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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12049301. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same structural limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruk (US PgPub #2015/0107957).
For Claim 1, figures 1-4 of Kruck ‘957 disclose a system comprising: a control lever (201) for controlling operation of a device; a first actuator (209) coupled to the control lever via a rod (202), wherein the first actuator is configured to control the control lever in a first operation mode of the device; and a second actuator (210) coupled to the control lever vias the rod and a resettable frangible link (205 and 208), wherein the second actuator is configured to control the control lever in a second operation mode of the device.
For Claim 2, figures 1-4 of Kruck ‘957 disclose that the resettable frangible link includes a magnetic coupling having a first half and a second half to couple the second actuator to the control lever via the rod.
For Claim 6, figures 1-4 of Kruck ‘957 disclose that the control lever controls operation of the device using a bell crank movement.
For Claim 7, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that wherein during autonomous operation mode of the device, the second actuator is used to control the control lever of the device, and wherein during manual operation mode of the device, the first actuator is used by an operator to control the control lever of the device, and wherein the manual operation mode is entered by the rod receiving the applied force by the first actuator causing the resettable frangible link to separate the second actuator from the rod.
For Claim 8, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the resettable frangible link enables separation of coupling of the second actuator from the control lever at any rotational orientation of the control lever with respect to the device.
For Claim 10, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the first actuator is permanently attached to the control lever via the rod.
For Claim 11, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the first and second actuator each have an ability for independent control of the control lever, wherein based on the applied force to the rod by the first actuator, the first actuator overrides the second actuator.
For Claim 12, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the resettable frangible link includes a mechanically frangible control rod (205 and 208) to couple the second actuator to the control lever via the rod.
For Claim 14, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the resettable frangible link includes a magnetic coupling having a first half (205) and a second half (208) to couple the second actuator (210) to the control lever via the rod (202), and the first half and the second half of the magnetic coupling are configurable to be realigned causing a magnetic attachment of the first and second half in order to reattach the second actuator to the rod for reentering the autonomous operation mode of the engine.
For Claim 15, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the resettable frangible link includes an electromagnet, and the system further comprises: a control system coupled to the electro-magnet for controlling a magnetic attraction force of the electro-magnet.
For Claim 16, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose that the control system alters the magnetic attraction force based on an operating condition of the device.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruk (US PgPub #2015/0107957) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bissey (US Patent #5277024).
For Claims 5 and 9, while Kruk ‘957 discloses the control lever controlling vehicle movement is it silent about the signal going to the throttle of an engine. However, figures 1-2 of Bissey ‘024 teaches that it is known to use a clutch system to control the throttle control of and aircraft engine between pilot control and computer control. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kruk ‘957 with using a clutch mechanism for engine throttle control as taught by Bissey ‘024. The motivation to do so would be to safely control an aircraft engine.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruk (US PgPub #2015/0107957).
For Claim 3, while Kruk ‘957 teaches using electromagnets or a physical coupling, it is silent about it being a permanent magnet. However, it is well known in the art to use either magnets or electromagnets as a coupling mechanism, magnets providing a simpler construction. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruk ‘957 by using a permanent magnet. The motivation to do so would be to provide a less complicated clutch system that does not require electricity.
For Claim 17, while figure 4 and paragraph [0031] Kruk ‘957 disclose detecting a mechanical jam, erratic response, responses outside an acceptable range of accuracy, or any other type of fault such that the control system can alter the magnetic attraction forces of the system, it is silent about a specific angle detection. The Examiner holds that detecting an angle is well within normal knowledge of someone of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruk ‘957 with an angle detection to as to determine when the clutch is offset in order to tighten or release a coupling connection.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruk (US PgPub #2015/0107957) in view of Bissey (US Patent #5277024).
For Claims 18-19, figures 1-4 of Kruk ‘957 disclose a system comprising: a control lever (201) for controlling operation of a device; a first actuator (209) coupled to the control lever via a rod (202); and a resettable frangible link (205 and 208) coupling a second actuator (210) to the control lever via the rod, wherein the resettable frangible link enables separation of coupling of the second actuator from the control lever based on an applied force to the rod by the first actuator, wherein during autonomous operation mode of the device, the second actuator is used to control the control lever of the engine, wherein during manual operation mode of the device, the first actuator is used by an operator to control the control lever of the device, and wherein manual operation mode is entered by the rod receiving the applied force by the first actuator causing the resettable frangible link to separate the second actuator from the rod.
While Kruk ‘957 discloses the control lever controlling vehicle movement is it silent about the signal going to the throttle of an engine. However, figures 1-2 of Bissey ‘024 teaches that it is known to use a clutch system to control the throttle control of and aircraft engine between pilot control and computer control. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kruk ‘957 with using a clutch mechanism for engine throttle control as taught by Bissey ‘024. The motivation to do so would be to safely control an aircraft engine.
For Claim 20, while Kruk ‘957 discloses the control lever controlling vehicle movement is it silent about the signal going to the throttle of an engine. However, figures 1-2 of Bissey ‘024 teaches that it is known to use a clutch system to control the throttle control of and aircraft engine between pilot control and computer control. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kruk ‘957 with using a clutch mechanism for engine throttle control as taught by Bissey ‘024. The motivation to do so would be to safely control an aircraft engine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights