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 § 103
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panjer (EP 4 537 717) in view of Joao (US 2002/0121969).
Regarding claim 14, Panjer teaches a flight phase detection system for at least one galley insert appliance in an aircraft galley insert, the flight phase detection system comprising: a flight phase detection controller for one or more galley insert appliances [0029]; and wherein the flight phase detection controller is arranged to adjust operation of the at least one galley insert appliance depending on the detected flight phase of the aircraft [0029]. Panjer teaches that a dispensing head for a beverage container is not allowed to dispense until the latching mechanism is closed [0043-0044]. Panjer also teaches that the latching mechanism is controlled based on a few scenarios, including take-off and landing [0056].
Panjer remains silent as to wherein the flight phase detection controller receives an input from a gyroscopic sensor and evaluates the input from the gyroscopic sensor to detect a flight phase of an aircraft.
Joao teaches a monitoring apparatus for an aircraft that uses a gyroscopic sensor to determine a flight phase of an aircraft [0419].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a gyroscopic sensor, like Joao, in the system of Panjer to determine the flight phase of the aircraft, as they are well-known sensors used in aircraft to determine flight phases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, and 8-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the aircraft angle compensation controller is configured to alter at least one of the angle or the position of the liquid level sensor in response to the input from the gyroscopic sensor” in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1.
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.”
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-7, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims has been withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights