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
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21-40 are rejected or objected to on the ground of statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12428151 (hereinafter US 12428151 B2). The independent claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent, US 12428151 B2, are compared in the table below and the write-up following the table. The table is structured with instant application and US 12428151 B2 claim limitations matched across the table columns. The differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ, and italicizing additional limitations.
19/317,294
US 12428151 B2
21. A system for an aerial application aircraft, comprising:
a latch sequencing mechanism comprising a latch rod coupled to an actuator, wherein the actuator engages the latch sequencing mechanism and moves the latch rod between a latched position and an unlatched position; and
a dual latch mechanism coupled to the latch rod, wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises:
a first latch pin that is configured to engage a first latch box; and
a second latch pin that is configured to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box.
1. A system for an aerial application aircraft, comprising:
a hopper cover coupled to the aerial application aircraft;
an electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover;
a latch sequencing mechanism comprising a latch rod coupled to the electric actuator, wherein the electric actuator engages the latch sequencing mechanism and moves the latch rod between a latched position and an unlatched position;
a spring coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism and the latch rod and operable to exert linear mechanical force based on the latch rod being in one of the latched position or the unlatched position;
a dual latch mechanism coupled to the latch rod, wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises:
a first latch pin that is operable to engage a first latch box; and
a second latch pin that is operable to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box.
31. A method for controlling a hopper cover of an aerial application aircraft, comprising:
activating an actuator coupled a latch sequencing mechanism to move a latch rod between a latched position and an unlatched position; and
engaging a dual latch mechanism coupled to the latch rod causing a first latch pin to engage a first latch box and a second latch pin to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box.
1. A system for an aerial application aircraft, comprising:
a hopper cover coupled to the aerial application aircraft;
an electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover;
a latch sequencing mechanism comprising a latch rod coupled to the electric actuator, wherein the electric actuator engages the latch sequencing mechanism and moves the latch rod between a latched position and an unlatched position;
a spring coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism and the latch rod and operable to exert linear mechanical force based on the latch rod being in one of the latched position or the unlatched position;
a dual latch mechanism coupled to the latch rod, wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises: a first latch pin that is operable to engage a first latch box; and a second latch pin that is operable to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box.
40. A latch system, comprising:
a latch rod
coupled a dual latch mechanism, wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises:
a first latch pin that is configured to engage a first latch box; and
a second latch pin that is configured to engage a second latch box.
1. A system for an aerial application aircraft, comprising:
a hopper cover coupled to the aerial application aircraft;
an electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover;
a latch sequencing mechanism comprising a latch rod coupled to the electric actuator, wherein the electric actuator engages the latch sequencing mechanism and moves the latch rod between a latched position and an unlatched position;
a spring coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism and the latch rod and operable to exert linear mechanical force based on the latch rod being in one of the latched position or the unlatched position;
a dual latch mechanism coupled to the latch rod, wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises:
a first latch pin that is operable to engage a first latch box; and
a second latch pin that is operable to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box.
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 22, claim 1 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 23, claim 4 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 24, claim 9 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 25, it is objected to for pending from claim 21.
Regarding claim 26, claim 6 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 27, claim 7 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 28, claims 1 and 3 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 29, claims 1, 3, and 9 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 30, claim 10 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 31, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as anticipated by the prior art; therefore claim 1 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 32, claim 6 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Regarding claim 33, it is objected to for pending from claim 31.
Regarding claim 34, claims 4 and 9 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 35, claims 1 and 3 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 36, claims 1, 3, and 9 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 37, claims 17 and 18 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 38, claims 17, 18, and 19 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 39, claims 17, 18, 19, and 20 of US 12428151 B2 recite all the limitations.
Regarding claim 40, claim 1 of US 12428151 B2 recites all the limitations.
Continuity/Priority
The claimed subject matter of independent claims 21, 31, and 40 is not contained in Provisional application 63/604,628. Therefore, the continuity of this application only extends to Regular application 18/965,893.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the claim 30 bushing coupled to the first latch or the second latch pin is not clearly depicted using a reference character. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 30 bushing discussed in [0047] is not given a reference character to be clearly depicted in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 34, line 3, “forced” is recited. The term “forced” should like be “force” based on apparatus claims 23 and 24. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “force”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bristol, US 1827966 A.
Regarding claim 40, Bristol teaches a latch system (Fig 2; page 1 lines 20-32), comprising:
a latch rod (latch plate 25) coupled a dual latch mechanism (arms 18; slide bolts 19; Fig 2 depicts dual 18 and 19), wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises:
a first latch pin (right side 19; Fig 2) that is configured to engage a first latch box (right side opening 20; Figs 2;3); and
a second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 2) that is configured to engage a second latch box (left side opening 20; Figs 2;3).
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.
Claims 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristol, US 1827966 A..
Regarding claim 21, Bristol teaches a system (Fig 2 depicts and page 1, lines 20-32 discusses the system to be a latch system) for an aerial application aircraft (In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; “for an aerial application aircraft” is the intended use of the system; Bristol’s apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim), comprising:
a latch sequencing mechanism (cross piece 17, latch plate 25) comprising a latch rod (25) coupled to an actuator (handle 26), wherein the actuator engages the latch sequencing mechanism and moves the latch rod between a latched position (Fig 2) and an unlatched position (Fig 3; page 2, lines 33-67); and
PNG
media_image1.png
337
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 2-Bristol
a dual latch mechanism (cross piece 17; arms 18; slide bolts 19; Fig 2 depicts dual 19 bolts) coupled to the latch rod, wherein the dual latch mechanism comprises:
a first latch pin (right side 19; Fig 2) that is configured to engage a first latch box (right side opening 20; Figs 2;3); and
a second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 2) that is configured to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box (left side opening 20; Figs 2;3 depicts the second latch box to be opposite of the first latch box).
PNG
media_image2.png
327
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 3-Bristol
Regarding claim 22, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, further comprising a spring (spring 23) coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism (17; 25) and the latch rod (25; Fig 3 depicts 23 coupled to 17 via 18), the spring configured to exert linear mechanical force on the latch rod (movement in Fig 2 between the dashed and solid lines depict the return biasing effect of 23 to be linearly vertical; page 2, lines 72-86).
Regarding claim 23, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, further comprising a spring (spring 23) coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism (17; 25) and the latch rod (25; Fig 3 depicts 23 coupled to 17 via 18), the spring configured to exert linear mechanical force on the latch rod (movement in Fig 2 between the dashed and solid lines depict the return biasing effect of 23 to be linearly vertical on 25; page 2, lines 72-86), wherein the spring is compressed when the latch rod is in the latched position (Fig 2 depicts the latch position and 23 to be unstretched, therefore compressed).
Regarding claim 24, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, further comprising a spring (spring 23) coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism (17; 25) and the latch rod (25; Fig 3 depicts 23 coupled to 17 via 18), the spring configured to exert linear mechanical force on the latch rod (movement in Fig 2 between the dashed and solid lines depict the return biasing effect of 23 to be linearly vertical; page 2, lines 72-86), wherein the spring is uncompressed when the latch rod is in the unlatched position (Fig 3 depicts the unlatched position and 23 to be stretched, therefore uncompressed).
Regarding claim 25, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, wherein linear movement in the latch rod (25) causes linear movement in both the first latch pin (right side 19; Fig 2) and the second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 2; movement in Fig 2 between the dashed and solid lines depicts the vertical linear movement of 25 and the lateral linear movement of left and right 19; page 2, lines 72-86).
Regarding claim 26, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the dual latch mechanism (17; 18; 19) comprises a first pivot and a second pivot (Fig 2 depicts the first pivot to be the pin mounting of the right side 19 to the right side 18 and the second pivot to be the pin mounting of the left side 19 to the left side 18).
Regarding claim 27, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the first latch pin (right side 19; Fig 2) engages the first latch box (right side opening 20; Figs 2;3) and the second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 2) engages the second latch box (left side opening 20; Figs 2;3) while the latch rod is in the latched position (Fig 2 depicts right side 19 engaging right side 20 and left side 19 engaging left side 20 while 25 is in the latched position).
Regarding claim 30, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the dual latch mechanism (17; 18; 19) further comprises a bushing coupled to the first latch pin (right side 19) or the second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 3 depicts the bushing to be the inside surface of the aperture in 16 which is engaged with 19; this structure satisfies the bushing description in instant specification [00047]).
Regarding claim 31, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art, therefore Bristol teaches a method for controlling a hopper cover of an aerial application aircraft, comprising: activating an actuator (handle 26) coupled a latch sequencing mechanism (cross piece 17, latch plate 25) to move a latch rod (25) between a latched position (Fig 2) and an unlatched position (Fig 3); and engaging a dual latch mechanism (cross piece 17; arms 18; slide bolts 19; Fig 2 depicts dual 19 bolts) coupled to the latch rod causing a first latch pin (right side 19; Fig 2) to engage a first latch box (right side opening 20; Figs 2;3) and a second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 2) to engage a second latch box opposite the first latch box (left side opening 20; Figs 2;3 depicts the second latch box to be opposite of the first latch box).
Regarding claim 32, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31, wherein engaging the dual latch mechanism (17; 18; 19), further comprises actuating a first pivot and a second pivot (Fig 2 depicts the first pivot to be the pin mounting of the right side 19 to the right side 18 and the second pivot to be the pin mounting of the left side 19 to the left side 18).
Regarding claim 33, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31, wherein movement in the latch rod (25) causes movement in both the first latch pin (right side 19; Fig 2) and the second latch pin (left side 19; Fig 2; movement in Fig 2 between the dashed and solid lines depicts the vertical linear movement of 25 and the lateral linear movement of left and right 19; page 2, lines 72-86).
Regarding claim 34, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31, further comprising:
engaging a spring (spring 23) coupled to the latch sequencing mechanism (17; 25) and the latch rod (25; Fig 3 depicts 23 coupled to 17 via 18) and exerting linear mechanical force (see claim interpretation under claim 34 Claim Objection; movement in Fig 2 between the dashed and solid lines depict the return biasing effect of 23 to be linearly vertical on 25; page 2, lines 72-86) based on the latch rod being in one of the latched position (Fig 2) or the unlatched position (Fig 3),
compressing the spring when the latch rod is in the latched position (Fig 2 depicts the latch position and 23 to be unstretched, therefore compressed), and
decompressing the spring when the latch rod is in the unlatched position (Fig 3 depicts the unlatched position and 23 to be stretched, therefore uncompressed).
Claims 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristol, US 1827966 A, as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Trotter, US 11759664 B2.
Regarding claim 28, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21.
Bristol doesn’t teach wherein the actuator is coupled to a control system in a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprises an actuator (electric motor 58), wherein the actuator is coupled to a control system (gate controller 50) in a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Regarding claim 29, Bristol teaches the system of claim 21.
Bristol doesn’t teach wherein the actuator is coupled to a control system in a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft, wherein the actuator is an electric actuator and the control system is configured to automatically control a flow of electrical current to the electric actuator upon indication of an electrical surge.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprises an actuator (electric motor 58), wherein the actuator is coupled to a control system (gate controller 50) in a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft), wherein the actuator is an electric actuator (58 is an electric motor) and the control system is configured to automatically control a flow of electrical current to the electric actuator upon indication of an electrical surge (col 4, line 49-col 5, line 9 discusses actuator control using a current sensor to determine if the actuator exceeds a predetermined current threshold and for 50 to take appropriate actions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Regarding claim 35, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31.
Bristol does not teach further comprising engaging a control system to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a method of controlling a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprising activating an actuator (electric motor 58); engaging a control system (gate controller 50) to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses t pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Regarding claim 36, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31.
Bristol does not teach further comprising: engaging a control system to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft, and monitoring, using the control system, a safety indicator.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a method of controlling a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprising activating an actuator (electric motor 58); engaging a control system (gate controller 50) to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses t pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft), and monitoring, using the control system (Fig 2), a safety indicator (emergency dump (E-DUMP) system status indicator lamp 69; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Regarding claim 37, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31.
Bristol does not teach further comprising: engaging a control system to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft, monitoring, using the control system, a safety indicator, and using the control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a method of controlling a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprising activating an actuator (electric motor 58); engaging a control system (gate controller 50) to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses t pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft), monitoring, using the control system (Fig 2), a safety indicator (emergency dump (E-DUMP) system status indicator lamp 69; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26), and using the control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator (col 4, line 49-col 5, line 9; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26; col 16, lines 54-col 18, line 52 discuss E-DUMP operation becoming necessary as a result of the gate closed motor overcurrent condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Regarding claim 38, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31.
Bristol does not teach further comprising: engaging a control system to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft, monitoring, using the control system, a safety indicator, using the control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator, and detecting, using the control system, whether a measurement exceeds the predefined threshold, wherein the predefined threshold is an electrical surge threshold.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a method of controlling a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprising activating an actuator (electric motor 58); engaging a control system (gate controller 50) to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses t pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft), monitoring, using the control system (Fig 2), a safety indicator (emergency dump (E-DUMP) system status indicator lamp 69; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26), and using the control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator (col 4, line 49-col 5, line 9; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26; col 16, lines 54-col 18, line 52 discuss E-DUMP operation becoming necessary as a result of the gate closed motor overcurrent condition); and detecting (through the illumination of 69 on 52), using the control system, whether a measurement exceeds the predefined threshold, wherein the predefined threshold is an electrical surge threshold (col 4, line 49-col 5, line 9; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26; col 16, lines 54-col 18, line 52 discuss E-DUMP operation becoming necessary as a result of the gate closed motor overcurrent condition which would be a predetermined condition programmed into 50 such that the cockpit indicators would activate when the condition is met and an E-DUMP would become necessary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Regarding claim 39, Bristol teaches the method of claim 31.
Bristol does not teach further comprising: engaging a control system to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft, monitoring, using the control system, a safety indicator, using the control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator, detecting, using the control system, whether a measurement exceeds the predefined threshold, wherein the predefined threshold is an electrical surge threshold, and controlling, using the control system, a flow of electrical current upon detecting the electrical surge threshold has been exceeded.
Trotter teaches it is known in the art for a method of controlling a system (Fig 1) for an aerial application aircraft (col 5, lines 37-56) comprising activating an actuator (electric motor 58); engaging a control system (gate controller 50) to control the actuator from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (col 8, lines 29-40 discusses t pilot interface 52 to 50 which would be in the cockpit of the aircraft), monitoring, using the control system (Fig 2), a safety indicator (emergency dump (E-DUMP) system status indicator lamp 69; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26), and using the control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator (col 4, line 49-col 5, line 9; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26; col 16, lines 54-col 18, line 52 discuss E-DUMP operation becoming necessary as a result of the gate closed motor overcurrent condition); and detecting (through the illumination of 69 on 52), using the control system, whether a measurement exceeds the predefined threshold, wherein the predefined threshold is an electrical surge threshold (col 4, line 49-col 5, line 9; col 8, lines 52-63; col 16, lines 7-26; col 16, lines 54-col 18, line 52 discuss E-DUMP operation becoming necessary as a result of the gate closed motor overcurrent condition which would be a predetermined condition programmed into 50 such that the cockpit indicators would activate when the condition is met and an E-DUMP would become necessary), and controlling, using the control system, a flow of electrical current upon detecting the electrical surge threshold has been exceeded (it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the control of 50 using 52 would incorporate both active controls (e.g. throwing switches) and automatic programmed controls to disable components responsible for sensed out of parameter conditions, both of which would be more clearly and explicitly discussed in aircraft operating and emergency procedures; cp; 9, line 9-col 10, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Bristol’s actuator operated latch system to be controlled as a system in Trotter’s aerial application airplane with a cockpit control system. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bristol’s system with an aerial application aircraft, thereby upgrading the system controls and improving aerial application using improved latching and system control, as disclosed by Trotter in US 11613357 B2 where he teaches retrofit methods for aerial dispersal mechanisms to extend or improve aircraft lifecycle or performance. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a latch system upgraded to electronic control for operation in an aerial application aircraft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for latch and aerial application systems and platforms.
Lieberman, US 1671249 A, teaches a door lock with a latch sequencing mechanism and a dual latch mechanism with locking pins and pivots.
Foy et al., US 5451016 A, teaches an aircraft fluid drop system with a cockpit control system.
Crean, US 20030038504 A1, teaches a recreational vehicle with latch assemblies for storage spaces with a latch sequencing mechanism and a dual latch mechanism with locking pins and pivots.
DE 2730407 A1 teaches a window with two locking bolts and flexible handle connected to pivoting lever actuating locking bolts.
Myers, US 6120070 A, teaches a lockable panel latch with spring biased latch pin engaged with a bushing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights