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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 22 December 2023 and 29 May 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 22 December 2023.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected Invention II, as described below in the Restriction Requirement presented, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The election was made without traverse in a telephonic interview with Applicant’s representative, Alan Koenck, on 20 November 2025.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. § 121:
Invention I – Claims 1-14, drawn to a bulkhead for an air data probe, classified in G01P5/165.
Invention II – Claims 15-20, drawn to an air data probe, classified in G01P13/025.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that,
(1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and
(2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the bulkhead of claim 15 (i.e., the combination) does not require, e.g., the plurality of channels formed between a plurality of walls and a first pad in order to receive a wire heater as in claim 1 (i.e., the subcombination). Furthermore, the subcombination has separate utility such as forming a plurality of channels between a plurality of walls and a first pad in order to receive a wire heater.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Separate Classification thereof;
A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together; and/or
A different field of search.
In the instant case, the Inventions have separate classifications, as noted above. Furthermore, the materially different functions noted above would require a different field of search by employing different search queries.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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.
Re claim 1, Applicant recites the elements, “upstream portion”, “upstream end”, and “downstream end”, which, in light of the Specification, are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. In particular, such limitation 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 its scope. More specifically, while it is generally understood what a portion or end of a whole piece is, in the context of a directional term, absent a limiting factor, there does not seem to a distinct scope to such limitations. For example, is the “end” the point at which the bulkhead element stops or is it describing an area towards such direction as insinuated by the limitation “plurality of thermocouple wells positioned in a downstream end of the downstream portion…”. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms overlap in scope, thus creating ambiguity. In an effort to create compact prosecution, the Examiner points the Applicant to withdrawn claim 15 as a suggestion, which appears to define, at least the “portion(s)”, by the size of their respective diameters. Defining language would also need to be included limiting the “ends” to their intended scope.
Re claims 2-14, Applicant recites limitations, respectively dependent from claim 1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 2-14 are rejected based at least upon the same reasons applied to claim 1.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
EP4478054A1, Van Bemden et al. – multi-function air data probe with raised portions extending radially to generate pressure differences
US20220120780, Anderson et al. – multi-function air data probe with protruding flow stability structures extending radially to smooth air flow
US20200141964, Marty et al. – pitot probe having a helical groove configured to house a heating element
US20190227094, Golly et al. – air data probe with a radially extending exterior groove
US20190202576, Golly et al. – air data probe with a bulkhead for holding a thermocouple
US20190186974, Golly et al. – air data probe using a sleeve with a radial groove for a heating element and integrated water dams or bulkheads
US10126320B2, Anderson et al. – air data probe using dams for blocking water droplets or ice crystals
US20160266164, Ellison – air data sensor using radially extending blisters
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 appear to contain subject matter that is not disclosed, taught, or otherwise rendered obvious by the closest prior art of record noted directly above. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose the particular combination of radially extending walls, pad, and channels as claimed in claim 1.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855