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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13, 16-17 have been examined and claim 14-15 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the changes made to the claims by applicant via amendment. The rejections of claim 10, 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, from previous office action have been overcome as a result of amendment and remarks. Likewise, the rejections of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
As recited in claim 1, the sensor arrangement is used to determine a first distance (dl) between the canopy ends (52) and/or at least a second distance (d2, d3) between a canopy end (52) and the load (53). Here, as generally understood by its own definition, a distance between two points represents a length of the shortest connection between the two points.
Yoeli appears to describe rope length measurements. Applicant respectfully contends that a rope length measurement is not a distance measurement because, depending on the shape or condition of the rope, such as sag, any distance smaller than the rope length between the rope ends is also possible. Particularly, under flight situations in which the canopy ends deform, it would be extremely dangerous to keep the control lines taut (by Yoeli), as the tautness would prevent the canopy from re-erecting. However, the determination of the flight condition based on the distance recited in the claim is particularly valuable, especially under these flight situations.
Additionally, this feature is particularly relevant for the safety and life of the pilot when flying. Especially in the field of manned aircraft, it is not sufficient for safety-critical functions to work only when everything is running smoothly. In critical situations, distance measurement via rope length may not work, and incorrect evaluation of the flight condition poses a particular risk to the pilot. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully contends that the rope length measurement described in Yoeli does not anticipate an actual distance measurement, as recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 12 recites substantially similar features to independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully contends that the above remarks made with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 12.
Since Yoeli does not describe all the elements of the independent claims, either explicitly or inherently, an anticipation rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.
Additionally, Applicant respectfully contends that McCann does not remedy the above deficiency of Yoeli. For at least the above reasons, the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features recited in the independent claims. Thus, Applicant submits that the independent claims are allowable. Applicant further submits that the dependent claims are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on the independent claims, and for the additional features recited. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a distance between two points represents a length of the shortest connection between the two points) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Yoeli measures rope or strap length rather than an actual distance, asserting that rope length may differ from distance due to sag, deformation, or safety considerations. Applicant further contends that distance should be interpreted as the shortest connection between two points.
Under MPEP, claims are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. Claim 1 (or claim 12) does not define “distance” as a straight-line distance, does not exclude distance determination via a physical connecting element, and dose not require particular measurement technique or operating condition.
Yoeli discloses cables or straps that physically connect the canopy/parawing to the load body. The measured or estimated length of such cables represents a distance between the canopy end and the load under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “distance”. The fact that a cable may experience sag or compliance during operation does not negate that the cable length defines the separation between the connected structures. Applicant’s argument regarding sag, danger, canopy deformation, and safety critical operation are not recited in the claim and therefore do not limit the claim scope. Alleged disadvantages or failures modes of the prior art do not overcome anticipation unless the claim affirmatively excludes the prior art structure or operation. Additionally, Yoeli explicitly discloses sensors for measuring cable extension/retraction length and a control unit that use such measurements to evaluate and control flight conditions. Thus Yoeli discloses both the claimed distance measurement and the claimed use of that measurement in flight state determination.
In other words, Claim 1 and 12 broadly recites “a distance between a canopy end and the load” without specifying the manner in which the distance is determined, without excluding distance determination via a physical connecting element, and without requiring a straight line or non-compliant measurement. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Yoeli’s measurement and/or estimation of cable/strap length extending between the canopy and the load reasonably satisfies this limitation.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 and 12 is maintained.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-13,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoeli (US 2020/0115046).
As per claim 1, Yoeli shows a flight state system for ascertaining a flight state of a paraglider comprising a canopy having two canopy ends and carrying a load in intended use (Para 5,27; Fig. 1-4), the flight state system comprising:
a sensor arrangement (1008,156) for ascertaining a first distance between the canopy ends and/or at least a second distance between a canopy end and the load [Yoeli discloses a sensor arrangement comprising sensor (e.g. sensors unit 1008, sensors 158) configured to ascertain at least one of cable extension/retraction length, cable angular orientation, and cable tension of cable/straps connecting the canopy/parawing to the load body (Para 5,27,29,35). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the measured or estimated length of a cable or strap extending between a canopy end and a load constitutes a distance between the canopy end and the load, as the cable physically connects the two structures and defines their spatial separation. Yoeli therefore discloses ascertaining at least a second distance between a canopy end and the load]), and
an evaluation unit (1000,1006,150,156) which ascertains the flight state using the first distance and/or the second distances (Para 5,27-30,35-36; Fig. 1-4) [Yoeli discloses an evaluation/control unit (control unit 156, controller 1006) configured to receive sensor signals corresponding to the ascertained distance information and to determine and control the flight state of the airborne system based on such information (Para 27, 35-36)].
As per claim 2, Yoeli shows the sensor arrangement (1008,156) comprises a number of distance sensors (1008,156) which are arranged in the an area of the load and/or in the area of at least one canopy end (Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 3, Yoeli shows the sensor arrangement comprises one or more of the following sensors: Accelerometer, Gyroscope, Magnetometer, Barometer, GPS sensor, dynamic pressure sensor (Para 33,35-36).
As per claim 9, Yoeli shows a control unit (1000,1006,150,156) controlling a motor and/or a release of a rescue parachute based on the flight state and/or a prediction (Para 5,27,29,32,34).
As per claim 10, Yoeli shows interfaces for receiving sensor data of a sensor arrangement, the sensor data comprising in particular a first distance between canopy ends and/or at least a second distance between a canopy end and a load, an evaluation unit (1000,1006,150,156) which ascertains and/or predicts the flight state, preferably using the first distance and/or the second distances, and optionally a control unit that controls a motor and/or a release of a rescue parachute based on the flight state and/or a prediction (Para 5,27-30,35-36; Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 11, Yoeli shows a paraglider comprising the flight state system (Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 12, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As per claim 13, Yoeli shows predicting a future flight state (Para 5,27-30,35-36; Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 16, Yoeli shows a paraglider comprising the evaluation system and/or control system (Fig. 1-4).
As per claim 17, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 9; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689