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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller even when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational” on lines 3-5 lacks proper written description.
Applicant is reciting “when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational” but where “one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational” would reasonably include all such sensors. If all such sensors are not operational, then the device is not reasonably capable of providing any signal indicative of pitch angle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant’s device is able to provide any signal indicative of pitch when all sensors are not operational, as such a feature is reasonably included in the scope of the claim.
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 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 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.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the distance sensor comprises an inductive sensor element, or a capacitive sensor element, or a Hall-effect sensor element, or an optical sensor element, or an ultrasound sensor element” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant is claiming different types of sensors for the distance sensor in a Markush format that is open-ended, making it unclear what other types of sensors may or may not be included or used as the distance sensor. MPEP 2173.05(h) explains ““A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.”
Similar to the above group of materials, the claimed group of sensors raises the same issue because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, as it is unclear what sensors would and would not be included in the above list. As evidence, Claim 6 then recites the distance sensor comprises one or more eddy-current sensor elements, thus demonstrating other sensor types may or may not be included, rendering the scope of this claim indefinite. It is suggested to change “comprises” to “consists of.”
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the sensor apparatus comprises a plurality of distance sensors, each positioned at a different respective axial position along the axis of the target portion” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
Claim 1 already recites “at least one distance sensor,” and such a phrase reasonably includes all sensors. As best understood, the above at least one distance sensor includes the plurality of distance sensors, but where these two recitations of “a plurality of distance sensors” and “at least one distance sensor” are being distinctly recited when they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these two recitations are therefore unclear and indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the at least one distance sensor of Claim 1 includes the plurality of distance sensors of Claim 8. It is suggested to state that the at least one distance sensor includes a plurality of distance sensors, and then reference the plurality of distance sensors as appropriate.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the sensor apparatus comprises: a first inductive sensor element comprising: a first electromagnetic sensor coil; first drive circuitry for driving the first electromagnetic sensor coil with a first alternating current at a first predetermined frequency; and first sensing circuitry, electrically coupled to the first electromagnetic sensor coil, and configured to output a first signal having a component that is indicative of a distance from the first electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion; a second inductive sensor element comprising: a second electromagnetic sensor coil; second drive circuitry for driving the second electromagnetic sensor coil with a second alternating current at a second predetermined frequency, wherein the second predetermined frequency is offset from the first predetermined frequency by an offset amount; and second sensing circuitry, electrically coupled to the second electromagnetic sensor coil, and configured to output a second signal having a component that is indicative of a distance from the second electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion; and filtering circuitry configured to apply low-pass filtering to the first and/or second signals, wherein the low-pass filtering has a cut-off frequency that is below the offset amount such that a component of the first and/or second signal caused by mutual inductance between the first and second electromagnetic sensor coils is attenuated, and to output a first or second filtered signal indicative of the distance from the first and/or second electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant is distinctly introducing first and second inductive sensor elements from the at least one distance sensor of Claim 1, but where these are not distinct as best understood. Applicant explains in the disclosure various implementors for the distance sensors, such as the use of inductive sensor elements, but applicant does not disclose distance sensors and inductive sensors as separate and distinct elements. As best understood, the above first and second inductive sensors are the same and part of the at least one distance sensor recited in Claim 1. Because these features are distinctly recited, the above phrase is indefinite because the difference and relationship between the at least one distance sensor of Claim 1 and the above first and second inductive sensor elements are unclear, and thus the relationship between all of the above features and those recited in Claim 1 as it pertains to the at least one distance sensor are unclear.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the at least one distance sensor of Claim 1 includes the first and second inductive sensor elements of Claim 9. It is suggested to state that the at least one distance sensor includes a first and second inductive sensor element, and then reference the respective first and second inductive sensor element as appropriate.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “the outer surface of the target portion is a surface of revolution” on lines 3-4 is indefinite.
It is unclear what a surface of revolution is intended to mean. This phrase can mean that the surface is intended to rotation, actually rotates, or that something can rotate about the surface. It is therefore unclear what applicant intends with this phrase. As an apparatus claim is directed towards the final product, and thus no actual revolution can occur or is reasonably claimed, this phrase is being interpreted to mean that the surface is one that something can revolve around.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “the sensor apparatus comprises a plurality of distance sensors” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
Claim 1 already recites “at least one distance sensor,” and such a phrase reasonably includes all sensors. As best understood, the above at least one distance sensor includes the plurality of distance sensors, but where these two recitations of “a plurality of distance sensors” and “at least one distance sensor” are being distinctly recited when they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these two recitations are therefore unclear and indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the at least one distance sensor of Claim 1 includes the plurality of distance sensors of Claim 13. It is suggested to state that the at least one distance sensor includes a plurality of distance sensors, and then reference the plurality of distance sensors as appropriate.
The phrase “the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller even when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational” on lines 3-5 is indefinite.
It is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what applicant means by the above phrase, as reciting “one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational” would reasonably include all such sensors. If all such sensors are not operational, then the device is not reasonably capable of providing any signal indicative of pitch angle. It is therefore unclear how many sensors the above phrase “one or more of the plurality of distance sensors” is intended to include.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the axis of rotation” on line 6 is indefinite. No axis of rotation was previously recited, and it is unclear if applicant is referring to the previously recited axis on line 4. This phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the axis of rotation refers to the previously recited axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masayuki et al. (Masayuki) (WO 2019142780 A1).
Note: The cited paragraphs come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claim 1,
Masayuki discloses A sensing system comprising:
a sensor apparatus (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, output circuitry for coil 7); and
a target portion (2) for sensing by the sensor apparatus (Figures 4a-c),
wherein:
the target portion is integral with, or configured for coupling to, a component of an assembly so as to translate along an axis (Paragraphs [0002],[0021],[0040] / note the clear intent of the invention is to detect linear movement (translation) using the monotonically changing shape of the target portion (2)),
the target portion comprises an outer surface having a profile that changes with distance along the axis (Figure 4(a) / note section (2));
the sensor apparatus is configured for non-translating mounting adjacent the target portion (Figure 4(a) / note the sensor coils are configured to remain stationary and adjacent relative to the target portion), (Paragraph [0035]), and comprises at least one distance sensor (either of 6 and 7) for sensing a distance between the distance sensor and the outer surface of the target portion (Figure 4(a)), wherein the sensed distance varies as the target portion translates axially (Figure 4(a) / note the sensed distance between coils 6,7 and the portion 2 will change as portion 2 moves in the up/down direction); and
the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal in dependence on the sensed distance (Figure 3,4(a)),(Paragraphs [0052]-[0054],[0063] / note voltage output from the coils, and this voltage will depend on the distance between the frustoconical shape (2) and the coils, thus making these coils distance sensors in the same manner that applicant’s sensors are distance sensors).
As to Claim 2,
Masayuki discloses the profile of the outer surface of the target portion is such that the sensed distance varies monotonically with distance along the axis (Figure 4(a)),(Paragraph [0062]).
As to Claim 3,
Masayuki discloses the sensor apparatus does not contact the target portion (Figure 4(a)).
As to Claim 4,
Masayuki discloses the target portion is frustoconical in shape (Figure 4(a)),(Paragraph [0062]).
As to Claim 5,
Masayuki discloses the distance sensor comprises an inductive sensor element, or a capacitive sensor element, or a Hall-effect sensor element, or an optical sensor element, or an ultrasound sensor element (Figure 4(a) / note the sensor is inductive).
As to Claim 6,
Masayuki the distance sensor comprises one or more eddy-current sensor elements (Paragraph [0044] / note the coils are eddy current sensor elements because these use eddy currents induced in the magnetic responder 2 to detect a change in movement/distance of the responder 2).
As to Claim 7,
Masayuki discloses the distance sensor is ring-shaped and is arranged to extend around the target portion, coaxially with the axis of the target portion (Figure 4(a) / note the coils wind around the target portion and are reasonably ring shaped).
As to Claim 8,
Masayuki discloses the sensor apparatus comprises a plurality of distance sensors (5,7) , each positioned at a different respective axial position along the axis of the target portion (Figure 4(a) / note the sensors 5,7 are positioned at different axial positions along the X axis as seen in the figure).
As to Claim 15,
Masayuki discloses A method of sensing, comprising: sensing a distance between a distance sensor (7) of a sensor apparatus and an outer surface of a target portion (2) (Figure 4(a)), (Paragraphs [0035], [0052]-[0054],[0063]), wherein the target portion is integral with, or configured for coupling to, a component of an assembly so as to translate along an axis, wherein the target portion comprises an outer surface having a profile that changes with distance along the axis of rotation (Figure 4(a)), and wherein the sensor apparatus is configured for non-translating mounting adjacent the target portion (Figure 4(a)), wherein the sensed distance varies as the target portion translates axially (Figure 4(a)); and outputting a signal from the sensor apparatus in dependence on the sensed distance (Figure 3,4(a)),(Paragraphs [0052]-[0054],[0063] / note voltage output from the coils, and this voltage will depend on the distance between the frustoconical shape (2) and the coils, thus making these coils distance sensors in the same manner that applicant’s sensors are distance sensors).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masayuki et al. (Masayuki) (WO 2019142780 A1) in of Hall (US 4,338,565).
As to Claim 9,
Masayuki discloses the sensor apparatus comprises:
a first inductive sensor element comprising: a first electromagnetic sensor coil (7)(Figure 4(a)); and
first sensing circuitry, electrically coupled to the first electromagnetic sensor coil, and configured to output a first signal having a component that is indicative of a distance from the first electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion (Paragraph [0050] / note the wiring and output circuitry attached to output coil 7);
a second inductive sensor element comprising: a second electromagnetic sensor coil (5)(Figure 4(a));
second sensing circuitry, electrically coupled to the second electromagnetic sensor coil, and configured to output a second signal having a component that is indicative of a distance from the second electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion (Paragraph [0050] / note the wiring and output circuitry attached to output coil 5).
Masayuki does not disclose:
first drive circuitry for driving the first electromagnetic sensor coil with a first alternating current at a first predetermined frequency;
second drive circuitry for driving the second electromagnetic sensor coil with a second alternating current at a second predetermined frequency, wherein the second predetermined frequency is offset from the first predetermined frequency by an offset amount;
filtering circuitry configured to apply low-pass filtering to the first and/or second signals, wherein the low-pass filtering has a cut-off frequency that is below the offset amount such that a component of the first and/or second signal caused by mutual inductance between the first and second electromagnetic sensor coils is attenuated, and to output a first or second filtered signal indicative of the distance from the first and/or second electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion.
Hall discloses
first drive circuitry for driving the first electromagnetic sensor coil with a first alternating current at a first predetermined frequency (Column 6, Lines 28-44),(Column 17 Line 64 – Column 18, Line 19 / note each of the coils are part of an oscillator and thus must be driven by a an alternating signal from respective drive circuitry);
second drive circuitry for driving the second electromagnetic sensor coil with a second alternating current at a second predetermined frequency (Column 6, Lines 28-44),(Column 7 Line 64 – Column 8, Line 19 / note each of the coils are part of an oscillator and thus must be driven by a an alternating signal from respective drive circuitry, wherein the second predetermined frequency is offset from the first predetermined frequency by an offset amount (Column 18, Lines 1-19 / note the coil itself must be driven by a different frequency than the first because the frequencies of the circuits are different);
filtering circuitry (212,214) configured to apply low-pass filtering to the first and/or second signals (Column 8, Lines 11-12), (Figure 17), wherein the low-pass filtering has a cut-off frequency that is below the offset amount such that a component of the first and/or second signal caused by mutual inductance between the first and second electromagnetic sensor coils is attenuated (Column 8, Lines 11-19 / note the cut-off frequency is set to allow the signals from both coils to pass but to filter unwanted signals and thus must disclose this feature), and to output a first or second filtered signal indicative of the distance from the first and/or second electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion (Figure 17 / note the output of the circuitry must be indicative of distance because any distance change will cause a corresponding change in the output of the coils relative to the target wire rope)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Masayuki to include first drive circuitry for driving the first electromagnetic sensor coil with a first alternating current at a first predetermined frequency; second drive circuitry for driving the second electromagnetic sensor coil with a second alternating current at a second predetermined frequency, wherein the second predetermined frequency is offset from the first predetermined frequency by an offset amount; filtering circuitry configured to apply low-pass filtering to the first and/or second signals, wherein the low-pass filtering has a cut-off frequency that is below the offset amount such that a component of the first and/or second signal caused by mutual inductance between the first and second electromagnetic sensor coils is attenuated, and to output a first or second filtered signal indicative of the distance from the first and/or second electromagnetic sensor coil to the outer surface of the target portion as taught by Hall in order to advantageously remove unwanted signals and remove interference (Column 8, Lines 11-19), and therefore reduce errors in the system due to cross-talk or mutual interference, and make the processing easier thus requiring less powerful processors and thus reduce cost.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masayuki et al. (Masayuki) (WO 2019142780 A1) in view of Carrington (US 2017/0248085).
As to Claims 10-14,
Masayuki discloses the outer surface of the target portion is a surface of revolution, about the axis, having a diameter that changes with distance along the axis (Figure 4(a)), the sensor apparatus comprises a plurality of distance sensors (5,7), each positioned at a different respective axial position along the axis of the target portion (Figure 4(a)), the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal even when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational (Figure 4(a)) / note the device will operate should coil 5 not operate properly).
Masayuki does not disclose the target portion is integral with, or configured for coupling to, a component of a variable pitch propeller assembly so as to translate along the axis in a predetermined relationship to a pitch angle of one or more blades of a propeller of the variable pitch propeller assembly; and the signal is indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller,
the target portion is integral with, or configured for coupling to, the component of the variable pitch propeller assembly so as to rotate about the axis when the propeller rotates, and the outer surface of the target portion is a surface of revolution, about the axis, having a diameter that changes with distance along the axis,
a processing system arranged to receive the signal from the sensor apparatus, and to use a predetermined relationship between an output of the sensor apparatus and the pitch angle of the one or more propeller blades to determine a value of the pitch angle of the one or more propeller blades,
the sensor apparatus comprises a plurality of distance sensors, each positioned at a different respective axial position along the axis of the target portion, and wherein the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller even when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational, and
A propeller system for an aircraft, the propeller system comprising: a variable pitch propeller assembly comprising a propeller and configured for controlling a pitch angle of one or more blades of the propeller; and a propeller blade angle sensing system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the target portion is integral with, or coupled to, a component of the variable pitch propeller assembly.
Carrington discloses
the target portion (portion of 30 that is detected) is integral with, or configured for coupling to, a component of a variable pitch propeller assembly (17) so as to translate along the axis in a predetermined relationship to a pitch angle of one or more blades of a propeller of the variable pitch propeller assembly (Paragraph [0018]), (Figure 2); and the signal is indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller (Paragraphs [0013],[0014],[0025]),(Figure 2 / note the sensor outputs a signal representing a translation change as seen at 42 in Figure 2)
the target portion (portion of 30 that is detected) is integral with, or configured for coupling to, the component of the variable pitch propeller assembly so as to rotate about the axis when the propeller rotates (Paragraph [0018]), (Figure 2), and
a processing system (48 or 50) arranged to receive the signal from the sensor apparatus, and to use a predetermined relationship between an output of the sensor apparatus and the pitch angle of the one or more propeller blades to determine a value of the pitch angle of the one or more propeller blades (Paragraphs [0025],[0026] / note that any use of a determined value corresponding to a minimum or maximum pitch angle requires that angle to actually be determined first),
and wherein the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller even when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational (Paragraphs [0024],[0025] / note that any pitch angle value will be output by the sensors and there is no requirement that the sensors ever be not operational), and
A propeller system for an aircraft, the propeller system comprising: a variable pitch propeller assembly comprising a propeller and configured for controlling a pitch angle of one or more blades of the propeller; and a propeller blade angle sensing system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the target portion is integral with, or coupled to, a component of the variable pitch propeller assembly (Figures 2,3), (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Masayuki to include the target portion is integral with, or configured for coupling to, a component of a variable pitch propeller assembly so as to translate along the axis in a predetermined relationship to a pitch angle of one or more blades of a propeller of the variable pitch propeller assembly; and the signal is indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller, the target portion is integral with, or configured for coupling to, the component of the variable pitch propeller assembly so as to rotate about the axis when the propeller rotates, and the outer surface of the target portion is a surface of revolution, about the axis, having a diameter that changes with distance along the axis, a processing system arranged to receive the signal from the sensor apparatus, and to use a predetermined relationship between an output of the sensor apparatus and the pitch angle of the one or more propeller blades to determine a value of the pitch angle of the one or more propeller blades, the sensor apparatus comprises a plurality of distance sensors, each positioned at a different respective axial position along the axis of the target portion, and wherein the sensor apparatus is configured to output a signal indicative of the pitch angle of the one or more blades of the propeller even when one or more of the plurality of distance sensors is not operational, and A propeller system for an aircraft, the propeller system comprising: a variable pitch propeller assembly comprising a propeller and configured for controlling a pitch angle of one or more blades of the propeller; and a propeller blade angle sensing system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the target portion is integral with, or coupled to, a component of the variable pitch propeller assembly given the above disclosure and teaching of Carrington in order to advantageously include a default setting or adjusting of the engine or engine controller module, wherein, for example, when the method or system is unable to identify the propeller blades or propeller assembly, the method or system includes indicating an alert or error, or enabling the engine controller module to default to a generic propeller configuration where the generic propeller configuration can include a configuration appropriate or safe for all known or unknown propeller types or configurations (Paragraph [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2010/0200785 to Goto which discloses a translation detection device using coils to detect the position of a conical object, and 2) US 7,576,532 to Van Steenwyk et al. which discloses an eddy current displacement detection device using various shaped objects including a conical shaped object and coils to detect the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights