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 Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
It is unclear whether or not claims 1-20 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The claims lack the phraseology “means for” that would normally be used to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in a product/apparatus claim. However, the claims comprise terms that could be interpreted to substitute for “means” (i.e., generic placeholders) and that are accompanied by functional language without sufficient structure to perform the functions, which can invoke 112(f) even without recitation of “means for” in accordance with MPEP 2181(I). The question of whether or not 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is obfuscated by the written description, which fails to precisely and clearly disclose what structures and equivalents are required to achieve the claimed functions, as is required by MPEP 2181(II). Note the following examples:
Claim 1 (lines 5-11) recites “a base adapted to be mounted to aircraft structure to allow movement of the lower grip section in forward/rearward directions and inboard/outboard directions to allow aircraft control about pitch and roll axis, respectively, and to allow twisting of the lower grip section in clockwise/counterclockwise directions about a yaw axis to allow aircraft control about the yaw axis”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any structural mounting/allowing/movement/control/twisting adaptation structures nor any equivalents thereto.
Claim 1 (lines 12-16) recites “a lower grip section defines a grip reference point (GRP) establishing a theoretical point of application of forces onto the sidestick controller about the pitch and roll axes, wherein the yaw axis is substantially coincident with the GRP and the sidestick central axis”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any structural defining/establishing structure nor any equivalents thereto.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “a touch control steering (TCS) button”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any structure or equivalents capable of controlling/steering.
Claims 11 and 17 recite “push-to-talk (PTT) button”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any structure or equivalents capable of a talk function.
Claim 13 recites “quick disconnect button”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any quick disconnect structure or equivalents.
Note that the lack of disclosure noted above raises serious written description and clarity issues regardless of whether or not the claims invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as is detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) clarity rejections elsewhere below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s claims require numerous functions (see numerous functions set forth in the “Claim Interpretation” section elsewhere above and incorporated herein by reference). Applicant’s claims and disclosure fail to clearly and precisely describe any structure and equivalents for performing the claimed functions, much less sufficient details of a representative number of species required to establish possession of the full broad genus claimed.
See MPEP 2163.03(V) which states in part:
“An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated… The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. ‘Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.’…”
See MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii), which states in various parts:
“The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice… reduction to drawings… or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics… sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus…”
“[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention…”
“[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification…”
“A ‘representative number of species’ means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus…”
“A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when… Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss…”
“The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed… The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed…”
More particularly, applicant’s disclosure fails to set forth any detailed drawing depiction or written description of any of the claim 1 base mounting adaptation structure, base movement allowing structure, base aircraft control allowing structure, base twisting allowing structure. Further, there is no disclosure of any lower grip section GRP defining/establishing structure noting that GRP would likely be at least partially a function of some articulation joint structures rather than only a function of the grip itself (e.g., such as in figure 15 of prior art to Cowling US 20220326727), such articulation structures being completely lacking in applicant’s disclosure. Further, applicant’s disclosure lacks any structural details for the touch control, talk or quick disconnect recited in claims 10, 11, 13, 16 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Applicant’s claims set forth generic place holders “base” and “button” accompanied by functional limitations (see numerous functions set forth in the “Claim Interpretation” section elsewhere above and incorporated herein by reference). Applicant’s disclosure fails to describe what structures and equivalents are necessary for performing the functions, much less sufficient details of a representative number of species required to clarify the meets and bounds of the claimed genus. Accordingly, it is unclear whether 35 USC 112(f) is being invoked, and further unclear what scope of structures are to be encompassed by the claims.
See MPEP 2163.03(VI) which states:
“If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b)… Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a)… because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.”
The Claim 1 limitation “a base adapted to be mounted to aircraft structure… “ is unclear as to what scope of mounting structures and equivalents are to limit the claim. Applicant’s base is not depicted or described with any mounting structures, fasteners, tape, glue, etc. Further applicant fails to set forth any articulating joint structure or computer controller such that it is unclear what is encompassed by the claim 1 functions “to allow movement… to allow aircraft control… to allow twisting…”
Claim 1 (lines 12-16) recites “a lower grip section defines a grip reference point (GRP) establishing a theoretical point of application of forces onto the sidestick controller about the pitch and roll axes, wherein the yaw axis is substantially coincident with the GRP and the sidestick central axis”, which is unclear since a reference point as claimed would appear to be located as a function of the articulating structure mounting the grip, whereas applicant has failed to disclose any such structure.
Claims 10 and 16 recite “a touch control steering (TCS) button”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any structure or equivalents capable of controlling/steering such that it is unclear what button structures are necessary to qualify for the label “touch control steering”.
Claims 11 and 17 recite “push-to-talk (PTT) button”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any structure or equivalents capable of a talk function such that it is unclear what button structures are necessary to qualify for the label “to talk”.
Claim 13 recites “quick disconnect button”. Applicant’s disclosure fails to depict or describe any quick disconnect structure or equivalents such that it is unclear what button structures are necessary to qualify for the label “quick disconnect”.
In addition to the above functional clarity issues, the claims are otherwise unclear as follows:
Claims 2-4, 19 and 20 recite “cants” without a reference frame (i.e., canted relative to what structural element/surface?). Such that the claims are infinitely broad and unclear since any object/element/surface is inherently canted with regard to some other plane/surface/element. Note that the claim 4 and 20 specified cant angle ranges are still infinitely broad since they are recited without any relative reference frame (i.e., 10° relative to what element/surface?)
Claim 5 is unclear as to the meets and bounds of “throttle shaped” since the term throttle refers to an engine function rather than any specific shape.
Claim 6 is unclear whether the latter recitation “the cylindrical first head portion” is to refer to the same element as the previous “semi-cylindrical first head portion” or to an additional element.
Claim 6 recites “an inboard direction” without reference frame and is thus unclear.
The claim 7 limitation “sliding movements” of the thumbwheel is unclear as to what element slides against another. Note that a wheel would normally be expected to roll rather than slide and applicant’s figures and written description fail to clarify to the contrary.
In claims 10 and 16 the limitation “protrudes outwardly in an inboard direction” is self-contradictory and without reference frame such that it is unclear.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cowling US 20220326727.
The prior art structures bolded below appear to be inherently capable of meeting the claimed functions/properties italicized below in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114, which states that where the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the PTO may presume claimed functions/properties to be inherently capable thereto, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary.
Claim 1. A sidestick grip (310) to allow aircraft control about at least three axes, the sidestick grip comprising: a lower grip section (lower section of 310) adapted to be gripped by a pilot’s hand and defining a sidestick central axis (central axis of 310); a base (base of 310, or 320, or 520) adapted to be mounted to aircraft structure to allow movement of the lower grip section in forward/rearward directions and inboard/outboard directions to allow aircraft control about pitch and roll axes, respectively, and to allow twisting of the lower grip section in clockwise/counterclockwise directions about a yaw axis to allow aircraft control about the yaw axis, and wherein the lower grip section defines a grip reference point (GRP 1500, see fig.15 and written description thereof) establishing a theoretical point of application of forces onto the sidestick controller about the pitch and roll axes, wherein the yaw axis is substantially coincident with the GRP and the sidestick central axis.
Claims 2 and 19. The sidestick grip according to claim 1 (or 18), wherein the base mounts the sidestick grip so as to define forward and inboard cants (as best understood, any cants relative to any other elements, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejections).
Claim 3. The sidestick grip according to claim 2, wherein the forward and rearward cants are relative to latitudinal and longitudinal planes (as best understood, any imaginary planes vertical and horizontal with respective to some other element, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejections).
Claim 4 and 20. The sidestick grip according to claim 3 (or 19), wherein the forward cant is an angle α of 10°-17° (as best understood, relative to a plane 10°-17° away, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejections), and the rearward cant is an angle β of 2°-10° (as best understood, relative to a plane 2°-10° away, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejections).
Claim 5. The sidestick grip according to claim 1, further comprising a throttle-shaped head section (upper section of 310 supporting 340 is throttle shaped as best understood, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection) joined to an upper end of the lower grip section.
Claim 6. The sidestick grip according to claim 5, wherein the throttle-shaped head section comprises: a transversely oriented semi-cylindrical first head portion (any curved portion near 340), and a truncated conical second head portion (any other curved portion truncated at another portion, as best understood, see 35 USC 112 clarity rejection) protruding outwardly from the cylindrical first head portion in an inboard direction.
Claim 7. The sidestick grip according to claim 6, wherein the first head portion comprises: a recessed arcuate guide (arcuate portion guiding/receiving the “thumbwheel or rocker switch” 340 that is recessed relative thereto and/or relative to any other part); and an arcuate segment of a thumb wheel (arcuate segment of “thumbwheel” 340) operatively mounted to the recessed arcuate guide for thumb-activated acuate [arcuate] sliding movements in forward and aft directions.
Claims 8 and 14. The sidestick grip according to claim 5 (or 13), wherein the lower grip section includes contoured concavities (contoured concavities of 310) allowing respective digits of a pilot’s hand to rest thereagainst when the lower grip section is gripped.
Claims 9 and 15. The sidestick grip according to claim 5 (or 14), further comprising a transition section (section transitioning between 310 and 340 joining the upper end of the lower grip section to the throttle-shaped head section.
Claims 10 and 16. The sidestick grip according to claim 7 (or 15), further comprising a button (see written description of “The grip may include one or more input devices 340” each of which may be a “button”) which protrudes outwardly in an inboard direction (outward toward the index finger, see written description of “sits at the front of the grip 310”) and is adapted to being depressed by a digit (disclosed index finger reads on any numbered digit since no reference frame is given for counting first, second, third, fourth or fifth finger/digit; and/or any finger is inherently capable of touching any outer surface of the grip when the hand grips in some manner in a broad sense) of the pilot’s hand when gripping the lower grip section. Note that the term “touch control steering” is considered to be a mere label for the button failing to set forth any specific button structure lacking in the prior art button, and further note that where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964).
Claims 11 and 17. The sidestick grip according to claim 5 (or 16), further comprising a push-to-talk (PTT) button (“push to talk trigger” meets definition of button within broadest reasonable interpretation since it is disclosed as being pushed and controlled by the index finger) outwardly protruding in a forward direction from the transition section (outward toward the index finger, see written description of “sits at the front of the grip 310”) and adapted to being depressed by the second digit of the pilot’s hand when gripping the lower grip section (see written description of “index finger may be used to control an input at the grip 310 [e.g., push to talk trigger]”).
Claims 12 and 18. The sidestick grip according to claim 11 (or 17), wherein a forward surface (forward surface of upper 310) of the throttle-shaped head section includes a contoured concavity (concavity at front of upper portion of 310) to allow the second digit of the pilot’s hand to rest thereagainst.
Claim 13. The sidestick grip according to claim 7, further comprising a button positioned so as to be canted outwardly in an outboard direction (any direction since outboard is recited without reference frame) at an outboard side of the throttle-shaped upper section (any outer side since outboard is recited without reference frame) and at an elevation that is lower than that of the arcuate segment of the thumb wheel (noting that the multiple disclosed input device buttons 340 would inherently have one lower than another since “lower” is recited without reference frame). Note that the term “quick disconnect” is considered to be a mere label for the button failing to set forth any specific button structure lacking in the prior art button, and further note that where there is physical identity between the subject matter of the claim and the prior art, the label given to the claimed subject matter does not distinguish the invention over the prior art. In re Pearson, 494 F. 2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974); In re Lemin, 326 F. 2d 437, 140 USPQ 273 (CCPA 1964).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon above is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure due general structural similarity thereto.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618