 23 – 31. However, Rittner does not disclose that the electric actuator is a pyroelectric actuator. Nonetheless, Hollm discloses wherein the electronic actuator is a pyroelectric actuator configured for starting a chemical reaction within the chemical oxygen generator after it has been electrically triggered [0038]. Therefore, according to the teachings of Hollm, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electric actuator of Klose in view of Rittner to be a pyroelectric activator because such activator provide the predictable result of converting an electrical signal into a thermal output known to initiate the generation of oxygen from a chemical generator.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klose in view of Rittner in view of Budinger (US 4970897).
20. Klose discloses the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device according to claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply device comprises a charge indicator device for indicating the current charging state of the at least one electric power storage device (see Klose, [0038]). Budinger discloses a breathable gas device comprising an indicator device for indicating the current time state of the at least one storage device, see c. 1: 17 – 26. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery current charging state signal of Klose to include an indicator device as taught in Budinger for the benefit of appropriately communicating the charge status of battery to aircraft personnel, thus forewarning and avoiding any potential danger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and dependents therein have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hollm, referenced above, discloses a chemical oxygen generator having both mechanical and electrical components.
US 20100000526 – discloses a chemical oxygen generator having both mechanical and electrical components.
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 BRADLEY H PHILIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-5180. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights