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
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment dated December 30, 2025. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending. Claim 16 is canceled. Claims 20 and 21 are new.
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 1-15 and 17-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an operational state of a movable component of an aircraft” and “an operational state of the component”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same state.
Claims 2-15 and 17-21 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the operational state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “an operational state of a movable component” and “an operational state of the component”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a skew of the flap”. Claim 13 recites “a skew of the flap”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a skew” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean something like “jam” while the accepted meaning is “crooked.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. There is no definition to allow the ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. There must be some standard for when the flap becomes a skew and how the combination sensor or position sensor measures the skew or detects the skew.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a kinetic state of the component”. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and claim 1, which introduced “a kinetic and/or kinetic state of the component. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same state.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a kinematic state of the component”. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and claim 1, which introduced “a kinetic and/or kinetic state of the component. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same state.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a kinematic sensor”. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which previously introduced “a kinematic sensor”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same kinematic sensor.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a kinetic sensor”. Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, which previously introduced “a kinetic sensor”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same kinetic sensor.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “a movable component” and “a component”. These appear to be the same component. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same component.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a combination sensor”. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “a combination sensor”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same combination sensor.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “an operational state of the component”. Claim 12 previously introduced “an operational state of a movable component” and is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “an operational state of a movable component of an aircraft” and “an operational state of the component”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are all the same state.
Claims 13-15 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12 and claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component” before using the limitation “the component”. Claim 12 introduced a different “a component”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the operational state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an area in which the combination sensor is arranged” twice. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same area.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 12 and claim 1, which introduced “a movable component” and made secondary reference to “the movable component”.
Claim 15 continues to reintroduce limitations for “a kinetic state of the component” and “an operational state of the component” and “a limit value”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same limitations or intended as new limitations.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an operational state of the component” and again “an operational state of the component”. Claim 15 is dependent on claim 12, which introduced “an operational state of a movable component” and “an operational state of the component”. Claim 12 is also dependent on claim 1, which introduced both limitations there. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if these are the same states.
The term “at least in certain areas” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “certain areas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The kinetic and kinematic sensors do not appear to move around the aircraft and there are only one of each established in the claim. This may mean that the “certain areas” could be an area such as Pennsylvania, or areas where the aircraft was located.
Claim 19 is rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 attempts to limit claim 1 by further limiting “the combination senor comprise a kinematic sensor and a kinetic sensor”. Claim 1 is amended to include “the combination sensor comprises a kinematic sensor and a kinetic sensor”.
Claim 17 attempts to limit claim 1 by further limiting that “the kinetic sensor and the kinetic sensor share exactly, the measuring coil”. Claim 1 previously included that “the kinematic sensor and the kinetic sensor share a measuring coil”. The added word “exactly” fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim limitation “monitoring device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The Specification at [0017] describes that the monitoring device is “designed and arranged to detect a kinematic and/or kinetic state of the component” and “designed to monitor and/or detect an operational state of the component”. No hardware is disclosed to perform these design and/or arrangements.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
A box connects the drive unit 4 to the drive train, but it is not labeled or described in the Specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
The brake 5 is not described or connected to anything.
The asymmetry sensor 6 is not described or connected to anything.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “monitoring device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recksiek et al., U.S. Patent 8,868,261 B2 (2014) in view of Krzywon, U.S. Patent 11,821,325 B2 (2023).
As to claim 1, Recksiek et al. discloses system for monitoring and/or detecting an operational state of a movable component of an aircraft, wherein the system comprises a movable component and a monitoring device, wherein the system also has a combination sensor connected to the monitoring device, and
wherein the monitoring device is designed to monitor and/or detect an operational state of the component (Column 8, Line 66 – Column 9, Line 29).
Recksiek et al. does not disclose a shared measuring coil, as claimed.
Krzywon discloses a system which is designed and arranged to detect a kinematic and/or kinetic state of the component, wherein the combination sensor comprises kinematic sensor and a kinetic sensor, wherein the kinematic sensor and the kinetic sensor share a measuring coil (Colum 10, Lines 34-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system, as claimed, as disclosed by Recksiek et al., with the use of a shared coil, as claimed, as disclosed by Krzywon, with a reasonable expectation of success, utilizing the combination of sensors to reduce the components and detect the operational state in different manners using a combined sensor sharing a coil to reduce parts and cost, yet could be performed by two measurement coils if desired by the engineering choices of the system designer.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
As to claim 2, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the component is a flap, and wherein the operational state comprises or is a skew of the flap and/or a disconnect of the flap from a structure (Figure 1, Flap A1, A2 B1, B2, Column 17, Lines 19-27).
As to claim 3, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the monitoring device is designed to monitor the functionality of the combination sensor (Column 19, Lines 7-45).
As to claim 4, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 3. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the monitoring device is designed such that the functionality can be monitored by comparing a kinematic state of the component detected by the combination sensor with a kinetic state of the component detected by the combination sensor (Column 19, Lines 7-45).
As to claim 5, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the combination sensor comprises a kinematic sensor and a kinetic sensor (Column 8, Line 66 – Column 9, Line 29).
As to claim 6, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 5. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the kinematic sensor is a discrete and/or incremental sensor and/or wherein the kinetic sensor is designed to detect a direction of the kinetic state of the component (Column 17, Line 53 – Column 18, Line 14).
As to claim 7, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the system comprises an actuator, wherein the combination sensor is arranged in or on the actuator, and wherein there are no combination sensors and/or sensors arranged in the component (Column 17, Line 53 – Column 18, Line 14, Figure 3b).
As to claim 8, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the component comprises or consists of a lift aid (Column 14, Lines 15-29).
As to claim 9, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the system comprises a further combination sensor, wherein the monitoring device is designed such that monitoring and/or detecting the operational state of the component and/or monitoring the functionality of the combination sensor and/or the further combination sensor can be performed by comparing a kinematic and/or kinetic state of the component detected by the combination sensor with a kinematic and/or kinetic state of the component detected by the further combination sensor (Column 19, Lines 7-45).
As to claim 10, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses system according to claim 9. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the comparison of the kinematic state or kinetic state of the component detected by the combination sensor with a further kinematic or kinetic state of the component detected by the further combination sensor can be performed by converting the kinematic state into the kinetic state, or by converting the kinematic state into the kinetic state (Column 19, Lines 7-45).
As to claim 11, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses aircraft, having a system according to claim 1 (claim 1, Column 1, Line 66 – Column 2, Line 4).
As to claim 12, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses method for monitoring and/or detecting an operational state of a movable component of an aircraft having a system according to claim 1. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the method comprises the following steps:
- detecting a kinematic and/or kinetic state of a component using a combination sensor (Column 8, Line 66 – Column 9, Line 29),
- monitoring and/or detecting an operational state of the component (Column 8, Line 66 – Column 9, Line 29).
As to claim 13, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses method according to claim 12. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein the component is a flap, and the operational state comprises or is a skew of the flap and/or a disconnect of the flap from a structure (Figure 1, Flap A1, A2, B2, B2, Column 17, Lines 19-27).
As to claim 14, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses method according to claim 12. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein a disconnect of the component that takes place in front of an area in which the combination sensor is arranged, takes place by detecting a kinematic and kinetic state of the component and a disconnect of the component that takes place behind an area in which the combination sensor is arranged, takes place only by detecting a kinetic state of the component (Column 8, Line 66 – Column 9, Line 29).
As to claim 15, Recksiek et al., as modified by Krzywon, discloses method according to claim 12. Recksiek et al. further discloses wherein monitoring and/or detecting an operational state of the component is performed by detecting a kinematic state of the component after a kinetic state of the component reaches or exceeds a limit value and/or in that monitoring and/or detecting an operational state of the component is performed by detecting a kinetic state of the component after a kinematic state of the component reaches or exceeds a limit value (Column 20, Lines 25-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued the amended drawings satisfy the drawing requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). The Replacement Sheet amended drawings still include issues raised by the Examiner in illustrating the invention and presenting a clear understanding of what is presented. Including additional elements without symbols or numbers make it difficult to understand how this goes together in the aircraft. Applicant argued “Applicant disagrees an unlabeled box amounts to an issue in the drawings”. The unlabeled box created an issue that must be addressed to understand what is in Figure 1. The brake 5 has nothing to do with the claimed invention. The Specification merely includes that the drive train has a brake. The asymmetry sensor 6 has nothing to do with the claimed invention. The Specification merely indicates that one is provided. The box between the drive train and the drive unit is not explained. These may be remnants from the priority documents. Revised drawings illustrating how the components are connected was expected. If the elements are not needed in the drawing, they must be removed, explained as being well understood to those looking at Figure 1, or described in the Specification. The claimed subject matter is barely visible in the only Figure of the present invention. Any interpretation of infringement of the claims would benefit by greater illustration.
Applicant argued the term “skew” would be understood, however the usage is indefinite in explaining how measuring a skew of the flap should be performed. A skew and/or disconnect monitoring device is mentioned in [0054] but is not disclosed what components are used to create the monitoring device. The monitoring of skew errors is said to be performed by the two sensors in particular or together in combination at [0069]. This appears to be a written description and enablement issue, which is not raised because of the other 35 USC 112 issues. Applicant’s argument that [0024] and [0048] provide structural details in using the sensor is not persuasive. [0024] is one sentence that says the sensors share an element and have a common housing, and possibly only in “certain areas”, which are not explained. [0048] merely provides an actuator or a device at an output, failing to disclose any preferred embodiment of construction of the claimed invention in a flat actuator or a drive motor. There is no definition of when a “skew” occurs and how the “skew” would be detected as the operational state.
Applicant argued that the amendments relating to a shared measuring coil are not disclosed. The difference between two sensors or a combined sensor with a shared measuring coil does not appear to be inventive. Applicant has not argued any benefit why this combination of sensors would provide any results greater than using two sensors.
Claims are rejected using newly cited reference Krzywon, which shows a measurement coil providing signals to different control channels. Combining two sensors to share one measurement coil would have been obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666