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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the heaters with solar cells of Claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “such that is rotated” in line 9 is grammatically incorrect. 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.
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, 3-13 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.
For Claim 1, “ a source” is claimed as part of the thermal control system. However, the source as defined in the specification is an external source of heat/radiation such as the sun, as such it is not clear how the sun can be part of the thermal control system and therefore Claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 3-13 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claim 1, the heater is located on the body close to the avionics chamber, between the avionics chamber and the panel, and on the surface of the avionics chamber facing the panel; and the heater is located on the shield which is not necessarily located on the body “located on and/or close to the outer surface body” As such it is unclear where the heater is located and therefore Claim 1 in indefinite. Claims 3-13 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claim 1, “at least one heater” is defined in line 5 and in line 8, “the heater” is defined it is unclear if this is one of the same heaters or a different heater of the at least one heater. Claim 1 is therefore indefinite. Claims 3-13 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1. In addition, Claims 3-7, 9-11, and 13 switch off between claiming “the hearer” and “the heaters”. These claims are indefinite as it is not clear if these are the same or different heaters as defined by the “at least one heater” in Claim 1 which they depend on.
For Claim 1, the term “close” in lines 9 and 11 is indefinite as it is not clear what is considered “close”. Claims 3-13 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claim 5, “the second position, wherein at least one heater is rotated as a fan from the first position to the second position” is indefinite as it is not clear if this is the same heater as previously claim. It is also indefinite as it is not clear how the second position is being used to define itself.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the avionics equipment" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flux" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the equipment" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the colder side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temperature limits" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the control unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lock" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the holder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. These references teach thermal shielding systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights