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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Board (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0282545).
With respect to claim 1, Board discloses a fatigue measurement system for a mechanical structure (see at least the abstract) the fatigue measurement system comprising: a first force sensor capable of generating a first signal representative of a force applied to a first mechanical part of the mechanical structure (see at least paragraph [0039]); a second force sensor capable of generating a second signal representative of a force applied to a second mechanical part of the mechanical structure (see at least paragraph [0039]), and an electronic processing module configured to calculate a correlation coefficient between the first signal and the second signal (see at least paragraph [0039]), and to indicate a state of fatigue of the mechanical structure according to a time evolution of the correlation coefficient previously calculated (see at least paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 2, the system according to claim 1, characterized in that wherein the first signal and the second signal are acquired over a plurality of acquisition periods each corresponding to an operating cycle (see at least paragraph [0039]), the correlation coefficient between the first signal and the second signal being calculated over each acquisition period (see at least paragraph [0039]).
With respect to claim 3, the system according to claim 2, characterized in that wherein the electronic processing module is configured to determine mathematical indicators for each signal over each acquisition period, such as an average, a minimum, a maximum, a standard deviation (see at least paragraphs [0092] – [0097]).
With respect to claim 4, the system according to claim 1, characterized in that wherein the electronic processing module is configured to calculate the correlation coefficient only when a load variation is detected by the first force sensor and/or the second force sensor (see at least paragraph [0102]) .
With respect to claim 5, the system according to claim 4, characterized in that wherein the load variation is detected when a standard deviation and/or a time derivation of the first signal and/or the second signal is greater than a predetermined threshold (see at least paragraphs [0022], [0036], and [0066]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Board as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duvall et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0072442; hereinafter referred to as Duvall).
With respect to claim 6, the system according to claim 1, characterized in that wherein the calculated correlation coefficient is chosen from the Pearson coefficient or the Spearman coefficient or is obtained from a cross-correlation is not disclosed in Board. However, Duvall teaches that “the signal voltage is correlated by the controller 46 to a known value or set of values indicative of the pressure exerted by compressed gas in the gas strut 24. In some aspects, controller 46 includes a computer memory (not shown) storing one or more lookup tables configured with values for known strain measurements correlated with one or more probability of part failure.” (see at least paragraph [0036] of Duvall) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the computational arrangement of Duvall with the system of Board in order to more accurately determine force values based upon known values so that a probability of failure is more readily recognized.
With respect to claim 7, the system according to claim 1, characterized in that wherein the first force sensor and the second force sensor are strain gauges is not disclosed in Board. However, Duvall teaches the use of strain gauges as the sensor (se at least paragraph [0033] of Duvall). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a strain gauge of Duvall as with the system of Board as a strain gauge would provide a means of a more simplified sensor means that would still enable accurate measurement of the machine.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Board as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Kaku et al. (U.S. patent Application Publication Number 2021/0237617; hereinafter referred to as Kaku).
With respect to claim 8, an aircraft seat comprising: a mechanical structure comprising a backrest associated with a connecting part as well as a bracket to which the connecting part is fixed; and a fatigue measurement system as defined according to claim 1 is not disclosed in Board. Board fails to disclose the seat and bracket. However. Kaku teaches a seat with brackets and sensors (see at least paragraph [0136] of Kaku). Kaku also discloses an aircraft seat (see at least paragraph [0112] of Kaku). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the seat of Kaku with the system of Board in order to obtain accurate measurements of the seats.
With respect to claim 9, the aircraft seat according to claim 8, characterized in that wherein the first force sensor is arranged on the bracket and the second force sensor is arranged on the connecting part is not explicitly disclosed in Board. However, Kaku teaches a sensor on the bracket (see at least paragraph [0136] of Kaku). While Board teaches two sensors, one located in a location other than where the first sensor is located ((see at least paragraph [0039] of Board). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the combined teachings of Board and Kaku in order to have a system that is capable of accurate measurement of an entire seat structure and its various parts.
With respect to claim 10, the aircraft seat according to claim 8 further comprising an armrest mounted on the bracket, the first force sensor being arranged on the bracket and the second force sensor being arranged on the armrest is not explicitly disclosed in Board. However, Kaku teaches an armrest (see at least paragraph [0195]). Kaku also teaches a sensor on the bracket (see at least paragraph [0136] of Kaku). While Board teaches two sensors, one located in a location other than where the first sensor is located ((see at least paragraph [0039] of Board). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the combined teachings of Board and Kaku in order to have a system that is capable of accurate measurement of an entire seat structure and its various parts.
With respect to claim 11, the aircraft seat according to claim 8, characterized in that it further comprises further comprising a tray table rotatably mounted relative to the backrest, the first force sensor being arranged on the backrest and the second force sensor being arranged on the bracket is not explicitly disclosed in Board. However, Kaku teaches an aircraft seat (see at least paragraph [0112] of Kaku) and aircraft seats are known to have tray tables on them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Kaku also teaches a sensor on the bracket (see at least paragraph [0136] of Kaku). While Board teaches two sensors, one located in a location other than where the first sensor is located ((see at least paragraph [0039] of Board). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the combined teachings of Board and Kaku in order to have a system that is capable of accurate measurement of an entire seat structure and its various parts.
With respect to claim 12, an aircraft equipped with aircraft seats according claim 8 is not explicitly disclosed in Board. However. Kaku teaches a seat with brackets and sensors (see at least paragraph [0136] of Kaku). Kaku also discloses an aircraft seat (see at least paragraph [0112] of Kaku). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the aircraft seat of Kaku with an aircraft since aircrafts have to have seats to be operated and the seat of Kaku with the teachings of Board in order to obtain accurate measurements of the aircraft seats.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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 Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/RODNEY T FRANK/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights