DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-15 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 04/01/2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2, change “air-craft” to “aircraft”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 4, the term “the following flight statuses” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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 flight status detector … to determine flight status of the aircraft from first sensor data,” as recited in claim 1.
“a cabin interior device … configured to switch between operating states,” as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. 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.
If the 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 § 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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sterling et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0366795A1 (hereinafter, Sterling).
Regarding Claim 1, Sterling describes a system for flight status based control of a device arranged in a cabin of an aircraft (system for determining flight status based on a device in the cabin of the aircraft (e.g., sensor to determine flight status like climbing), Sterling, Paragraph 0046), the system comprising: a flight status detector, comprising an air pressure sensor for detecting air pressure (pcab) within the cabin (flight status detector can encompass a pressure sensor for determining the air pressure in the cabin, Sterling, Paragraphs 0044-0047) and an accelerometer for detecting acceleration of the aircraft (flight status detector can also include an accelerometer for detecting the acceleration of the aircraft, Sterling, Paragraphs 0049-0051), wherein the flight status detector is configured to determine a flight status of the aircraft from first sensor data, received from the air pressure sensor, and second sensor data, received from the accelerometer (flight status can be determined via the use of the pressure sensor and accelerometer (e.g., determining take-off and climbing based on change in pressure and acceleration of the aircraft), Sterling, Paragraphs 0044-0060), and a cabin interior device, coupled to the flight status detector, wherein the cabin interior device has at least two operating states and wherein the cabin interior device is configured to switch between operating states in response to information received from the flight status detector (sensor encompassed with the flight status detector to have at least two operating states (e.g., sensor determines aircraft is flying vs. ground ops), wherein the device can switch between the two states based on the sensor information (e.g., change in pressure), Sterling, Paragraphs 0044-0047).
Regarding Claim 2, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the information received from the flight status detector comprises an indication of the flight status of the air-craft and/or an operating state switching command (information received from the flight status detector indicates the flight status of the aircraft (e.g., sensor information can indicate flying vs. ground), Sterling, Paragraphs 0044-0047).
Regarding Claim 3, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the first sensor data comprises momentary air pressure readings and/or air pressure readings over time (sensor data provides air pressure reading over time, Sterling, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 4, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the flight status detector is configured to detect at least two of the following flight statuses: aircraft on ground with at least one open door; aircraft on ground with closed doors; aircraft taxiing before take-off; aircraft climbing (flight status detector determines that the aircraft climbing, Sterling, Paragraph 0046); aircraft in cruise (determining aircraft is in cruise, Sterling, Paragraph 0046); aircraft in descent (determining aircraft is in descent, Sterling, Paragraph 0046); aircraft in turbulences; aircraft taxiing after landing; aircraft parking after having reached its parking position with closed doors; and aircraft parking after having reached its parking position with at least one open door.
Regarding Claim 5, Sterling describes the system according to claim 4, wherein the flight status detector is configured to perform at least one of the following flight status detections: detect the flight status of aircraft on ground, when the air pressure (pcab) is above a first air pressure threshold, the air pressure is static, and the accelerometer indicates no vibration; detect the flight status of aircraft taxiing before take-off, when the air pressure (pcab) is above a second air pressure threshold, the air pressure (pcab) is increasing or has increased (flight status detector able to determine that the air pressure is above a second air pressure threshold and the airs pressure is increasing or has increased (e.g., period between t1 and t2 seen in pressure increase for Figure 3), Sterling, Paragraphs 0044-0045), and the accelerometer indicates vibrations (accelerometer indicates vibration which can indicate take off, Sterling, Paragraphs 0050 and 0014-0015 and Figure 4); detect the flight status of aircraft climbing, when the air pressure (pcab) is decreasing and the accelerometer indicates vibrations (flight status detector able to determine that the air pressure is decreasing and accelerometer indicates vibrations, thus detecting that the aircraft is climbing, Sterling, Paragraphs 0044-0050 and Figures 3-5); detect the flight status of aircraft in cruise, when the air pressure (pcab) is below a third air pressure threshold, the air pressure (pcab) is substantially constant, and the accelerometer indicates vibrations; detect the flight status of aircraft in descent, when the air pressure (pcab) is below a fourth air pressure threshold, the air pressure (pcab) is increasing, and the accelerometer indicates vibrations; detect the flight status of aircraft in turbulences, when the air pressure (pcab) is below a fifth air pressure threshold and the accelerometer indicates aircraft roll rates above a critical roll rate threshold; detect the flight status of aircraft taxiing after landing, when the air pressure (pcab) is above a sixth air pressure threshold, the air pressure (pcab) has in-creased, followed by a decrease of the air pressure (pcab), and the accelerometer indicates vibrations.
Regarding Claim 7, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the cabin interior device is non-safety-critical (sensor suit is not critical, Sterling, Paragraph 0014).
Regarding Claim 8, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the flight status detector is a stand-alone component; or wherein the flight status detector is integrated into the cabin interior device (flight status can be either a stand alone component or integrated into the cabin interior, Sterling, Paragraph 0014 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the flight status detector is not coupled to an avionics bus of the aircraft and is not coupled to a central board computer of the aircraft, and/or wherein the cabin interior device is not coupled to an avionics bus of the aircraft and is not coupled to a central board computer of the aircraft (flight status detector can be from a mobile device which is not coupled to the aircraft computer, Sterling, Paragraphs 0033-0035 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the flight status detector does not receive air pressure data or acceleration data from outside of the system in operation, and/or wherein the cabin interior device does not receive air pressure data or acceleration data from outside of the system in operation (air pressure and acceleration data determined within the flight status detector, Sterling, Paragraphs 0038-0039).
Regarding Claim 11, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of cabin interior devices coupled to the flight status detector, wherein each of the plurality of cabin interior devices is coupled to the flight status detector and is configured to switch between operating states in response to information received from the flight status detector (mobile phones can be coupled to the flight status detector wherein the flight status can switch between operating states based on the information received, Sterling, Paragraphs 0033-0039).
Regarding Claim 13, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1, wherein the cabin interior device is a passenger environment device, associated with a passenger seat or with a group of passenger seats; wherein the cabin interior device is in particular one of a passenger seat / passenger suite actuation device; a passenger seat lumbar support / ergonomic seating device; a seating restraint system; a passenger seat take off and landing position tracking device; a passenger reading light; an environment display; a passenger information system / passenger information display; a passenger signal light; a personal stowage illumination light; an overhead stowage illumination light; a stowage occupancy detection device; and a passenger service unit display and/or light (passenger unit display, Paragraphs 0033-0035).
Regarding Claim 14, Sterling describes an aircraft, such as an airplane or a helicopter, comprising a system according to claim 1 (aircraft, Sterling, Paragraph 0024 and Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 5.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0366795A1 (hereinafter, Sterling), in view of Huang CN116132571A (hereinafter, Huang).
Regarding Claim 6, Sterling describes the system according to claim 5.
Sterling does not specifically disclose the system to include that each of the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth air pressure thresholds corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 1700 m and 1900 m, wherein each of the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth air pressure thresholds in particular corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 1750 m and 1850 m, more particularly to an altitude above sea level of about 1800 m; and/or wherein the third air pressure threshold corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 2200 m and 2600 m above, wherein the third air pressure threshold in particular corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 2300 m and 2500 m, more particularly to an altitude above sea level of about 2400 m.
Huang discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Huang describes an aircraft system wherein the aircraft can have various pressure thresholds which equate to altitudes above sea level (Huang, Paragraphs 0010-0026 and 0083-0100).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Sterling to include first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth air pressure thresholds corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 1700 m and 1900 m, wherein each of the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth air pressure thresholds in particular corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 1750 m and 1850 m, more particularly to an altitude above sea level of about 1800 m; and/or wherein the third air pressure threshold corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 2200 m and 2600 m above, wherein the third air pressure threshold in particular corresponds to an altitude above sea level of between 2300 m and 2500 m, more particularly to an altitude above sea level of about 2400 m, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Huang.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having the different thresholds allows for the aircraft to ensure proper pressure during different times of flight (Huang, Background).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sterling et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0366795A1 (hereinafter, Sterling), in view of Burd U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0122647A1 (hereinafter, Burd).
Regarding Claim 12, Sterling describes the system according to claim 1.
Sterling does not specifically disclose the system to include that the cabin interior device is a galley insert, such as an oven, a chiller, a beverage maker or a warmer, wherein the galley insert is in particular configured to switch from an on state to an off state in response to the flight status of aircraft in descent being detected; or wherein the cabin interior device is an ancillary lavatory device, such as a boiler for heating water or a lavatory light; or wherein the cabin interior device is a cabin utility device, such as a storage locking device, a monument locking device, a wheelchair locking device, a cabin signal light, a general cabin illumination light, a cabin crew cabin control device, a cabin crew verification device, a cabin crew rest room illumination light, or a cabin crew rest room power outlet.
Burd discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Burd describes an aircraft system that can turn on or turn off a gallery inset (e.g., oven, chiller, warmer, etc.) based on the flight status, such as the landing phase (Burd, Paragraph 0054).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Sterling to include that the cabin interior device is a galley insert, such as an oven, a chiller, a beverage maker or a warmer, wherein the galley insert is in particular configured to switch from an on state to an off state in response to the flight status of aircraft in descent being detected; or wherein the cabin interior device is an ancillary lavatory device, such as a boiler for heating water or a lavatory light; or wherein the cabin interior device is a cabin utility device, such as a storage locking device, a monument locking device, a wheelchair locking device, a cabin signal light, a general cabin illumination light, a cabin crew cabin control device, a cabin crew verification device, a cabin crew rest room illumination light, or a cabin crew rest room power outlet, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Burd.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because turning on or off a galley insert allows for protection of the perishable items and the equipment (Burd, Paragraph 0054).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights