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
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (Pub # US 2008/0284619 A1), and further in view of Uhlemann et al. (US Patent # 6,592,077 B2) and Rensch (US Patent #6,092,915)
Consider claim 1, Farmer et al. teaches a system comprising: an emergency exit door (1, Fig, 1) for an internal cabin of an aircraft, the emergency exit door comprising a lever (operating handle) (3, Fig. 1) configured to be engaged to open the emergency exit door (1, Fig. 1); a window (2, Fig. 2); and one or more alert devices (22-25, Fig. 2) configured to emit one or more alerts [0029].
Farmer et al. does not teach one or more alert to remind an individual to first look through the window before engaging the lever, wherein the one or more alert devices comprise a lighting system configured to emit the one or more alert by illuminating one or more portion of the emergency exit door, and wherein the lighting system include one or more light emitter surrounding the window.
In the same field of endeavor, Uhlemann et al. teaches one or more alert to remind an individual to first look through the window before engaging the lever (Abstract) for the benefit of comply with safety regulation.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more alert devices comprise a lighting system configured to emit the one or more alert by illuminating one or more portion of the emergency exit door, and wherein the lighting system include one or more light emitter surrounding the window (Column 5 lines 6 lines 13) for the benefit of providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more alert to remind an individual to first look through the window before engaging the lever and wherein the one or more alert devices comprise a lighting system configured to emit the one or more alert by illuminating one or more portion of the emergency exit door, and wherein the lighting system include one or more light emitter surrounding the window as shown in Uhlemann et al. and Renschh in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of comply with safety regulation and providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Consider claim 2, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the system, wherein the emergency exit door includes the one or more alert devices (22-25, Fig. 2).
Consider claim 4, Farmer et al. teaches the similar invention.
Farmer does not teach the system, wherein the one or more light emitters are around a perimeter of an escutcheon that surrounds the window.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitter are around a perimeter of an escutcheon that surrounds the window (Column 5 lines 6-13) (Fig. 2A) for the benefit of providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitter are around a perimeter of an escutcheon that surrounds the window as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Consider claim 6, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the system, wherein the one or more alert devices further comprises one or more speakers (24, Fig. 2) configured to emit the one or more alerts by broadcasting an audio signal.
Consider claim 7, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the system, wherein the one or more speakers (24, Fig. 2) are mounted on the operating handle (20, Fig. 2) within the emergency exit door (1, Fig. 1).
Consider claim 9, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the system, further comprising a control unit (switch) (32, Fig. 3) in communication with the one or more alert devices (34 and 35, Fig. 3), wherein the control unit (32. Fig. 3) is configured to activate the one or more alert devices (34 and 35, Fig. 3) in response to detection of an evacuation event.
Consider claim 10, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the system, wherein the emergency exit door (1, Fig. 1) further comprises an instruction panel (slide placard) (8, Fig. 1) including instructions for opening the emergency exit door [0027].
Consider claim 11, Farmer et al. teaches an aircraft comprising: an internal cabin (Page 2 Paragraph 2); and an emergency exit door (1, Fig, 1) within the internal cabin, the emergency exit door comprising: a lever (operating handle) (3, Fig. 1) configured to be engaged to open the emergency exit door (1, Fig. 1); an instruction panel (slide placard) (8, Fig. 1) including instruction for opening the emergency exit door (1, Fig. 1) [0027]; a window (2, Fig. 2); and one or more alert devices (22-25, Fig. 2) configured to emit one or more alerts (Page 6 Paragraph 3).
Farmer et al. does not teach one or more alert to remind an individual to first look through the window before engaging the lever wherein the one or more alert devices comprise a lighting system configured to emit the one or more alert by illuminating one or more portion of the emergency exit door, and wherein the lighting system include one or more light emitter surrounding the window.
In the same field of endeavor, Uhlemann et al. teaches one or more alert to remind an individual to first look through the window before engaging the lever (Abstract) for the benefit of comply with safety regulation.
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more alert devices comprise a lighting system configured to emit the one or more alert by illuminating one or more portion of the emergency exit door, and wherein the lighting system include one or more light emitter surrounding the window (Column 5 lines 6 lines 13) for the benefit of providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more alert to remind an individual to first look through the window before engaging the lever and wherein the one or more alert devices comprise a lighting system configured to emit the one or more alert by illuminating one or more portion of the emergency exit door, and wherein the lighting system include one or more light emitter surrounding the window as shown in Uhlemann et al. and Renschh in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of comply with safety regulation and providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Consider claim 12, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the aircraft, wherein the emergency exit door includes the one or more alert devices (22-25, Fig. 2).
Consider claim 14, Farmer et al. teaches the similar invention.
Farmer et al. does not teach the aircraft, wherein the one or more light emitters are around a perimeter of an escutcheon that surrounds the window.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitters are around a perimeter of an escutcheon that surrounds the window (Column 5 lines 6-13) (Fig. 2A) for the benefit of providing visual aid to the emergency window.
Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitters are around a perimeter of an escutcheon that surrounds the window as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing visual aid to the emergency window.
Consider claim 16, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the aircraft, wherein the one or more alert devices further comprises one or more speakers (24, Fig. 2) configured to emit the one or more alerts by broadcasting an audio signal.
Consider claim 17, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the aircraft, wherein the one or more speakers (24, Fig. 2) are mounted on the operating handle (20, Fig. 2) within the emergency exit door (1, Fig. 1).
Consider claim 19, Farmer et al. clearly show and disclose the aircraft, further comprising a control unit (switch) (32, Fig. 3) in communication with the one or more alert devices (34 and 35, Fig. 3), wherein the control unit (32. Fig. 3) is configured to activate the one or more alert devices (34 and 35, Fig. 3) in response to detection of an evacuation event.
Consider claim 20, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regards to claim 1 as set forth above.
Consider claim 21, Farmer et al. teaches the similar invention.
Farmer et al. does not teach wherein the one or more light emitters comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitters comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig, 2) for the benefit of providing the visual aid to the emergency door.
Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitters comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing the visual aid to the emergency door.
Consider claim 22, Farmer et al. teaches similar invention.
Farmer et al. does not teach wherein the one or more light emitters are disposed on an escutcheon that surrounds the window.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitters are disposed on an escutcheon that surrounds the window (Column 5 lines 6-13) (Fog. 2) for the benefit of providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitters are disposed on an escutcheon that surrounds the window as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing a visual aid to the emergency window.
Consider claim 23, Farmer et al. teaches similar invention.
Farmer et al. does not teach wherein the one or more light emitters are configured to illuminate an entirety of the escutcheon.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitters are configured to illuminate an entirety of the escutcheon (Fig. 2A) for the benefit of providing the visual aid for the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitters are configured to illuminate an entirety of the escutcheon as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing the visual aid for the emergency window.
Consider claim 24, the method steps herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding apparatus as shown in claim 16. Therefore, claim 24 has been analyzed and rejected with regards to claim 16 as set forth above.
Consider claim 25, Farmer et al. teaches similar invention.
Farmer et al. does not teach wherein the one or more light emitters comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitters comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes (Fig. 2A) for the benefit of providing the visual aid for the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitters comprise a plurality of light emitting diodes as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing the visual aid for the emergency window.
Consider claim 26, Farmer et al. teaches similar invention.
Farmer et al. does not teach wherein the one or more light emitters disposed on an escutcheon that surrounds the window.
In the same field of endeavor, Rensch teaches wherein the one or more light emitters disposed on an escutcheon that surrounds the window (Fig. 2A) for the benefit of providing the visual aid for the emergency window.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the one or more light emitters disposed on an escutcheon that surrounds the window as shown in Rensch, in Farmer et al. device for the benefit of providing the visual aid for the emergency window.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new claim limitations have been analyzed and rejected as set forth in the rejection as set forth above.
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 JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights