DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
This is a special situation. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The IDS (as well as the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, hereafter WOISA) cites a YouTube video regarding a Belite angle of attack sensor; however, applicant’s “copy” thereof is what appears to be a Belite Instruments catalogue which has the angle of attack sensor listed. In contrast, the citation from the WOISA, which is presumably where applicant first received this reference, is a screen shot of the YouTube video (with provided annotations). Since this image / proper copy is present on the record in the WOISA, the examiner holds the IDS “considered”. For the purposes of examination, when the examiner refers to this reference as prior art via IDS, the follow image (reproduced by the examiner based on the image in the WOISA) will be relied upon (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 below). To prevent degraded quality from copying the image of the WOISA, the examiner directly accessed the YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf0lKX6mDiM) on 12/03/2025. The prior art date of this reference, as cited in the WOISA, is 02/02/2015. When the video was accessed by the examiner (on 12/03/2025), the posting date of the video read “10 years ago”.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1: 01/03/2024 IDS - NPL 3 (YouTube video citation), reproduced by the examiner based on the English translation of the ISA written opinion - hereafter referred to as “Belite”
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. There are no drawings filed as such in this application. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, the figures of the “Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application” will be relied upon. In the spirit of compact prosecution, the examiner notes that it appears the aforementioned figures fail to show the claimed heater(s). Also see the 112b rejection below of claims 10-11.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9: “a deflector device for heating” should read “a deflector heating device for heating”. The examiner, based on claim 10’s recitation of “the deflector heating device” and claim 10’s dependency on claim 9, concludes that the recitation of “a deflector device” in claim 9 is merely a typographical error which should be “a deflector heating device”.Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 10-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6: This claim recites “wherein said at least one deflector is spaced from the base by a distance of between 1% and 100% of a height of the wind vane, according to an axis perpendicular to a direction of the flow”. As set forth above, there are no drawings in the instant application and, as such, the examiner references the figures of the “Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application”. The height, as claimed, of the vane varies over its length. As such it is unclear where said “height” is measured.
Regarding claims 10-11: It is unclear what is meant by “wherein the deflector heating device is associated with a sensor heating device” and “wherein the deflector heating device is associated with the sensor heating device by thermal conduction”. It is unclear if there is one deflector heating device in addition to a separate sensor heating device, if there is only one sensor heating device which also heats the deflector by thermal conduction, etc. It is also unclear what is meant by “is associated with” in the context of these claims. This lack of clarity is based not only on the claims but on the instant specification and “drawings” (i.e., the figures of the “Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application”). The heaters are not shown or labeled. The instant specification provides no further clarification. The instant specification and original claims refer to heating “means”. The instant specification recites “Furthermore, this sensor can also be associated with means for heating at least one of this or these deflector(s). In fact, these reheating means for the deflector are associated with the reheating means for the sensor in a general way, these reheating means for the sensor and deflector, then being associated, for example, by thermal conduction.” This is insufficient to provide the clarity required. For the purposes of examination, claims 9-10 are interpreted as being read upon by either one or multiple heaters for the deflector and/or the sensor as long as said heater(s) provide heating, directly or indirectly, for the deflector and “sensor body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belite (“Angle of attack gauge, fuel sensor and fuel gauge, Belite Aircraft Instruments”, prior art of record via IDS and WOISA - also see “Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1” above).Regarding claim 1:Belite teaches (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above) an angle-of-attack sensor, in particular for an aircraft, of the type comprising
a sensor body (“BODY”) on which a wind vane (“WIND VANE”) is mounted movable in rotation by a flow (inherent to function as an angle of attack sensor), wherein the wind vane includes at least one deflector (“DEFLECTOR”) extending from a leading edge of this wind vane over at least part of an intrados and/or extrados thereof (the deflector extends from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wind vane and is over both the intrados and extrados)
Regarding claim 2:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein the wind vane includes at least one deflector on its intrados and on its extrados (the deflector extends from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wind vane and is over both the intrados and extrados; the examiner also notes that intrados and extrados are references to a curvature and, viewing the annotated figure, it is clear that the deflector spans the entirety of the “WIND VANE”’s curvature)
Regarding claim 3:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein said at least one deflector (“DEFLECTOR”) extends over all or part of a chord of the wind vane (“WIND VANE”)
Regarding claim 4:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein said at least one deflector (“DEFLECTOR”) is perpendicular to a plane of symmetry of the wind vane (“WIND VANE”)
Regarding claim 5:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein the sensor body (“BODY”) includes a base (surface of “BODY” to which the “WIND VANE” is mounted) on which the wind vane is mounted, said at least one deflector (“DEFLECTOR”) being spaced from the base
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Belite (“Angle of attack gauge, fuel sensor and fuel gauge, Belite Aircraft Instruments”, prior art of record via IDS and WOISA - also see “Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1” above).Regarding claim 6, as best understood, (see 112b rejection above):Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches or renders obvious (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein said at least one deflector (“DEFLECTOR”) is spaced from the base (surface of “BODY” to which the “WIND VANE” is mounted) by a distance of between 1% and 100% of a height of the wind vane (“WIND VANE”), according to an axis perpendicular to a direction of the flow
This rejection is made as a 102/103 rejection instead of a 102 rejection since: 1) the “height” referenced by claim 6 is unclear (see 112b rejection above); and 2) the reference is a picture without explicit dimensions. The examiner notes that a physical photo / video snapshot may be relied on more so than drawings (which might not be to scale) for physical dimensions. The range recited in the claim is extremely broad. Viewing the photo (Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above), it is clear that the deflector is spaced by at least 1% of even the maximal height of the wind vane. It is even more clear that the deflector is spaced by at least 1% of a minimal height of the wind vane. The examiner holds that analysis of the photo either teaches or is so close as to render obvious the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 7:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches or renders obvious (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein a thickness of said at least one deflector (“DEFLECTOR”) according to an axis perpendicular to a direction of the flow is less than 30% of its length thereof, according to the direction of the flow
This rejection is made as a 102/103 rejection instead of a 102 rejection since the citation of the prior art is a photo without explicit dimensions. The examiner notes that a physical photo / video snapshot may be relied on more so than drawings (which might not be to scale) for physical dimensions. The deflector’s thickness is extremely small relative to its length. The examiner holds that analysis of the photo either teaches or is so close as to render obvious the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite also teaches or renders obvious (see Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1 above):
wherein a height of said at least deflector (“DEFLECTOR”), according to a direction orthogonal to the wind vane (“WIND VANE”) is between 2% and 150% of a length thereof, according to the direction of the flow
This rejection is made as a 102/103 rejection instead of a 102 rejection since the citation of the prior art is a photo without explicit dimensions. The examiner notes that a physical photo / video snapshot may be relied on more so than drawings (which might not be to scale) for physical dimensions. The examiner also notes the extreme breadth of the instant claim limitation (2% to 150%). The examiner holds that analysis of the photo either teaches or is so close as to render obvious the instant claim limitation.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belite (“Angle of attack gauge, fuel sensor and fuel gauge, Belite Aircraft Instruments”, prior art of record via IDS and WOISA - also see “Examiner’s Annotated FIG. 1” above) in view of Krueger et al. (EP 3321187 B1).Regarding claim 9:Belite teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Belite fails to teach:
a deflector device for heating at least one of said at least one deflectorKrueger teaches:
a device for heating (FIG. 1B - 50a, 50b, 50c; also see [0010], [0022], [0025])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of heaters along the vane to heat said vane and at least a portion of the sensor body via thermal conduction, as taught by Krueger, in the device of Belite to prevent icing and resulting sensor malfunction.
The examiner notes that “a deflector device for heating at least one of said at least one deflector” is met upon combination of Belite and Krueger.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Belite and Krueger teach all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 9 rejection above, Belite and Krueger teach:
wherein the deflector heating device is associated with a sensor heating device (Krueger: FIG. 1B - 50a, 50b, 50c; also see [0010], [0022], [0025])
Regarding claim 11, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Belite and Krueger teach all the limitations of claim 10, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 9 rejection above, Belite and Krueger teach:
wherein the deflector heating device is associated with the sensor heating device by thermal conduction (Krueger: FIG. 1B - 50a, 50b, 50c; also see [0010], [0022], [0025])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855