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 .
Detailed Action
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, 4, and 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase “especially” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 4, at line 2, recites the limitation “the control handle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret this limitation as though it recites, “a control handle”.
Claim 7, at line 5, recites “the transmitted messages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret this limitation as though it recites, “so that messages transmitted”.
Claim 7, at line 6, recites “the bits associated”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret this limitation as though it recites, “are associated with bits associated with the signals”.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherepinsky, U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0168851.
Per Claim 1, Cherepinsky discloses a human-machine interface (Paragraph 22; Input Signal Management (ISM) 43), especially for a vehicle or for a device (aircraft 20), comprising at least one gripping element provided with at least one signal generation means (Paragraph 22; Collective controller/lever 46 and cyclic controller 50 of a helicopter represent physical components used by a pilot to control the helicopter. Manipulation of each of these components generates a signal within the helicopter.), a controller (Paragraph 24; main roto servo system 78), and a base ensuring the attachment and mobility of the gripping element as well as the passage of data connections (Paragraph 22, Fig. 2A; Lines 48, 52, and 56 connect the components of ISM 43 with the FCC 38.), wherein the gripping element integrates at least two data concentrators (Paragraph 21, Fig. 2A; Primary Flight control System (PFCS) 42 and Automatic Flight Augmentation and Cuing System (FACS) 44), each data concentrator being connected as an input in parallel to at least one signal generation means (Fig. 2A; Each data concentrator 42 and 44 is connected to each of the input generation components 46, 50, and 54 via lines 48, 52, and 56) and connected as an output to the controller through the base via at least one data bus (Paragraph 24, Fig. 2A; Each of PFCS 42 and FACS 44 are connected to roto servo system 78 via bus/lines 76.).
Per Claim 3, Cherepinsky discloses the human-machine interface according to claim 1, including at least one other computer or control means, each data bus being connected, in addition to the controller, to said at least one other computer or control means (Paragraph 25, Fig. 2A; tail roto servo system 84).
Per Claim 9, Cherepinsky discloses an aircraft (VTOL rotary-wing aircraft 20) comprising an interface according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1), wherein the controller is a flight controller (Paragraph 20; “generate servo commands to control the aircraft 20”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherepinsky, U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0168851 in view of Waltner et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0325830.
Per Claim 2 Cherepinsky does not specifically teach wherein a signal generation means is selected from a tilt sensor of the gripping element relative to a rest position, a button, a multidirectional button, a force sensor, and a gripping sensor.
However, Waltner, of a common field of endeavor and assignee, teaches mode selection buttons 88 that can be integrated on the collective controller 18 or the cyclic controller 28, for defining an operational mode within the aircraft.
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the input generation means (buttons) of Waltner onto the cyclic or collective controller of Cherepinsky because those respective controllers are well-known in the aviation arts to comprise buttons and the integration thereon consolidates the need for additional space within a cockpit to house said buttons. This combination also provides the buttons more conveniently located near the pilots hands which are located near/on the controllers already.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 4, no combination of Cherepinsky and the prior art teaches the means for checking a control handle, each being connected as an output to the controller, by an alternative data bus, when considered in combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Per claims 5 and 6, no combination of Cherepinsky and the prior art teaches the communication means connected to the at least one signal generation means in parallel with the connection to the data concentrators, and each communication means being connected to the controller by a discrete connection (or communication bus), when considered in combination with the limitations of claim 1.
Per claim 7, no combination of Cherepinsky and the prior art teaches all of the limitations outlined within the claim when considered in combination with the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 8 inherits the allowable subject matter of claim 8.
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175