DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 5-8 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/23/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/25/2022 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
6. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered. Examiner agrees that prior arts Johnson and Nelson do not disclose the new amendments of monitoring a physical condition/health of a pilot within the cockpit. However, Examiner brings forth a new reference Bhardwaj in which discloses monitoring a physical condition/ health of a pilot in the cockpit and can display an alarm to crew outside of the cockpit that the pilot is under distress. This indicates that Johnson in view of Nelson in further view of Boucourt in furthest view of Bhardwaj does teach the capability of the amended claim.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a surveillance system” – in claim 1, 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“a surveillance system” – processor [0039-0040]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 non-obviousness.
10. Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20220388678) in view of Nelson (US 20040079837) in further view of Boucourt (US 20140176668) and in furthest view of Bhardwaj (US 20230190122)
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses An emergency system for an aircraft, comprising: (Johnson, see at least [0002] “methods and systems for alarms and more particularly to alarms responsive to undesired or abnormal pilot state.”)
an autopilot controller arranged in a cockpit of the aircraft and configured to automatically fly the aircraft including performing predefined maneuvers; (Johnson, see at least element 106 in Fig. 1A. Also see paragraph [0060] wherein the aircraft can engage in an autopilot mode.)
a surveillance system; (Johnson, see at least [0019] wherein a user authentication system 112 may be configured to detect authorized/unauthorized users.)
a camera arranged in the cockpit and configured to capture an image of the cockpit; (Johnson, see at least [0004] “the system includes a camera configured to capture an image within a flight deck of an aircraft.”)
and an emergency button arranged in a crew rest compartment outside of the cockpit and configured to send an emergency landing signal to the surveillance system, the autopilot controller, or both when activated, (Johnson, see at least [0061-0065] wherein a duress input is received via a button, and in response to the duress input received, system 112 may lock controls, contact ground dispatch and contact an air marshall. An auto-land function may also be activated when the duress phrase is uttered.)
wherein the emergency button allows a flight crew member outside the cockpit to control the surveillance system, the autopilot controller, or both without further intervention from outside the aircraft. (Johnson, see at least [0061-0065] wherein a duress input is received via a button, and in response to the duress input received, system 112 may lock controls and contact ground dispatch. The system 112 may recognize the duress input (button) and can auto taxi the aircraft back to the gate. ** interpreted as member controlling the autopilot controller since the recognized duress input would cause the aircraft to auto taxi back to the gate.)
Johnson does not explicitly disclose and a user interface device arranged in the crew rest compartment and configured to display the captured image from the camera, (Johnson, see at least [0004] “the system includes a camera configured to capture an image within a flight deck of an aircraft.”)
However, Boucourt discloses and a user interface device arranged in the crew rest compartment and configured to display the captured image from the camera. (Nelson, see at least [0053] wherein a display screen can be situated at various points within the aircraft to display the surveillance system images.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Johnson with the teachings of Boucourt to include the technique of utilizing a display screen top display surveillance system image, in which would improve the entrusted flight crew access to the emergency button if the cockpit is experiencing an emergency. This would further improve the flight crew’s ability to press an emergency button when there is an event that is occurring that needs automated landing.
Johnson does not explicitly disclose wherein the surveillance system is configured to monitor a physical condition, a health, or both of a pilot in the cockpit, to determine whether the pilot is hampered from operating the aircraft, and to send an alarm signal to the user interface device, when the physical condition, the health, or both is determined to be hampered, or both,
However, Bhardwaj discloses wherein the surveillance system is configured to monitor a physical condition, a health, or both of a pilot in the cockpit, (Bhardwaj, see at least [0034] measuring and communicating pilot biometrics **)
to determine whether the pilot is hampered from operating the aircraft, and to send an alarm signal to the user interface device, when the physical condition, the health, or both is determined to be hampered, or both, (Bhardwaj, see at least [0044] “the aircraft communication system includes a display for indicating to the crew the pilot under distress and the specific physical distress, optionally with medical instructions, such that the crew can react quickly to attend to the medical emergency. The display may be a flight crew control panel or other cabin display which provides other cabin information. Additional communications to the crew may include, but are not limited to, other visual and audio communications. Warnings and alarms may continue until acknowledged by the flight crew.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Johnson with the teachings of Bhardwaj to include the technique of monitoring a physical/health condition of a pilot and when its determined that the pilot is under distress, a display may be used to display warnings/alarms to flight crew, in which would improve the entrusted flight crew access to the emergency button if the cockpit is experiencing an emergency. This would further improve the flight crew’s ability when there is an event that is occurring that needs automated landing.
Johnson does not explicitly disclose an emergency button arranged in a crew rest compartment outside of the cockpit
However, Nelson in which is directed to an anti-hijacking system operable in emergencies to deactivate on-board flight controls discloses an emergency button arranged in a crew rest compartment outside of the cockpit (Nelson, see at least [0020] wherein the emergency button may be constructed and located for easy and fast activation by flight crew. The panic button may be embodied by one or multiple remote-control units entrusted to flight crew, flight attendants, air marshals and more. ** if embodied by air marshals, it is arranged outside the cockpit.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Johnson with the teachings of Nelson to include the technique of having an emergency button located outside of the cockpit, in which would improve the entrusted flight crew access to the emergency button. This would further improve the flight crew’s ability to press an emergency button when there is an event that is occurring that needs automated landing.
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson in view of Nelson discloses The emergency system of claim 2, (see rejection above)
wherein the image of the cockpit includes a pilot seat. (Johnson, see at least [0004] wherein the camera configured to capture images is within a flight deck of an aircraft.)
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson in view of Nelson discloses The emergency system of claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the emergency button comprises a security measure. (Johnson, see at least [0065] wherein the system112 may detect the duress input by any technique described and are not limited to facial detection, duress phrase, pin code, button, switch with a cover, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson in view of Nelson discloses The emergency system of claim 5, (see rejection above)
wherein the security measure comprises an authentication means. (Johnson, see at least [0065] wherein the system112 may detect the duress input by any technique described and are not limited to facial detection, duress phrase, pin code, button, switch with a cover, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson in view of Nelson discloses An aircraft section, comprising: (see rejection above)
the cockpit; at least one crew rest compartment located outside of the cockpit; and the emergency system of claim 1. (see rejection above in claim 1)
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson in view of Nelson discloses An aircraft comprising: (see rejection above)
the aircraft section of claim 7. (Johnson, see at least [0009] and Fig. 1C in which showcases a flight deck of an aircraft.)
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060032978 – A method and apparatus for assuming and maintaining secure control of an aircraft in the event of an intended, attempted or actual attack upon, or incapacity of, the human pilot(s) of the aircraft.
US 11150653 B1 – A system and related method operates to receive autopilot selection and monitor aircraft systems to control which autopilot is actively flying the aircraft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi 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 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights