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 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 1-15 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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: The claim attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. In particular, claim 1 states " at least one air duct (7) that enables the air received through the air inlet (6) to be transmitted in the wing (3), thus allowing the icebreaker (4) to move between the first position (I) and the second position (II); the actuator mechanism (5) consisting of air inlet (6) and air duct (7).". While it is clear that the air moving through the air duct can bring the icebreaker into the second position, i.e. away from the wing, it is not clear how the air moving through the air duct could bring the icebreaker back into the first position. It appears that a biasing element as defined in claim 4 is necessary for the anti-icing system to revert the icebreaker back into first position. It is noted that present claim 4 describes this functionality for the “at least one piston area (12) on the actuator mechanism (5), which enables the icebreaker (4) to move from the first position (1) to the second position (II) when triggered by the air transferred to the air duct (7), while the cover (10) is in the third position (Ill); at least one spring area (13) on the actuator mechanism (5), which enables the icebreaker (4) to move from the second position (II) to the first position (1) since the air transferred to the air duct (7) is prevented while the cover (10) is in the fourth position (IV).". A piston area is understood as an area which is suitable for receiving a piston. It is not clear how such an area alone can move the icebreaker from first to second position. It appears that a piston or pin (see claim 5) is necessary in order to fulfil this function. Similarly, a spring area is understood as an area which is suitable for a spring or for springs. It is not clear how such an area alone can move the icebreaker from second to first position. It is noted that a piston ("pin") is only introduced in claim 5 and a spring is introduced in claim 6. In order to arrive at a clear independent claim 1, it hence appears necessary to include also the features of present claims 4-6 into claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should be changed to – the at least one wing –.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ice" in one 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wing surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the leading edge" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the trigger" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the control of air flow" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ice breaker" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first position and the second position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ice" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the wing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the air inlet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the trigger" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: It appears from the wording of claim 7 that the steps refer to a method of breaking off ice using the anti-icing system of claims 1-6. It’s not clear, how the control unit could carry out all of the above steps or what role it plays in carrying out said steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: FR 865966 is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 1, and discloses An anti-icing system (p. 1) comprising a body (implicitly disclosed, "avion"); at least one wing located on the body ("aile"); at least one icebreaker (1, 8) on the wing, which enables the ice formed on the wing surface to be removed from the wing surface (Fig. 1, 7); an actuator mechanism (2, 5, 10, 11) that enables the icebreaker to move on the wing (cf. p. 1, col. 1, II. 19-23), a first position of the icebreaker, in which the icebreaker is mounted within and/or above and/or below the leading edge of the wing and/or within the contact surface (Fig. 1, 7); a second position to which the icebreaker is brought by moving outwards from the leading edge of the wing in order to break the ice accumulated on the surface of the wing (cf. p. 1, col. 1, II. 19-23). The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore differs from this known anti-icing system in (i) an air inlet located as an opening on the wing and allowing air intake from the atmosphere; (ii) at least one air duct that enables the air received through the air inlet to be transmitted in the wing, thus allowing the icebreaker to move between the first position (I) and the second position (II); (iii) the actuator mechanism consisting of air inlet and air duct. The closest prior art discloses an ice-breaking apparatus wherein moveable pushrods (Fig. 1, 2) or movable flaps (Fig. 5, 6, 7) serve for breaking off ice which has formed on the leading edge of a wing (p. 1, col. 1, II. 16-23). The different apparatus are actuated via a linkage which is inside the wing. The linkage may be actuated by electric motors, a pump or manually (cf. p. 1, col. 1, II.- 19-23). The prior art does hence not actuate the icebreaker by means of an air duct which receives air from an opening on the wing, allowing air intake from the atmosphere. An anti-icing system according to the present invention with a high-strength, which prevent deterioration of the wing structure, enables thick layers of ice to be easily removed from the wing surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights