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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims make interchangeable use of “aircraft hold” and “hold”. The claims should be amended for consistency. 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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “providing an alert condition […]”. It is unclear what is meant by providing an alert condition. It appears that this step should follow an identification of an alert condition and a definition of the same. Claims 2-13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 5-9 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 5, 8, and 9 recite the limitation “comprising cooling”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the cooling of claim 1. It is believed to the be the same. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 5 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a sensor arrangement”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the sensor arrangement of claim 1. It is believed to be the same.
Claim 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a step of cooling”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the cooling of claim 1. It is believed to the same.
Claims 14-15 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a sensor arrangement” followed by “the system comprising at least one sensor”. Does the claim require both a sensor arrangement and a separate sensor? It is believed Applicant intended to define the sensor arrangement as comprising at least one sensor. Claim 14 further indicates that it is “for cooling an aircraft hold”, but then appears to require the aircraft hold. It is recommended to positively require the aircraft hold as part of the aircraft. Claim 15 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 14 and therefore includes the same error(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirkbride (US 10,282,957: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kirkbride shows a method for providing cooling to cargo (see at least target object) in an aircraft hold (see at least cargo area #602) of an aircraft (see at least aircraft #10), comprising:
providing a temperature-reactive cargo item in the aircraft hold (see at least target object; column 13, lines 17-19);
providing an alert condition associated with the temperature-reactive cargo item corresponding to a need to cool the temperature-reactive cargo item in the aircraft hold (see at least Figure 8, #806, #810, #812; column 14, lines 35-49);
identifying via a sensor arrangement the alert condition within the aircraft
hold (see at least column 14, lines 35-49; column 13, line 35 through column 14, line 3); and
cooling the aircraft hold after identifying the alert condition (see at least column 14, lines 45-49: venting oxygen in the context of an airplane will involve opening a communication channel and will result in cooling due to the altitude).
Regarding claim 4, Kirkbride further shows wherein the alert condition comprises an elevation in a temperature in the hold (see at least column 13, line 35 through column 14, line 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kirkbride further shows comprising cooling the aircraft hold by providing a flow of cold air therein (see at least column 14, lines 45-49: venting oxygen in the context of an airplane will involve opening a communication channel and will result in cooling due to flow of external air at altitude).
Regarding claim 7, Kirkbride further shows wherein a source of the flow of cold air is external to the aircraft (see at least column 14, lines 45-49: venting oxygen in the context of an airplane will involve opening a communication channel and will result in cooling due to flow of external air at altitude).
Regarding claim 8, Kirkbride further shows comprising cooling the aircraft hold via depressurization by opening a pressure communication channel between the aircraft hold and an exterior of the aircraft (see at least column 14, lines 45-49: venting oxygen in the context of an airplane will involve opening a communication channel and will result in cooling due to the altitude).
Regarding claim 12, Kirkbridge further shows comprising providing a request inside an aircraft for permission to effect a step of cooling the aircraft hold upon identification of the alert condition (see at least column 6, line 61 through column 7, line 22: the system (which per claim 1 includes activation of cooling) may be controlled, activated, or deactivated using an input device upon receipt of alert on the alarm device and/or display).
Regarding claim 13, Kirkbridge further shows wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least one of: a heat sensor, a hydrogen sensor, an acoustic sensor, a pressure sensor, a volatile organic compound sensor (see at least column 14, lines 35-49; column 13, line 35 through column 14, line 3).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirkbride (US 10,282,957: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 14, Kirkbride shows an aircraft (see at least aircraft #10) comprising a system for cooling an aircraft hold (see at least cargo area #602), the system comprising:
a sensor arrangement located inside the aircraft hold, the system
comprising at least one sensor for detecting an alert condition inside the aircraft hold (see at least column 14, lines 35-49; column 13, line 35 through column 14, line 3); and
a cooling device for providing cooling to the aircraft hold after detection of the alert condition inside the aircraft hold (see at least column 14, lines 45-49: venting oxygen in the context of an airplane will involve opening a communication channel and will result in cooling due to the altitude).
Regarding claim 15, Kirkbride further shows wherein the cooling device comprises a vent in a wall of the aircraft hold, the vent configurable between a closed configuration in which fluid communication between the aircraft hold and an aircraft exterior is restricted, and an open configuration in which fluid communication between an aircraft hold and the aircraft exterior is permitted (see at least column 14, lines 45-49: venting oxygen in the context of an airplane will involve opening a communication channel that may be selectively opened/closed via a vent in one or more walls and the venting will result in cooling due to the altitude).
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkbride as applied to claims 1 or 5 above, and further in view of Ryder et al. (US 2022/0407176: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Kirkbride further discloses wherein the temperature-reactive cargo item is a plurality of batteries (see at least column 13, lines 17-19).
Kirkbride is silent regarding a plurality of lithium cells.
Ryder et al. teaches wherein a temperature-reactive cargo item is a plurality of lithium cells (see at least paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cargo of Kirkbride as a plurality of lithium cells, as taught by Ryder et al., to improve the method of Kirkbride by transporting batteries that are known to be energy dense and rechargeable.
Regarding claim 3, Kirkbride does not disclose wherein the alert condition comprises an elevation in a level of at least one of hydrogen gas or volatile organic compound in the hold.
Ryder et al. teaches another alert condition, wherein the alert condition comprises an elevation in a level of at least one of hydrogen gas or volatile organic compound in the hold (see at least paragraph [0027]; [0096]; [0131]; [0138]-[0142]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kirkbride with wherein the alert condition comprises an elevation in a level of at least one of hydrogen gas or volatile organic compound in the hold, as taught by Ryder et al., to improve the method of Kirkbride by allowing for conditions increasing the likelihood of fire to be detected even in normal temperatures.
Regarding claim 6, Kirkbride does not disclose comprising activating an air conditioning system in the aircraft to provide the flow of cold air therein.
Ryder et al. teaches comprising activating an air conditioning system to provide the flow of cold air therein (see at least paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kirkbride with comprising activating an air conditioning system in the aircraft to provide the flow of cold air therein, as taught by Ryder et al. to improve the method of Kirkbride by allowing for the cargo to be cooled in conditions where venting the hold would not reduce temperature and/or oxygen, i.e. on the ground.
Regarding claim 10, Kirkbride further discloses comprising identifying via a sensor arrangement a fire condition with the aircraft hold, and comprising providing notification
inside the aircraft as to whether the alert condition is met and providing notification inside the aircraft as to whether the fire condition is met (see at least column 3, lines 24-27; column 14, lines 21-22; column 14, lines 35-49).
Kirkbride does not explicitly state indicative of a presence of a lithium fire, though it is likely that the condition(s) disclosed by Kirkbride would so indicate.
Ryder et al. teaches indicative of a presence of a lithium fire (see at least [0021]; [0025]-[0026]; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kirkbride with indicative of a presence of a lithium fire, as taught by Ryder et al., to improve the method of Kirkbride by allowing for remediation specific to lithium fires to be effected.
Regarding claim 11, Kirkbride is silent regarding wherein the cargo is exothermic temperature reactive cargo.
Ryder et al. teaches wherein the cargo is exothermic temperature reactive cargo (see at least paragraph [0021]: lithium batteries are exothermic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cargo of Kirkbride as wherein the cargo is exothermic temperature reactive cargo, as taught by Ryder et al., to improve the method of Kirkbride by transporting batteries that are known to be energy dense and rechargeable.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkbride as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART.
Regarding claim 9, Kirkbride does not disclose comprising cooling the aircraft hold by a release of cooling gel inside the aircraft hold.
However, APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART teaches that it was old and well-known to cool an aircraft hold by a release of cooling gel inside the aircraft hold (see at least paragraphs [0005]-[0006]: the hold will be cooled upon release of the gel according to the conventional means).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kirkbride with comprising cooling the aircraft hold by a release of cooling gel inside the aircraft hold, since, as taught by APPLICANT-ADMITTED-PRIOR-ART, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of putting out a fire and lowering temperature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights