DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In claim 9, the recitation of “a computer within the housing” renders the claim indefinite, as claim 8, from which it depends, already recites “an airdata computer contained within the housing”. This appears to be a double recitation of a computer, as it appears from the disclosure that applicant does not intend to recite two computers. This must be amended to clarify whether applicant intends to claim the computer twice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cronin et al. (US 6,609,421, hereafter Cronin)
With respect to claim 1, Cronin teaches a sensor (14, 16, 18) configured for use with an aircraft, the sensor comprising: a probe portion (14A, 16A, 18A) configured to extend outward of an outer surface of the aircraft, the probe portion including: a distal end formed by a probe (14A, 16A, 18A) on a first side of the sensor; and an interior portion (14D, 16D, 18D) configured to extend within the outer surface of the aircraft, the interior portion including: a proximal end having an electrical connector on a second side of the sensor, the second side being opposite the first side. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Note that although the claims recites a vertical takeoff and landing capable aircraft, there is no positive claim of any particular VTOL characteristics and therefore this is considered to be an intended use which the sensors of Cronin are capable of performing.
With respect to claim 2, Cronin taches a housing (14D, 16D, 18D) between the electrical connector and a flange of the probe portion; and an airdata computer within the housing. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 3, Cronin teaches the probe portion includes a pitot port. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 4, Cronin teaches the probe portion includes a static pressure port. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2)
` With respect to claim 5, Cronin teaches a housing (14D, 16D, 18D) that contains an airdata computer, the housing having a proximal side, a lateral side, and a distal side, the electrical connector formed on proximal side. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Note that although Cronin does not explicitly discuss the location of the electrical connector, it must be located on one of the sides and that side could then be called the proximal side.
With respect to claim 6, Cronin teaches the housing is configured to extend within an interior space of the aircraft when the sensor is installed with the probe portion outside of the aircraft, such that the lateral side faces insulation or an interior wall of the aircraft. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Note again that Cronin does not explicitly discuss the arrangement of the housing, however at least one side must generally face an interior wall of the aircraft and this side could be called the lateral side.
With respect to claim 8, Cronin teaches a sensor (14, 16, 18) comprising: a probe portion (14A, 16A, 18A) configured to protrude outside of an aircraft; a housing (14D, 16D, 18D) configured to extend within a housing of the aircraft; a flange connecting the probe portion to the housing; a distal end formed by the probe portion; an airdata computer contained within the housing, the housing having a proximal side and a distal side; and an electrical connector at the proximal side or the distal side of the housing. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Note that although Cronin does not explicitly discuss the location of the electrical connector, it must be located on one of the sides and that side could then be called the proximal side or the distal side.
With respect to claim 9, Cronin teaches a computer within the housing, the electrical connector configured to connect wiring such that the wiring is in electrical communication with the computer. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 10, Cronin teaches a circuit board within the housing and connected between wiring and the computer. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 11, Cronin teaches an aircraft (10), comprising: an outer surface; a sensor (14, 16, 18) including: a probe portion (14A, 16A, 18A) that extends outward of the outer surface of the aircraft, the probe portion including: a distal end formed by a probe; and an interior portion (14D, 16D, 18D) extending inside the outer surface of the aircraft, the interior portion including: a housing; and an electrical connector on a proximal side or a distal side of the housing; and wiring extending from the electrical connector. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Note that although Cronin does not explicitly discuss the location of the electrical connector, it must be located on one of the sides and that side could then be called the proximal side or the distal side.
With respect to claim 13, Cronin teaches a gap formed between the outer surface and material within the aircraft, the interior portion of the sensor being secured within the gap. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Note that although Cronin does not explicitly teach the arrangement, any location of the sensor would be between the outer surface and other material within the aircraft and therefore this space would be considered to be the claimed gap.
With respect to claim 15, Cronin teaches the material includes an interior wall or insulation. Note that the interior portion of the sensor generally faces all of the interior walls of the aircraft.
With respect to claim 17, Cronin teaches a computer connected to the wiring and provided within the housing. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2)
With respect to claim 18, Cronin teaches a bottom side of the housing faces an interior wall or insulation of the aircraft. Note that the housing generally faces an interior wall of the aircraft on all sides.
With respect to claim 19, Cronin teaches the bottom side is free of an electrical connector. Note that although Cronin does not explicitly discuss the location of the electrical connector, the housing generally has at least one side which is free of an electrical connector and this could be called the bottom side.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cronin.
With respect to claim 7, Cronin teaches a flange that bridges the probe portion and the interior portion. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Although Cronin does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the housing, as measured from the lateral side to the flange, is less than about 4.0 inches, the optimal housing width would be dependent upon the size of the individual components and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the width as a design choice.
With respect to claim 12, Cronin teaches the probe portion defines a longitudinal axis that extends substantially parallel to the outer surface of the aircraft. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2). Although Cronin does not explicitly teach the location of the electrical connector, the electrical connector could be located on any external surface and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the electrical connector in a direction that is substantially parallel to the outer surface of the aircraft in order to orient the wires in a preferred direction according to a design choice.
With respect to claim 14, although Cronin does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the gap is about 4.0 inches, the optimal housing width would be dependent upon the size of the individual components and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the width as a design choice.
With respect to claim 16, although Cronin does not explicitly teach the location of the electrical connector, the electrical connector could be located on any external surface and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the electrical connector in a direction that is substantially parallel to the outer surface of the aircraft in order to orient the wires in a preferred direction according to a design choice
With respect to claim 20, Cronin teaches a flange that bridges the probe portion and the interior portion. (col. 4, lines 23-59, Figs. 1-2) Although Cronin does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the housing, as measured from the lateral side to the flange, is less than about 4.0 inches, the optimal housing width would be dependent upon the size of the individual components and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the width as a design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 01/67115; US 6,452,542; US 6,557,243; US 8,256,284; US 9,842,439 and US 11,548,662 each teach aircraft having sensors with similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853