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 Rajan et al. (US 11,535,379) in view of Joao (US 2002/0121969).
Regarding claim 14, Rajan et al. (hereinafter Rajan) 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 (a processor continuously receives values from the inclination sensor, obstacle sensor and speed sensor, and compares them to a set of value limits, either predefined or defined by sets of functions relating to sensor values to each other and/or to at status of the service cart set by a crew member; for example, a crew member may set the current state of the service part as “stowed” (col. 5 lines 20-25), which is an indication of what flight phase the aircraft is in); and wherein the flight phase detection controller is arranged to adjust operation of the at least one galley insert appliance depending on the flight phase of the aircraft. Rajan teaches that during operation of the service cart (for example, not during take-off or landing) the brakes are actuated based on the received values from the sensors (col. 5 lines 11-39).
Rajan teaches the use of an inclination sensor and a speed sensor (col. 5 lines 20-25) but 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 Rajan 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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 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.
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