Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to pending claims filed on 3/12/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Response
3. The examiner withdraws Double Patenting, 35 USC. 101, and 35 USC. 112 with this amendment, and a Terminal Disclaimer; however, 35 USC. 103 rejections are maintained
Applicant’s REMARKS on Pashko, in view of Fields vs. claim 1’s language is unpersuasive. According to Meriam-Webster dictionary, claimed term “releasably securable” is “ capable of being released and capable of being secured”. Pashko suggests these capabilities.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a sensor assembly (capable of releasably securable)
PNG
media_image1.png
448
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Independent claim 12 is directed to a sensor assembly to be used at a height level (e.g., “outside the reach of a “normal” person” see Pasko’s FIG. 1 represents a “big” jet with sensors 11), still being operable if being dropped from said height level surfaces/elevators (using for an aircraft/jet is an intent of used – not a limitation in these “sensor” claims .
Independent claim 13 is directed to “a sensor assembly” (this claim’s preamble said “to be used for a collision-avoidance” purpose).
Applicant argues that claimed preamble provides limitations (page 12, subsection C.); however, independent claims 1, 12-13 of “a sensor assembly” as claimed, do not require additional structure(s) for “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” – generic “a sensor assembly” can be used for other reasons (an intent of use: not a limitation)’
Applicant argues that the reason to combine Pashko and Fields is conclusory and Fields is a non-analogous art ( page 10, subsection B.); however, these claims are “structure” claims, Fields teaches a sensor to implement Pashko’s missing; the reason to combine for a sensor assembly is to overcome a vertical reach or a normal person. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Pashko with Fields to suggest a sensor assembly capable of quickly and releasably secure the sensor (see Pasko, Fig. 1 ref. 11).
Accordingly, the examiner submits that Pashko in view of Fields already suggest these claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections 35 USC. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko-Paschenko (US Pub. 20060287829 - hereafter “Pashko”), in view of Fields et al (US Pub 20210302541 A1 – hereafter “Fields”).
A. Per independent claims 1, and 12: Pashko discloses a sensor assembly (see Pashko Fig. 1, the abstract]), comprising:
- a sensor (i.e., a sensor 11 on the top of an aircraft tail vertical stabilizer), see Pashko-Paschenko’s “Object Proximity Warning System”, para. [0010], [0037], and Fig. 1 ref. 11). Pashko does not expressly disclose that sensor assembly/housing is used in a collision avoidance system of an aircraft – this may not be a claimed limitation also due to a certain intent of use).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fields discloses a frame sub-assembly (i.e., a modular sensor assembly 104 may include a rooftop sensor setup that may be utilized to capture information about the vehicle 102 and environment 100 see Field, FIG.1) wherein the sensor is releasably/securable to the frame sub-assembly (.e., attaching a sensor 306A/306B to a sensor enclosure 300) see Fields Fig. 3, para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Pashko with Fields (a sensor housing in a sub-assembly) to quickly attaching/releasing to/from a vehicle’s frame from damages (including dropping from a high level) causing from external environments (i.e., using a weather-resistant enclosure to enclose a sensor, see Field, para. [0033]).
B. Per dependent claim 4: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pashko also uses a sensor to monitor the distance between itself and another object (i.e., electromagnetic-wave radar, see Pashko para. [0029] “FIG. J illustrates a preferred active embodiment of the Object Proximity Warning System of the present invention as applied to an aircraft. Aircraft 10 comprises distance-determining sensors 11 mounted on at-risk parts of the aircraft, such as the ends of the wings, the outboard ends of the horizontal stabilizer, and the upper edge of the vertical stabilizer").
C. Per dependent claim 9: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims the sensor is positioned within the frame sub-assembly; Field also shows that a sensor 304A is position within an enclosure 300/sub-assembly 300 (see Field, Fig. 3).
5. Claims 2, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, and in view of Hay et al (CA 3083132 A1).
A. Per dependent claim 2: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims a sensor assembly that can enables a user to quickly and easily releasably secure the sensor; however, Hay et al suggests that same feature (see Hay et al, the abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Pashko and Fields with Hay et al because a combination of Pashko, Fields, and Hay creates a sensor assembly enabling a user to quickly and easily releasably secure the sensor (i.e., to assemble together a sensor and implement(s) to monitoring around environments, see Hay claim 1).
B. Per dependent claim 5: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Applicant claims that the sensor monitors a distance via ultrasonic radio frequency ranging from approximately 20 kHz to approximately 5 GHz.
Pashko also uses radars as sensor monitors distance via ultrasonic radio frequency ranging from approximately 20 kHz to approximately 5 GHz (i.e., using ultrasonic emitter- receiver transducers, see Pashko, para. [0037] “Sensors 11 may be any distance-sensing transducers known to the art, such as electromagnetic-wave radar, ultraviolet, visible or infrared lasers or electronic mass detectors. Preferably, sensors 11 will be ultrasonic emitter- receiver transducer”.
A motivation to use that frequency range is manufacturers which market ultrasonic products must consider available scientific recommendations. For ultrasound between 25 kHz and 100 kHz a limiting value of 100 dB has been advised. Respecting these limits would offer protection against subjective effects and possible hearing loss as a result of protracted exposure.
C. Per dependent claims 4, and 6: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Applicant claims the sensor monitors distance via RADAR, Pashko already teaches that feature (see Pashko, para. [0037]).
D. Per dependent claim 7: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Applicant claims the sensor monitors distance via LIDAR, Fields already teaches that feature (see Fields, para. [0022]).
6. Dependent claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, and in view of Byungjoo Choi et al “Experimental and analytical study of drop impact Behavior for a Mobile Haptic Actuator” (hereinafter “Choi”).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
A combination of Pashko, and Fields, does not disclose that the sensor assembly having the sensor remain functionally operable even after being dropped from a high level.
However, Choi’s suggestion can improve the impact reliability of an object such as an electronic device/sensor (that means, determining if the sensor remains working/ functionally operable after being dropped from a height level – see Choi, the title).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pashko, Fields, with Choi to use an impact-proof sensor that is often to be used at high altitudes as a product reliability requirement.
7. Dependent claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, further in view of Zhou et al., (US 20160163208 A1) - hereafter “Zhou”.
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pashko, and Fields, do not disclose that the sensor comprises a primary and/or secondary electrochemical cell; however, Zhou teaches that claimed features (i.e., a battery is an electrochemical cell or series of cells that produces an electric current. in principle, any galvanic cell could be used as a battery (i.e., “The energy management module 210 is communicatively coupled to the power source fitted in the vehicle and provides power to auxiliary loads of the aircraft. The energy management module is communicatively coupled to the auxiliary power source of the aircraft and receives information about the power requirement of the aircraft. The energy management module is further configured to supply required power to the auxiliary loads of the aircraft. The power source is based on electro-chemical batteries” see Zhou, para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pashko, and Fields with Zhou to use electrochemical cell to produce electric currents since these batteries have been easy to get everywhere on the market to provide electric power.
8. Dependent claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, in view of Burdoucci et al (US Pub. 2018/035606 A1 – hereafter “Burdoucci”).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pashko, in view of Fields does not expressly disclose a frame sub-assembly is adapted to releasably receive (as an enclosure/housing of a sensor 505) a terminal end of an elongated shaft 515; however, Burdoucci suggests that claimed structural feature (see Burdoucci, para. [0189], claim 5, and Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pashko, Fields, with Burdoucci’s suggestion to use an elongated shaft in releasing an object/a camera/a sensor to successfully reaching a height beyond a person’s reach.
9. Dependent claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, in view of Burdoucci, further in view of Miura et al. (CN 206179618 U - hereafter “Miura”).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 10 are incorporated.
Pashko, Fields, and Burdoucci do not disclose that a terminal end of the elongated shaft comprises a T-shaft for a mounting purpose; however Miura suggests this claimed idea (see Miura page 13, third paragraph “For this, the temperature sensor 1 by the characteristic function 2, can be easily mounted to the circuit substrate 54 when manufacturing the electronic device 5, and so on. Specifically, the base 2 with the flexible tape 102 different high-rigidity, and based on the specification of the electronic device 5, adjusting the height of the T-shaft direction.... when manufacturing the electronic device 5 can be easily mounted to the circuit substrate 54.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pashko, Fields, and Burdoucci with Miura to disclose that a terminal end of the elongated shaft comprises a T-shaft to flexible increase an operating stability of a structure.
10. Independent claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, in view of Hay, and in view of Choi; see the rationales and references set forth for an obvious rejection of claims 1-11.
11. Independent claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pashko, in view of Fields, further in view of Han Sung K CO LTD “Ceiling finishing apparatus using connection clip for ceiling frame” (KR 102173314 B1 published date 11/03/2000 – hereafter “Han”).
A combination of above Pasco, Fields, does not disclose a top panel, a bottom panel, a front panel, an interior left-side panel, an exterior left-side panel, an interior right- side panel, an exterior right-side panel, and upper jaw panel, a lower jaw panel, and wherein the interior left-side panel is secured to the exterior left-side panel and the interior right-side panel is secured to the exterior right-side panel, and wherein the lower jaw panel is secured to the exterior left-side panel and the exterior right-side panel; however, Han suggests temporary hold/stability locks — see Han page 19, 3rd paragraph “On the other hand, when the side plate 420 of the connection clip 400 is configured to include the support hook 421 and the fitting groove 422, the end panel fixing bar 300 in the form of an M bar is located under the carrier bar 200) is installed, and such a finishing panel fixing bar 300 is an inward flange in the fitting groove 422 while the locking jaw 340 is caught on the support hook 421 formed on the side plate 420 of the connection clip 400 It is installed so as to be hooked to the connection clip 400 by being fitted 330 and the locking projection 340”), and a T-bar stop panel (for locking purpose — see Han page 21 line 18 “(360): auxiliary T-bar (361): horizontal plate”, and see Han page 22 lines 20- “An upper plate positioned above the carrier bar, and support hooks are formed on both sides of the lower side so as to be vertically extended toward one direction perpendicular to the upper plate at both ends of the upper plate and to be caught on the locking jaws, ”); Han suggests that these panels are belong to a housing to hold a sensor.
Using the above structure of Han, “connection clip 400” can be replaced for claimed “upper jaw” and “lower jaw” because clip 400 would perform similar functions as claimed “upper jaw” and “lower jaw’, a housing: a structure contains claimed objects has been a familiar sub-assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a combination of Pashko, Fields, with Han to disclose a frame sub-assembly as claimed to have an enclosure securing a sensor for use in association with a non-integrated , round-based collision avoidance system for an aircraft.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-13 are rejected. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664