DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on April 3rd, 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in current application.
Claims 1, 10, 13 and 14 are amended.
Claims 15 – 20 are newly added.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “103” has been used to designate both wheel and electrode.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited claim limitation regarding, “a hard landing” and “a signal representative of frequency difference ” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claim 16, 18 and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is also further noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 20, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a signal representative of frequency difference” does not distinctly and particularly point out what or which exactly that applicant is referring to that ought to be set forth regards the metes and bounds of applicant’s invention.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding “a signal representation of frequency difference” does not set forth for what exactly the difference signal referring to as whether referring to frequency amplitude difference, amount difference, rate or time difference that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention in order to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention.
Upon further review, skilled in the art could only locate the “variant of frequency” within applicant’s written description but not the frequency difference as differs from the variant of frequency in substantially content difference. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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 – 3 and 5 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US Pat Pub No. 2020/0031494) in view of Bill (GB2020/019868 in view of US Pat Pub No. 2024/0051356).
Regarding claim 1, James et al shows a ground detection system for an aircraft (See at least Para 0005 for aircraft ground proximity detection system), the system comprising: an aircraft landing gear (See at least Para 0034 for landing gear 20 also on figure 1);
an electrode mounted to the aircraft landing gear ( See at least figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 with capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor),
arranged the electrode and the ground together form a variable capacitor having a capacitance (See at least Para 0047 for capacitance threshold change in capacitance along with suitable capacitance sensor; also on figure 3 for coil 340 forming a current for capacitance sensor),
that depends on a distance of the electrode from the ground as the aircraft landing gear approaches the ground (See at least Para 0033 and 0048 for distance between the aircraft and ground using electrode sensor mounted on the landing gear; See at least figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 with capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor),
signal processing electronics configured to measure the capacitance and based on a measured capacitance determine a distance of the aircraft from the ground (See at least Para 0017 and 0048 for system 300 as process electronic signal generated indicating a distance on Para 0012);
the aircraft landing gear comprises a tyre (See at least Para 0034 for tyre/tire mounted on landing gear);
Bill further shows a tire mounted on a wheel which for the tyre of James (See at least Para 0004); wheel forms the electrode (See at least Figure 2 for metallic wire/stripe band 22 on Para 0055 encircling circumferential surface of the hub part 132 of wheel 13 on Para 0053),
the signal processing electronics are mounted on the wheel and rotate with the wheel during aircraft motion (See at least Para 0055 for sensor 21 and further component 21 on Para 0056 processing electromagnetic signal during wheel motion; also on Para 0080 for controller 612 within sensor 11 package performing distance measurement on Para 0043).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide the wheel and electrode detection utilizing sensor as taught by Bill, for the electrode distance measurement of James, since both James and Bill desired and taught landing distance measurement utilizing electrode that has been both known in the art as known element/technique to improve similar aircraft landing implementation yield predictable result.
It is also noted that the selection of location for placing the electrode integral to landing gear wheel or landing gear as a matter of engineering choices.
Please also see MPEP 2144.04 V.A. Make Integral. In reLarson, 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.”).
Regarding claim 13, James et al shows a method of ground detection for an aircraft (See at least Para 0005 for aircraft ground proximity detection system), the method comprising:
providing an electrode such that the electrode and the ground together form a variable capacitor having a capacitance that depends on a distance of the electrode from the ground (See at least figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 with capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor; Para 0047 for capacitance threshold change in capacitance along with suitable capacitance sensor; also on figure 3 for coil 340 forming a current for capacitance sensor),
on an aircraft landing gear as the aircraft landing gear approaches the ground (See at least Para 0012 for issuing landing signal when sensing parameter meets threshold distance for landing),
measuring the capacitance of the variable capacitor (See at least figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 with capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor);
and determining a distance of the aircraft from the ground based on the measured capacitance (See at least Para 0017 and 0048 for system 300 as process electronic signal generated indicating a distance on Para 0012; also at least Para 0033 and 0048 for distance between the aircraft and ground using electrode sensor mounted on the landing gear; figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 with capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor);
the aircraft landing gear comprises a wheel (See at least Para 0019 for tyre/tire mounted on landing gear); however, James et al does not further specify the mounting location for electrode and sensor is within the wheel.
Bill further shows the wheel forms the electrode (See at least Figure 2 for metallic wire/stripe band 22 on Para 0055 encircling circumferential surface of the hub part 132 of wheel 13 on Para 0053),
the signal processing electronics are mounted on the wheel and rotate with the wheel during aircraft motion (See at least Para 0055 for sensor 21 and further component 21 on Para 0056 processing electromagnetic signal during wheel motion; also on Para 0080 for controller 612 within sensor 11 package performing distance measurement on Para 0043).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide the wheel and electrode detection utilizing sensor as taught by Bill, for the electrode distance measurement of James, since both James and Bill desired and taught landing distance measurement utilizing electrode that has been both known in the art as known element/technique to improve similar aircraft landing implementation yield predictable result.
It is also noted that the selection of location for placing the electrode integral to landing gear wheel or landing gear as a matter of engineering choices.
Please also see MPEP 2144.04 V.A. Make Integral. In reLarson, 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.”).
Regarding claim 2, James et al shows the signal processing electronics comprise an oscillator having a resonant tank circuit (See at least Para 0014 for eddy current generated by coil connecting to the capacitor forming an LC circuit/resonant tank circuit as oscillator),
the variable capacitor formed by the electrode and the ground comprises part of the resonant tank circuit (See at least Para 0014 for eddy current generated by coil, L, connecting to the capacitor, C, forming an LC circuit/resonant tank circuit as oscillator),
such that variation in the capacitance of the variable capacitor causes a variation in an operating frequency of the oscillator (See at least Para 0013 for
generate an oscillating magnetic current in the coil when the radio frequency signal is transmitted through the coil, and the detected parameter comprises a rate of oscillation of the magnetic current).
Regarding claim 3, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to measure the capacitance by measuring the operating frequency of the oscillator (See at least Para 0013 for generate an oscillating magnetic current in the coil when the radio frequency signal is transmitted through the coil, and the detected parameter comprises a rate of oscillation of the magnetic current).
Regarding claim 5, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to detect that the aircraft has landed based on the determined distance falling below a predetermined distance threshold (See at least Para 0054 for wheels contacts ground forming electrode; also on Para 0017 and 0018 for aircraft landing detection with threshold met when distance between aircraft and ground is 0).
Regarding claim 6, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to determine the predetermined distance threshold by measuring the capacitance of the variable capacitor when the aircraft is in a weight on wheels configuration (See at least Para 0004 for weight on wheel system implemented upon aircraft 10 with vertical distance between coil and bottom of tyre along with threshold distance).
Regarding claim 7, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to cause an activation of one or more aircraft deceleration systems in response to detecting that the aircraft has landed (See at least Para 0003 for wheel braking deployed at appropriate moment as aircraft landing event).
Regarding claim 8, James et al show the signal processing electronics are configured to repeat the measuring of the capacitance (See at least Para 0002 for landing event start from close to ground continuous monitoring till initial ground contact),
the determining of a distance of the aircraft from the ground over a period of time to collect a series of measurements of the distance of the aircraft from the ground (See at least Para 0002 for landing event start from close to ground continuous monitoring till initial ground contact and changing of parameter from the sensor output as a series of measurement in comparison also on Para 0014).
Regarding claim 9, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to determine a sink rate of the aircraft based on the series of measurements (See at least Para 0013 for rate of oscillation of the magnetic current based upon the magnetic current output).
Regarding claim 10, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to detect that the aircraft has made a heavy landing by detecting that the determined sink rate exceeds a predetermined sink rate threshold (See at least Para 0005 for detected parameter over predetermined criterion; also on at least Para 0013 for rate of oscillation of the magnetic current based upon the magnetic current output as the parameter).
Regarding claim 11, James et al shows the signal processing electronics are configured to measure the capacitance (See at least Para 0047 for measure capacitance) and determine the distance of the aircraft from the ground while the aircraft is in flight (See at least Para 0047 for threshold capacitance has not been met while still in flight not touch ground and detected ground proximity on Para 0048).
Regarding claim 12, Jame et al shows an aircraft comprising a ground detection system (See at least Para 0029 for aircraft with apparatus detecting ground proximity during aircraft landing).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al (US Pat Pub No. 2020/0031494) in view of Bill (GB2020/019868 in view of US Pat Pub No. 2024/0051356) and further in view of Ferrier et al (US Pat No. 11,702,193).
Regarding claim 14, James et al shows a method of ground detection for an aircraft (See at least Para 0020 for ground proximity detection) comprising:
measuring a capacitance of a variable capacitor formed by an electrode mounted on a landing gear of the aircraft and the ground (See at least figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 for capacitance measurement with capacitance threshold change in capacitor; also on Para 0040 for conduction with respect to ground),
a capacitance of the variable capacitor depends on a distance of the electrode from the ground (See also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor based on RF frequency with respect to ground on Para 0040; at least Para 0047 for capacitance threshold change in capacitance along with suitable capacitance sensor; also on figure 3 for coil 340 forming a current for capacitance sensor),
determining a distance of the aircraft from the ground based on the measured capacitance (See at least Para 0017 and 0048 for system 300 as process electronic signal generated indicating a distance on Para 0012; also at least Para 0033 and 0048 for distance between the aircraft and ground using electrode sensor mounted on the landing gear; figure 2 for sensor 220 with electrode on Para 0047 with capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor); the aircraft landing gear comprises a wheel (See at least Para 0019 for tyre/tire mounted on landing gear); however, James et al does not further specify the mounting location for electrode and sensor is within the wheel.
Bill further shows the wheel forms the electrode (See at least Figure 2 for metallic wire/stripe band 22 on Para 0055 encircling circumferential surface of the hub part 132 of wheel 13 on Para 0053),
the signal processing electronics are mounted on the wheel and rotate with the wheel during aircraft motion (See at least Para 0055 for sensor 21 and further component 21 on Para 0056 processing electromagnetic signal during wheel motion; also on Para 0080 for controller 612 within sensor 11 package performing distance measurement on Para 0043).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide the wheel and electrode detection utilizing sensor as taught by Bill, for the electrode distance measurement of James, since both James and Bill desired and taught landing distance measurement utilizing electrode that has been both known in the art as known element/technique to improve similar aircraft landing implementation yield predictable result.
It is also noted that the selection of location for placing the electrode integral to landing gear wheel or landing gear as a matter of engineering choices.
Please also see MPEP 2144.04 V.A. Make Integral. In reLarson, 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.”);
however, James modified does not further disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions cause the computer to carry out the method when the program is executed by a computer implemented.
Ferrier et al further shows a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions cause the computer to carry out the method when the program is executed by a computer (See at least Col 28, lines 30 – 40 for non-transitory computer readable, also Col 28, lines 55 – 60 for computer workstation and computing device; also Col 12, lines 61 – 66 for proximity sensor);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide non-transitory computer with computer program executable by Ferrier, for the aircraft sensor information processing, since processing the sensor information is desired and implemented by aircraft system of James modified.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James modified further in view Bateman (US Pat No. 3936796).
Regarding claims 15 and 17, James shows the signal processing electronics (See at least Para 0017 and 0048 for system 300 as process electronic signal generated indicating a distance on Para 0012) are configured to repeat the measuring the capacitance and determine the distance over time ( See at least Para 0047 for capacitance have different value repeated measured during in flight and contact ground during in flight time and contact ground time);
to detect a landing with landing threshold (See at least Para 0047 for predetermined threshold capacitance with landing signal on Para 0057; also on at least Para 0047 for capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor); however, James et al does not further discuss the signal processing electronics determining sink rate and excessive sink rate;
Bateman further shows capacitance to determine the sink rate of the aircraft (See at least figure 2 for 1/s+1, sink rate detector 24 construction with circuit transfer function, where 1/(s+1) as representation for RC, resistor/capacitor, circuit for sink rate .hb output); a hard landing based on the determined sink rate exceeding threshold (See at least Col 6, lines 19 – 35 for excessive sink rate detector with sink rate input .hb;
also on Col 3, lines 15 – 30 for warning given at warning condition for aircraft approaches too closely and too rapidly not proper for landing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the sink rate determination of Bateman at the time of filing, for the landing processing electronics of James, since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art, to provide the landing condition warning taught by Bateman, for the landing system of James et al, at the time of filing.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James modified further in view Vanselow et al (US Pat Pub No. 2009/0045880).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, James et al shows the signal processing electronics comprise a variable oscillator including a resonant tank circuit (See at least Para 0014 for eddy current generated by coil connecting to the capacitor forming an LC circuit/resonant tank circuit as oscillator with radio frequency), incorporating the variable capacitor (See at least Para 0047 for sensor 220 with a threshold capacitance change as variable capacitor); however, James et al does not further discuss electronics composition.
Vanselow et al further shows electronics composition with a variable capacitor (See at least figure 2 for Ca, Cb and C4t as variable capacitor; also on Para 0018),
a mixer configured to generate a signal representative of a frequency difference (See at least Para 0019 comparator COMP generates the voltage signal drop across variable capacitors CA and CB at voltage rail VAB with the reference voltage Vref, this output of the comparator COMP is then the DCO output clock signal, as the frequency clock, generated based on the difference between the voltage VAB and the reference voltage Vref, as base frequency for frequency difference based upon the capacitance change);
a reference oscillator (See at least figure 2 for COMP output discussed above feedback as output as clock signal, oscillation base frequency, with CS1, CS2, CS3, toward COMP2 as switch where the COMP2 also further provides variable caby acitance C4T with respect to voltage rail VAB, as reference voltage differential comparison output),
between the variable oscillator and the reference oscillator (See at least Para 0009 for digital controller oscillator with weighting logic that is produced based upon the COMP2 and digital controller oscillator DCO in between connection L1 adjustable also on figure 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide electronics composition of Vanselow et al, in order to provide capacitance difference measurement utilizing voltage drop differential as taught by Vanselow, for the ground height measure in capacitance measurement desired by James modified, in order to achieve aircraft landing apparatus implementation, as desired by James modified.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James modified and further in view of Bateman (US Pat No. 3936796) and Ferrier et al (US Pat No. 11,702,193).
Regarding claim 19, James shows the signal processing electronics (See at least Para 0017 and 0048 for system 300 as process electronic signal generated indicating a distance on Para 0012) are configured to repeat the measuring the capacitance and determine the distance over time ( See at least Para 0047 for capacitance have different value repeated measured during in flight and contact ground during in flight time and contact ground time);
to detect a landing with landing threshold (See at least Para 0047 for predetermined threshold capacitance with landing signal on Para 0057; also on at least Para 0047 for capacitance measurement; also Para 0048 with coil 340 inducing frequency signal with eddy current for capacitor); however, James et al does not further discuss the signal processing electronics determining sink rate and excessive sink rate;
Bateman further shows capacitance to determine the sink rate of the aircraft (See at least figure 2 for 1/s+1,sink rate detector 24 construction with circuit transfer function, where 1/(s+1) as representation for RC, resistor/capacitor, circuit for sink rate .hb output); a hard landing based on the determined sink rate exceeding threshold (See at least Col 6, lines 19 – 35 for excessive sink rate detector with sink rate input .hb;
also on Col 3, lines 15 – 30 for warning given at warning condition for aircraft approaches too closely and too rapidly not proper for landing);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide the sink rate determination of Bateman at the time of filing, for the landing processing electronics of James, since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art, to provide the landing condition warning taught by Bateman, for the landing system of James et al, at the time of filing;
however, James modified in view of Bateman does not further disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions cause the computer to carry out the method when the program is executed by a computer implemented.
Ferrier et al further shows a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions cause the computer to carry out the method when the program is executed by a computer (See at least Col 28, lines 30 – 40 for non-transitory computer readable, also Col 28, lines 55 – 60 for computer workstation and computing device; also Col 12, lines 61 – 66 for proximity sensor);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide non-transitory computer with computer program executable by Ferrier, for the aircraft sensor information processing, since processing the sensor information is desired and implemented by aircraft system of James modified.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James modified further in view of Vanselow et al (US Pat Pub No. 2009/0045880) and Ferrier et al (US Pat No. 11,702,193).
Regarding claim 20, James et al shows the signal processing electronics comprise a variable oscillator including a resonant tank circuit (See at least Para 0014 for eddy current generated by coil connecting to the capacitor forming an LC circuit/resonant tank circuit as oscillator with radio frequency), incorporating the variable capacitor (See at least Para 0047 for sensor 220 with a threshold capacitance change as variable capacitor); however, James et al does not further discuss electronics composition.
Vanselow et al further shows electronics composition with a variable capacitor (See at least figure 2 for Ca, Cb and C4t as variable capacitor; also on Para 0018),
a mixer configured to generate a signal representative of a frequency difference (See at least Para 0019 comparator COMP generates the voltage signal drop across variable capacitors CA and CB at voltage rail VAB with the reference voltage Vref, this output of the comparator COMP is then the DCO output clock signal, as the frequency clock, generated based on the difference between the voltage VAB and the reference voltage Vref, as base frequency for frequency difference based upon the capacitance change);
a reference oscillator (See at least figure 2 for COMP output discussed above feedback as output as clock signal, oscillation base frequency, with CS1, CS2, CS3, toward COMP2 as switch where the COMP2 also further provides variable caby acitance C4T with respect to voltage rail VAB, as reference voltage differential comparison output),
between the variable oscillator and the reference oscillator (See at least Para 0009 for digital controller oscillator with weighting logic that is produced based upon the COMP2 and digital controller oscillator DCO in between connection L1 adjustable also on figure 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide electronics composition of Vanselow et al, in order to provide capacitance difference measurement utilizing voltage drop differential as taught by Vanselow, for the ground height measure in capacitance measurement desired by James modified, in order to achieve aircraft landing apparatus implementation, as desired by James modified;
however, James modified does not further disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions cause the computer to carry out the method when the program is executed by a computer implemented.
Ferrier et al further shows a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions cause the computer to carry out the method when the program is executed by a computer (See at least Col 28, lines 30 – 40 for non-transitory computer readable, also Col 28, lines 55 – 60 for computer workstation and computing device; also Col 12, lines 61 – 66 for proximity sensor);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide non-transitory computer with computer program executable by Ferrier, for the aircraft sensor information processing, since processing the sensor information is desired and implemented by aircraft system of James modified.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s remark that James does not shows applicant newly recited claim limitation; however, applicant’s attention is directed to Page x above, where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed under James in view of Bill where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed under James in view of Bill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B.H. Ehnh, RU2025742, Digital capacitive altimeter, altimeter construction with capacitance change of electrodes with respect to ground/earth system.
Bill, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0237896, internal wheel monitoring device.
Kuhnemann, US Pat No. 2,269,374, capacitance measurement with respect to ground.
Luce, US Pat Pub No. 2010/0252678, ground sensing.
Jones, WO 2008/110836, landing gear with sensor.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights