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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 11 of U.S. Patent No. : US12,288,471.
The added or updated features of the instant application claims 1 & 11 :
“a vehicle” vs. “an electric aircraft”,
“first data” vs. “aircraft data”,
“navigation parameters” vs “flight parameters”,
“having a greatest impact on a navigation range of the vehicle” vs. “having a greatest impact on a flight range of the electric aircraft” ;
either disclosed by independent / dependent claims of parent patent or obvious variation of independent claim elements. Therefore there is no inventive distinction.
The comparison table below to be used for reference :
Instant App. # 19/090,836
(Pub. No.: US2025/0225882)
Instant App. # 17/824,546
(Patent No.: US12,288,471)
Independent claim 1
Independent claim 1
1. An apparatus of a vehicle configured to determine a most limiting parameter in the vehicle, comprising:
1. An apparatus of an electric aircraft configured to determine a most limiting parameter in the electric aircraft, comprising:
a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive first data from a sensing device of the vehicle associated with a parameter of at least one component or system of the vehicle;
receive aircraft data from a sensing device of the electric aircraft, wherein the sensing device is configured to measure a parameter of at least one component or system of the electric aircraft and generate the aircraft data;
determine, based at least in part on the first data and based on one or more navigation parameters, a limiting parameter of the vehicle that describes a component of the vehicle having a greatest impact on a navigation range of the vehicle;
determine, based at least in part on the aircraft data and based on one or more flight parameters, the most limiting parameter of the electric aircraft, wherein the most limiting parameter is related to a component of the electric aircraft having a greatest impact on a flight range of the electric aircraft;
generate, based at least in part on the limiting parameter, an alert comprising the limiting parameter and an action; and
generate, based at least in part on the most limiting parameter, an alert comprising the most limiting parameter and an action; and
cause the alert to be displayed via an indicator device to a user of the vehicle.
cause the alert to be displayed via a pilot indicator to a user of the electric aircraft.
Independent claim 11
Independent claim 11
11. A method for determining a most limiting parameter in a vehicle, comprising:
11. A method for determining a most limiting parameter in an electric aircraft, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of the vehicle, first data from a sensing device of the vehicle associated with a parameter of at least one component or system of the vehicle;
receiving, by a processor of the electric aircraft, aircraft data from a sensing device of the electric aircraft, wherein the sensing device is configured to measure a parameter of at least one component or system of the electric aircraft and generate the aircraft data;
determining, by the processor and based at least in part on the first data and based on one or more navigation parameters, a limiting parameter of the vehicle that describes a component of the vehicle having a greatest impact on a range of the vehicle;
determining, by the processor and based at least in part on the aircraft data and based on one or more flight parameters, the most limiting parameter of the electric aircraft, wherein the most limiting parameter is related to a component of the electric aircraft having a greatest impact on a flight range of the electric aircraft;
generating, by the processor and based at least in part on the limiting parameter, an alert comprising the limiting parameter and an action; and
generating, by the processor and based at least in part on the most limiting parameter, an alert comprising the most limiting parameter and an action; and
causing, by the processor, the alert to be displayed via an indicator device to a user of the vehicle.
causing, by the processor, the alert to be displayed via a pilot indicator to a user of the electric aircraft.
Dependent claims
Dependent claims
2-10 &12-20: Substantially identical
2-10 & 12-20 : Substantially identical
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 & 12-20; these claims are substantial duplicates of Parent
Patent dependent claims 2-10 & 12-20.
The instant claims recitations are obvious variation of the Prior Patent claims recitation in which both claims are represented by common drawings and are comingled in scope as mapped out above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jalal C CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on 571-272-7298. 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.
/Jalal C CODUROGLU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights