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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “an interface” on page 3 should be “the interface”; “a pilot” at page 3, should be “the pilot”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because the limitation “until it” should be amended to make the corresponding change in claim 1, i.e. “until the passive engine(s)”. The Applicant should take care to make corrections identified in the original claims to the new claims. Claim 15, the limitation “without it supplying mechanical” should be “without the passive engine(s)”.
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 1-7, 10-11, 15-22 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 claim 1, the limitation “safety limitations” and “functional limitations” render the claims indefinite because its unclear what actually constitutes a safety limitation or a functional limitation. The specification states that the safety limitations are those parameters that have a direct effect on keeping the aircraft airborne and functional limitations effect the operation of the aircraft or the effectiveness of the economy operating mode. While the specification provides examples of safety and functional limitations, it is unclear what exactly constitutes each limitation. The specification states for example that lack of visibility may or may not be a safety or functional limitation. See para. [0104]. The specification further provides “[o]perational limitations may comprise the state of equipment of the aircraft 1, whether this equipment is hydraulic or electrical… [the] operational limitation is, for example respected when an item of equipment is in a normal or nominal operating state and not respected when it is damaged or has failed. Depending on the equipment, such a limitation may be a functional and safety limitation.” See para. [0105]. While the claims present a definition that the safety limitations have a direct effect on the safety of the flight and the functional limitations having an effect on the operation of the aircraft and/or on the effectiveness of the economy operating mode, the specification describes that some limitations may be either safety or functional limitations. The specification does not appear to describe a metric so as to apprise an ordinary skilled worker of the metes and bounds of the claim as to when a particular limitation transitions from a safety limitation to a functional limitation or vice versa. Thus, its unclear what the scope of each limitation requires. Claims 15 and 22, recites the same limitations.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “margins relating to performances of the heat engine” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what is required by these margins. Referring to para. [0045], the Applicant states that the margins may be the available power, internal temperatures of the heat engines” but it is unclear what is included in margins relating to the performances of the heat engines. It is further unclear because the internal temperatures are claimed in addition to the margins. Further regarding claim 6, the limitation “engine counters… counting an item of usage” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what is being recited by the limitation. Referring to para. [0045], the specification recites that engine counter includes transmission counters as the exemplary mode, however, the transmission counter is subsequently claimed. Thus, it is unclear what the scope of the recitation is intended to require. Additionally regarding claim 6, the limitation “an altitude… a height in relation to the overflow ground” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to AGL or ASL and if AGL, how the recitation differs from the claimed height. Claim 20 contains the same limitation.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the same operating parameter” now renders the claim indefinite as it depends on amended claim 1 incorporating the subject matter of previous claim 9, because its is unclear if the same operating parameter is the same as that claimed in claim 1 amended or not.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 15-22 would otherwise be allowed pending resolution of the issues identified above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent claims 1, 15 and 22 adopt previously allowed subject matter of claims 9-10 and are allowable for those reasons notwithstanding the issues identified above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there are definitions in the claims for safety and functional limitations. The Examiner does note that the Applicant defines the safety and functional limitations as identified above; however, a review of the specification indicates that operational limitations can be both depending on circumstances. However, the specification does not appear to provide a metric as to when the operational limitation transitions from a safety limitation to a functional limitation and vice versa. Since the claim requires control of the engine based on whether a functional limitation or a safety limitation is respected, the control becomes unclear because its unclear what exactly constitutes the safety or functional limitation since the operational limitation can be both. As noted above, visibility or equipment function can be both functional or a safety limitation but the specification doesn’t provide the criteria for when these operational limitations become a safety or a functional limitation. Thus, its unclear if an ordinary skilled worker provides control based on visibility or equipment condition, whether or not the system would infringe the claims if an alert is issued, or economy mode is disengaged, etc. The Applicant may rebut such initial rejection by indicating the metric on which these limitations become safety or functional limitations or amend the claim to provide the safety or functional limitations; however, the mere definition of the term as claimed does not appear to be sufficient since the specification indicates that the same operational limitation can be both.
With regard to claim 6, the Applicant appears to be arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the various performance margins of a heat engine and the counters used with the engines and that the specification provides the margins and the counters. However, the issue with the claim is that the specification describes the margins and counters by providing examples, for instance a transmission counter. The claim recites both the generic term and the specified instances of the margins and counters where if the claim recites what the specification defines as the margins and the counters, its unclear what else is being recited by that term. Additionally, the Applicant states that the term “altitude” means AGL. First, the Applicant is importing a limitation into the claims which should be positively amended. Next the Applicant recites in the claim an altitude which the Applicant asserts is AGL and a height above overflown ground which appears to be the definition of AGL. Thus, as noted in the office action, its unclear what the difference between the two terms are.
The issues identified above share a common characteristic where it appears that limitations are recited in generic terms and the specific terms they are disclosed to be. An interview would likely expedite prosecution.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights