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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 18/715,418 originally filed on May 31, 2024. Claims 1-14 were originally presented for examination.
In the Preliminary Amendment filed May 31, 2024, claims 3 and 13 were canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 5/31/2024 and 6/3/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
In the IDS of 5/31/2024, Non-Patent Literature Documents cite no 2 could not be considered because no English language translation or abstract was provided.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 on May 31, 2024. This application is a 371 of PCT/IB2022/061651, filed December 1, 2022. This application claims foreign priority of EP21212366.5, filed December 3, 2021.
Drawings
Regarding FIG. 1, 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, the drawings have very faint lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black lines render FIG. 1 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
Regarding FIGS. 5-7, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of a black and white photographs lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIGS. 5-7 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification, filed May 31, 2024, are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner. The changes introduce no new matter to the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
In claim 4, recites the limitation “an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition a propulsion system of said aircraft.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of a propulsion system of said aircraft.” Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 5-10 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
In claim 6, recites the limitation “simulated velocity of said aircraft (1) is equal to a predetermined rate.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “simulated velocity of said aircraft[[ (1)]] is equal to a predetermined rate.” Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 7, recites the limitation “simulated weight (GW, GW’); and.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “simulated weight.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: bullet points or hyphens.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 14 are objected to because the limitations contain hyphens which makes the claims difficult to examine. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret the claim limitations without the hyphens. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 5-10 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following instances in the claims are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
The “sensor means” in claim 4.
The “simulation means” in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “sensor means,” which is not described in the instant specification. Claim 11 recites “simulation means,” which is also not described in the instant specification. Therefore, the sensor means and simulation means are not described in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Claims 5-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a), based on their respective dependencies to parent claim 4. As such, claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per MPEP §2181, to satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376, 95 USPQ2d 1673, 1682 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is appropriate if the written description fails to link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, or if there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850. A bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used would not be a sufficient disclosure to support a means-plus-function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be appropriate in the following situations when examining means-plus-function claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(1) when it is unclear whether a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(2) when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; and/or
(3) when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
In the present case, claim 4 recites “sensor means” without any corresponding disclosure in the specification. Instant specification publication paragraph [0069] discloses “a plurality of sensors 30 adapted to detect the flight parameters of the helicopter 1,” but even this disclosure fails to identify the type of sensors used.
Claim 11 further recites “simulation means” without any corresponding disclosure in the specification. Instant specification publication paragraph [0257] discloses “a plurality of flight simulation devices 113' adapted to create a simulated representation of the flight perceptible from the station 110',” but even this disclosure fails to identify the types of devices used.
In both of these cases, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. Claims 5-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to parent claim 4. As such, claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the relative interval.” The limitation “respective intervals,” is originally introduced earlier in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the respective intervals”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 4-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said intervals.” The limitation “respective intervals,” is originally introduced earlier in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “said respective intervals”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 4-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said effective weights.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 4-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “Control unit.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “The c[[C]]ontrol unit” or “Said c[[C]]ontrol unit”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claim 11, recites the limitation “a control unit.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the control unit” or “[[a]] said control unit”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
Claim 4, and substantially similar limitations in claims 5-10 recites the limitation “Aircraft.” The limitation “an aircraft” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “The a[[A]]ircraft” or “Said a[[A]]ircraft”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said value of velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1 or 4, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 5-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, or 6, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the value of the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, or 9, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated position of the horizon.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, or 10, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated attitude.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, or 10, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated forward velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1, 4, or 10, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an aircraft.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[an]] the aircraft” or “[[an]] said aircraft”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said simulated value of velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claims 1 or 11, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said intervals.” The limitation “respective intervals,” is originally introduced earlier in claim 12. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “said respective intervals”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated weight.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 12. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said actual weights.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 12. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated position of the horizon.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 14. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated attitude.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 14. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated forward velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 14. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the value of the actual or simulated value of forward velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 14. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the actual or simulated value of forward velocity.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 14. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the value of maximum actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 14. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “control unit” (i.e. a machine), claim 12 is directed to “method” (i.e. a process), and claim 14 is directed to “an indicator” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “simulating a flight of an aircraft capable of hovering,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Of claim 1:
“receive at input… real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft and provide at output… a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft…
process… an actual or simulated weight of said aircraft…
associate plurality of tables to respective intervals of values… each said table associating a plurality of values of said [forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft] with a respective said [real or simulated flight parameters];
process said [forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft], based on said table associated with the relative interval of said [actual or simulated weight of said aircraft] and the respective [real or simulated flight parameters];
receive… at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft;
store a plurality of profiles of velocity to never exceed associated with respective said intervals of said effective weights; and
associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables; each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said [at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft].”
Of claim 12:
“method for assisting the performance of an actual or simulated manoeuvre for an aircraft configured to be able of hovering, comprising the steps of:
i) receiving at input… real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft;
ii) providing at output… an actual or simulated forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft; and
iii) processing… the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft;
iv) associating a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said [actual or simulated weight of said aircraft]; each said table associating a plurality of values of said [actual or simulated forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft] with respective said [real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft]; and
v) processing said [actual or simulated forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft], based on said table associated with said [actual or simulated weight of said aircraft] and based on the respective [real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft];
vi) receiving at input… at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft;
vii) storing a plurality of profiles of velocity to never exceed associated with respective said intervals of said actual weights; and
viii) associating each velocity profile with a respective set of said tables; each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said [at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft].”
Of claim 14:
“a first indication associated with the actual or simulated position of the horizon; and
- a second indication associated with the actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon;
- a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft;
said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication…
- a fourth indication of the value of the actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale; and
- a fifth indication of the value of maximum actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft and placed along said graduated scale; and
said fourth indication and fifth indication being formed by respective labels "VNE threshold" and "Vmax threshold".”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “control unit,” “a first signal,” “a second signal,” “a third signal,” “a fourth signal,” and “an indicator,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “simulating a flight of an aircraft capable of hovering,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. e.g., “control unit,” “a first signal,” “a second signal,” “a third signal,” “a fourth signal,” and “an indicator,” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “control unit” is not explicitly defined in the specification, but is depicted in the drawings and described in the specification in such a way that it can be interpreted as being a general purpose computer. Applicant’s claimed “a first signal,” “a second signal,” “a third signal,” and “a fourth signal” are inputs or outputs from the control unit, and hence part of the general purpose computer.
Applicant’s claimed “an indicator” is referenced by the instant specification publication [0150] as, “The processing system 46 is programmed to display on an indicator 65 of the display device 51,” and shown in instant Fig. 5 as a graphical element displayed on a computer screen.
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer or components of a generic computer, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “device,” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claim 2 does not provide a practical application and is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on its dependency to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 4-10 are eligible under 35 USC 101 because they positively recite that the invention is embodied as an actual aircraft, which is not a general purpose computer.
Dependent claim 11 is eligible under 35 USC 101 because it recites the additional elements of a “flight simulation system,” “a station,” “a display device,” and “simulation means.” These elements are shown in instant application Fig. 8, depicting the flight simulation system 100’ and simulation means, where “a station” is represented as the station 110’ including pilot’s seat and display device 116’. These additional elements are not considered to be a general purpose computer.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard (US 4,870,412) in view of Cotton (US 4,115,755), and in further view of Bruno et al. (hereinafter “Bruno,” BR 102015014165 A2).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Vuichard discloses control unit for an aircraft capable of hovering or for a flight simulation system of said aircraft, said control unit being programmed to receive at input at least a first signal associated with real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft and provide at output a second signal associated with a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 1 lines 59-60, “a warning device installed in a helicopter”; also Vuichard col. 4 lines 5-9, “During the flight the central processing unit 4 also periodically determines maximum permissible flight speed from density height and weight at a given moment by means of the program instructions stored in program memory 5.” The first signal associated with at least “density height”);
said control unit being programmed to:
process a third signal associated with an actual or simulated weight of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 4 lines 5-9, “During the flight the central processing unit 4 also periodically determines maximum permissible flight speed from density height and weight at a given moment by means of the program instructions stored in program memory 5.” The third signal associated with weight”).
Vuichard does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein said control unit is programmed to: associate plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said third signal; each said table associating a plurality of values of said second signal with a respective said first signal; process said second signal, based on said table associated with the relative interval of said third signal and the respective first signals.
However, Cotton discloses wherein said control unit is programmed to: associate plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said third signal; each said table associating a plurality of values of said second signal with a respective said first signal; process said second signal, based on said table associated with the relative interval of said third signal and the respective first signals (Cotton Abstract, “The factors (including collective pitch, weight, altitude density, rotor speed and airspeed) which determine the extent to which the rotor of a helicopter may be loaded, are fed into a look-up table, and the permissible acceleration normal to the rotor is compared against actual acceleration normal to the rotor, an alarm signal resulting whenever the actual exceeds the permissive,” wherein permissible acceleration of the rotor is determined by the weight and altitude density. While acceleration of the rotor is not the same as forward velocity, it is related, and one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to calculate forward velocity using the same factors).
Cotton is analogous to Vuichard, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard, to include wherein said control unit is programmed to: associate plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said third signal; each said table associating a plurality of values of said second signal with a respective said first signal; process said second signal, based on said table associated with the relative interval of said third signal and the respective first signals, as taught by Cotton, since it would have been a simple substitution of a table-lookup technique of Cotton for a calculation technique of Vuichard. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Vuichard in view of Cotton does not explicitly teach every limitation of receive at input a fourth signal associated with at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft; store a plurality of profiles of velocity to never exceed associated with respective said intervals of said effective weights; and associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables; each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said fourth signal.
However, Bruno discloses receive at input a fourth signal associated with at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft; store a plurality of profiles of velocity to never exceed associated with respective said intervals of said effective weights; and associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables; each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said fourth signal (Bruno [083], “the measurement and calculation software program 40 is then able to convert the command to the orientation set point, taking into account, optionally, the following criteria: the ergonomics of the stick (displacement, height, etc.), the type of aircraft, as well as its engine type and the engine performance elements (number of engines in operation, etc.), and the flight phase (takeoff, cruise, approach, on land) determined among other things by measuring aircraft parameters (altitude, speed, aircraft configuration),” wherein the calculation software takes into account other parameters such as number of engines in operation, as the fourth signal; also Bruno Fig. 3 and [021], “Figure 3 is a diagram that illustrates the use of interpolation tables that provide the ability to calculate the characteristic slope values of a performance scale,” storing interpolation tables as profiles).
Bruno is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton, to include receive at input a fourth signal associated with at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft; store a plurality of profiles of velocity to never exceed associated with respective said intervals of said effective weights; and associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables; each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said fourth signal, as taught by Bruno, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses wherein said first signals are associated with the outside temperature and the actual or simulated altitude of said aircraft (Vuichard Abstract, “determining density height from pressure height and outside temperature,” density height is determined using outside temperature).
Regarding claim 4, Vuichard in view of Cotton discloses aircraft capable of hovering, comprising:
- sensor means configured to detect said flight parameters of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 2 lines 16-18, “a temperature probe 14 for measuring the outside temperature, mounted on the outside of the helicopter”);
- a propulsion system comprising at least one engine (Vuichard col. 1 lines 12-13, “The device according to the invention measures the torque or output of the aeroengine”);
- a cockpit comprising, in turn, a display device on which said value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed (Vuichard col. 4 lines 33-38, “The so-determined maximum permissible flight speed Vmax is displayed on the display 22. The effective flight speed is displayed to the helicopter pilot by the airspeed indicator (as measured by a Pitot or Prandtl tube) so that the pilot can adapt the flight speed according to the permissible maximum speed displayed on the display 22.”); and
- a control unit according to claim 1 (rejection of claim 1, supra).
Vuichard in view of Cotton does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein said fourth signal is associated with an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of a propulsion system of said aircraft comprising a plurality of engines; said first condition being representative of the fact that all said engines of said propulsion system are operational; said second condition being representative of the fact that only one said engine of said propulsion system is operational; said third condition being representative of the fact that said propulsion system is deactivated.
However, Bruno discloses wherein said fourth signal is associated with an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of a propulsion system of said aircraft comprising a plurality of engines; said first condition being representative of the fact that all said engines of said propulsion system are operational; said second condition being representative of the fact that only one said engine of said propulsion system is operational; said third condition being representative of the fact that said propulsion system is deactivated (Bruno [083], “the measurement and calculation software program 40 is then able to convert the command to the orientation set point, taking into account, optionally, the following criteria: the ergonomics of the stick (displacement, height, etc.), the type of aircraft, as well as its engine type and the engine performance elements (number of engines in operation, etc.), and the flight phase (takeoff, cruise, approach, on land) determined among other things by measuring aircraft parameters (altitude, speed, aircraft configuration),” wherein the calculation software takes into account other parameters such as number of engines in operation, as the fourth signal).
Bruno is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton, to include wherein said fourth signal is associated with an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of a propulsion system of said aircraft comprising a plurality of engines; said first condition being representative of the fact that all said engines of said propulsion system are operational; said second condition being representative of the fact that only one said engine of said propulsion system is operational; said third condition being representative of the fact that said propulsion system is deactivated, as taught by Bruno, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Vuichard in view of Bruno discloses that said velocity profiles associate constant and different values of said velocity to never exceed, with equal values of said first signals and said fourth signals.
However, Cotton discloses that said velocity profiles associate constant and different values of said velocity to never exceed, with equal values of said first signals and said fourth signals (Cotton Abstract, “The factors (including collective pitch, weight, altitude density, rotor speed and airspeed) which determine the extent to which the rotor of a helicopter may be loaded, are fed into a look-up table, and the permissible acceleration normal to the rotor is compared against actual acceleration normal to the rotor, an alarm signal resulting whenever the actual exceeds the permissive,” wherein different values of said velocity to never exceed can be looked up in the tables of parameters).
Cotton is analogous to Vuichard and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard and Bruno, to include that said velocity profiles associate constant and different values of said velocity to never exceed, with equal values of said first signals and said fourth signals, as taught by Cotton, since it would have been a simple substitution of a table-lookup technique of Cotton for a calculation technique of Vuichard. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses that said control unit is programmed to: receive at input a fifth signal associated with the actual or simulated velocity of said aircraft; and generate an acoustic signal associated with the fact that the actual or simulated velocity of said aircraft is equal to a predetermined rate of said velocity to never exceed; and/or command the display of said velocity to never exceed (Vuichard col. 4 lines 39-44, “The airspeed indicator of the helicopter could, of course, also be linked to the central processing unit 4, whereby the latter could indicate the effective flight speed together with the maximum speed on the display 22 and could trigger a flashing lamp as an optical warning signal when said maximum speed is exceeded.”; also Vuichard col. 1 lines 14-18, “the measuring device and transmits an audible signal to the pilot's headphones via an audible signal generator controlled by the control device when the measured value exceeds a maximum value,” when a value is exceeded, it is also contemplated that an acoustic signal is emitted).
Regarding claim 7, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses that said control unit comprises: a first storage stage wherein said velocity profiles are stored; a processing stage programmed to process said actual or simulated weight (GW, GW'); and a second storage stage wherein said tables are stored, which is operatively connected with said first storage stage and processing stage, and configured to acquire said first and second signal and process said second signal (Vuichard col. 2 lines 34-40, “Stored in the program memory 5 are data processing instructions for determining density height from pressure height and temperature, permissible maximum value of the blade angle from density height, weight at a given time from take-off weight and weight of fuel used, maximum permissible flight speed from density height and weight at a given time, and maximum load.”; Vuichard col. 2 lines 40-51, “the actual weight of the helicopter stored in the program memory 5.”).
Regarding claim 8, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses that said control unit comprises a display stage programmed to command the display of said velocity to never exceed and commanded by said second storage stage (Vuichard col. 4 lines 32-38, “The so-determined maximum permissible flight speed Vmax is displayed on the display 22. The effective flight speed is displayed to the helicopter pilot by the airspeed indicator (as measured by a Pitot or Prandtl tube) so that the pilot can adapt the flight speed according to the permissible maximum speed displayed on the display 22.”).
Regarding claim 9, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses that said control unit comprises an interface which can be actuated to enter a sixth signal associated with the value of the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft at take-off and/or with the actual or simulated weight of said equipment of said aircraft, and operatively connected with said first storage stage; said second signal being, in use, processed based on said sixth signal (Vuichard col. 2 lines 48-51, “The central processing unit 4 calculates the take-off weight Wtake-off herefrom and from the actual weight of the helicopter stored in the program memory 5.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, in further view of Berthou et al. (hereinafter “Berthou,” US 2006/0164260).
Regarding claim 10, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno does not explicitly teach every limitation of an indicator; said indicator comprising: a first indication associated with the actual or simulated position of the horizon; and a second indication associated with the actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon; a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft; said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication; characterized in that said indicator comprises: a fourth indication associated with an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale.
However, Berthou discloses an indicator; said indicator comprising: a first indication associated with the actual or simulated position of the horizon; and a second indication associated with the actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon; a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft; said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication; characterized in that said indicator comprises: a fourth indication associated with an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale (Berthou [0003], “a main display for displaying with great precision a horizon, an attitude of the aircraft, and altitude, heading and speed data; this display receives the information computed by a computer of the airplane based on data received from various sensors”; also Berthou [0023], “display of a horizon 14 (ground in brown below, sky in blue above) and standby data necessary for piloting, that is mainly altitude (scrolling graduated scale 16 on the right), speed (scrolling graduated scale 18 on the left), and an airplane attitude symbol 20”; also Berthou [0038], “Various additional buttons, pushbuttons or switches, may be used, linked with the information displayed by the software on the screen, to perform various functions similar to those of the integrated electronics standby instruments of the prior art (placing max or min speed marks for example) or to those of the automatic pilot control panels of the prior art”; see also Berthou Figs. 1-5).
Berthou is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of aircraft. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, to include an indicator; said indicator comprising: a first indication associated with the actual or simulated position of the horizon; and a second indication associated with the actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon; a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft; said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication; characterized in that said indicator comprises: a fourth indication associated with an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale, as taught by Berthou, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, in further view of Hwang et al. (hereinafter “Hwang,” KR 20130012727 A).
Regarding claim 11, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno does not explicitly teach every limitation of flight simulation system for simulating the flight of an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising: a station for a pilot to be trained; a display device, on which said simulated value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed; at least one simulated control device of said aircraft, which can be actuated with a command simulated by said pilot to simulate a flight condition of said aircraft; simulation means configured to generate a simulated representation of said flight condition perceptible to said pilot; and a control unit according to claim 1.
However, Hwang discloses flight simulation system for simulating the flight of an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising: a station for a pilot to be trained; a display device, on which said simulated value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed; at least one simulated control device of said aircraft, which can be actuated with a command simulated by said pilot to simulate a flight condition of said aircraft; simulation means configured to generate a simulated representation of said flight condition perceptible to said pilot (Hwang Abstract, “A real time automatic generation system for a helicopter performance schedule table and a computer readable recording medium storing a PC based helicopter performance calculation simulation program are provided to receive only minimum necessary inputs from a pilot, thereby reducing a work load of the pilot and a required time.”; also Hwang page 5, “the output information shown in the case of the flight conditions are cruising flight CRUISE (cruise) than in partial ban speed (VNE: Velocity Never Exceed), the maximum flight distance (Maximum Range) and speed (Maximum Range Speed), the maximum flight time (Maximum Endurance) and speed (Maximum Endurance Speed) to include the show,” Hwang discloses a flight simulation system that calculates and shows the Velocity Never Exceed).
Hwang is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, to include flight simulation system for simulating the flight of an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising: a station for a pilot to be trained; a display device, on which said simulated value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed; at least one simulated control device of said aircraft, which can be actuated with a command simulated by said pilot to simulate a flight condition of said aircraft; simulation means configured to generate a simulated representation of said flight condition perceptible to said pilot, as taught by Hwang, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthou.
Regarding claim 14, Berthou discloses an indicator for an aircraft capable of hovering (Berthou Abstract, “aircraft instrument panel equipment”), comprising:
- a first indication associated with the actual or simulated position of the horizon (Berthou Abstract, “a main display system for horizon and necessary piloting parameters”); and
- a second indication associated with the actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon (Berthou [0003], “a main display for displaying with great precision a horizon, an attitude of the aircraft, and altitude, heading and speed data; this display receives the information computed by a computer of the airplane based on data received from various sensors”);
- a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft (Berthou [0003], “a main display for displaying with great precision a horizon, an attitude of the aircraft, and altitude, heading and speed data; this display receives the information computed by a computer of the airplane based on data received from various sensors”);
said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication (Berthou [0023], “display of a horizon 14 (ground in brown below, sky in blue above) and standby data necessary for piloting, that is mainly altitude (scrolling graduated scale 16 on the right), speed (scrolling graduated scale 18 on the left), and an airplane attitude symbol 20”);
wherein said indicator comprises:
- a fourth indication of the value of the actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale (Berthou [0038], “Various additional buttons, pushbuttons or switches, may be used, linked with the information displayed by the software on the screen, to perform various functions similar to those of the integrated electronics standby instruments of the prior art (placing max or min speed marks for example) or to those of the automatic pilot control panels of the prior art”).
Berthou does not explicitly teach a fifth indication of the value of maximum actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft and placed along said graduated scale; and said fourth indication and fifth indication being formed by respective labels "VNE threshold" and "Vmax threshold". However, the Applicant’s use of specific display locations of values and specific labels for the values is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that specific display locations of values and specific labels for the values solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any display location and label of values using the device of Berthou or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Berthou to obtain the device as specified in claim 14, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Berthou.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Greene et al. (US 6,002,349) Helicopter anti-torque limit warning device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights