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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 and 19-20 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes some of the claim objections from the previously filed Office Action. Please see the claim objections below.
Applicant’s amendment introduces several 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments to independent claim(s) 1 are moot due to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections provided below. The claims at issue are replete with 112(b) errors which precludes proper prior art examination under merits as the metes and bounds of the invention are unclear.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation “at least one audio system/intercom interface”. The specification supports an “intercom interface” which is inherently an “audio system”. Therefore, this limitation appears redundant. The Applicant should re-write “audio system/intercom interface” to recite just “at least one intercom interface” as supported by the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 19-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “no return signal” in “wherein during normal flight conditions no return signal is received by the system.”. This term lacks clear antecedent basis as it is unclear whether the “return signal” is referring to a return signal of the “emitted continuous beam” or a return signal of some other signal. The “return signal” needs to be linked to a specific transmitted signal and it is unclear which transmitted signal it is based on.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a return signal caused by the presence of a threat to the aircraft” in “at least one receiver to detect a return signal caused by the presence of a threat to the aircraft”. This term lacks clear antecedent basis as it is unclear whether the “a return signal” is referring to a return signal of the “emitted conditions beam” or a return signal of some other signal. The “a return signal” should be linked to a specific transmitted signal and it is unclear which transmitted signal it is based on.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “no speed information” in “wherein the system intentionally provides no speed information, no range information, and no information about a target type to the pilot”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the “no speed information” is referring to the speed of the aircraft or the speed of a target or a threat. The “no speed information” has not been linked to the threat and therefore it is unclear when the system intentionally provides no speed information and what the speed is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “no range information” in “wherein the system intentionally provides no speed information, no range information, and no information about a target type to the pilot”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the “no range information” is referring to the range of the aircraft or the range of a target or a threat. The “no range information” has not been linked to the threat and therefore it is unclear when the system intentionally provides no range information and what the range is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “no information about a target type” in “wherein the system intentionally provides no speed information, no range information, and no information about a target type to the pilot”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the “no information about a target type” is referring to a target type detected by the return signal or some other target type. The “no information about a target type” has not been linked to the threat and therefore it is unclear when the system intentionally provides no information about a target type and what the target type is referring to.
The term “normal mission activities” in “such that the pilot is not distracted from normal mission activities” of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal mission activities” 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 limitation “such that the pilot is not distracted from normal mission activities” in claim 1 is indefinite as a distraction is a subjective term. Therefore it is unclear what is meant by “such that the pilot is not distracted”. The Examiner suggests to remove the limitation of “such that the pilot is not distracted from normal mission activities” entirely.
The term “imminent threat” in claims 7 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “imminent threat” 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 term “sufficient warning time” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient warning time” 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.
All claims dependent on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
EXAMINER’S NOTE
The claims at issue are replete with 112(b) errors which precludes proper prior art examination under merits as the metes and bounds of the invention are unclear.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648