DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6),
Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraphs are not numbered as requested by 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6). Examiner notes that numbering the paragraphs in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) assists with interviews and citations to the instant specification. Examiner kindly requests Applicant submit a new specification which follows the guidance under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 11 and 12 both recite a “second contact” without reciting a first. As such, the limitation of “second contact” is satisfied by the presence of a first contact. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an isolator configured to electrically connect to the connector…” (claim 5; example of support found on page 11, which includes a mechanical switching device or integrated circuit);
“an analogue front-end configured to receive an analogue signal…” (claim 9; example of supporting structure found page 7, which includes one or more of: an operational amplifier; a filter; an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC); or a field programmable gate array (FPGA));
“an analogue to digital converter configured to receive the conditioned analogue signal…” (claim 9; example of supporting structure found on page 7, which includes any suitable circuitry and may comprise, for example, an integrated circuit such as a metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) mixed-signal integrated circuit…The analogue to digital converter 32 may be a Sigma-Delta ADC, a Successive Approximation ADC, or a Continuous Time Sigma-Delta ADC);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (3) recited above use the generic placeholder “isolator,” “front-end,” and “converter” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “isolator,” “front-end,” and “converter” in (1)-(3) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(3) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “isolator,” “front-end,” and “converter” in (1)-(3) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0297718 to Adibhatla.
Regarding claim 1, Adibhatla discloses:
A data recorder comprising:
at least one processor (¶ [0055] describing the processor);
at least one memory comprising computer readable instructions (¶ [0055] describing the memory and computer instructions);
the at least one processor being configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of:
receiving one or more of: sensor configuration data; or sensor calibration data from a memory of a connector connected between the data recorder and a sensor (¶ [0060] describing receiving and storing sensor calibration data; ¶ [0049] describing receiving the sensor data via a connector 100 between the recorder and the sensor; See also Figure 2 depicting the connector 100 positioned between the recorder 220 and the sensors 144, 146);
reading the connector to receive a digital signal (¶ [0049] describing reading the connector 100 to receive the sensor signal; ¶ [0058] describing the signals received by the connector as digital);
processing the received digital signal (¶ [0050] describing processing the received digital signal); and
controlling storage of data in the processed digital signal in the at least one memory of the data recorder (¶ [0050] describing the recorder 220 controlling the storage of the data).
Regarding claim 2, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein reading the connector comprises reading the connector using the received sensor configuration data to receive the digital signal (¶¶ [0059] – [0060] describing the connector reading the configuration data).
Regarding claim 3, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein processing the received digital signal comprises processing the received digital signal using the received sensor calibration data (¶¶ [0059], [0060] describing processing the received sensor data using the calibration data).
Regarding claim 4, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Adibhatla further discloses:
controlling storage of sensor history data in the memory of the connector (¶ [0058] describing controlling the storage of sensor history data in the memory of the connector 100).
Regarding claim 7, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein the at least one memory is hand removable from the data recorder by a person (¶ [0106] describing that the memory can be hand removable from the recorder, such as on a CD or DVD).
Regarding claim 8, Adibhatla discloses:
A system comprising:
the data recorder as claimed in claim 1 (See claim 1 above); and
a connector connecting a sensor to the data recorder (Figure 2, Ref. No. 100), the connector comprising:
circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor and to transmit a digital signal to the data recorder (¶ [0058] describing the circuitry of the connector used to receive a signal from the sensor and send data to the recorder); and
a memory storing the one or more of: the sensor configuration data; or the sensor calibration data (¶ [0058] describing storing the sensor data in the connector).
Regarding claim 9, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein the circuitry of the connector comprises:
an analogue front-end configured to: receive an analogue signal from the sensor, and perform signal conditioning on the analogue signal; and an analogue to digital converter configured to: receive the conditioned analogue signal from the analogue front-end, and convert the conditioned analogue signal into the digital signal (¶¶ [0057], [0058] describing receiving analogue signals from the sensor, conditioning the analogue single, and using one or more algorithms, processes, programs, etc., to convert the analogue signals to digital).
Regarding claim 10, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein the connector further comprises a first contact connected to the analogue front-end, the first contact being connected to the sensor via a cable (¶ [0048] describing that the connector can be directly wired to the sensor via a wire harness (cable); see also Figure 2 depicting the wired connection between the connector 100 and sensors 144, 146).
Regarding claim 11, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein the connector further comprises a second contact connected to the analogue to digital converter, and to the memory, the second contact being configured to electrically connect to the data recorder (¶ [0049] describing that the connector can be direct wired connected to the recorder or wirelessly connected via a wireless network; see also Figure 2 depicting the direct and indirect electrical connection between the connector 100 and the recorder 220).
Regarding claim 12, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Adibhatla further discloses:
wherein the circuitry further comprises a processor connected to the analogue to digital converter and to the memory; and the connector further comprises a second contact connected to the processor (¶ [0058] describing the circuitry having a processor connected to the converter, memory, where the connector is connected to the processor in that it is located inside the connector; NOTE: The second contact recited in the claim is satisfied by a single contact)).
Regarding claim 15, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Adibhatla further discloses:
a housing defining a cavity, the circuitry and the memory of the connector being positioned within the cavity of the housing of the connector (Figure 3 depicting various circuitry and memory within the cavity of the connector 100).
Regarding claim 18, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Adibhatla further discloses:
a sensor connected to the connector (Figure 2 depicting sensors 144, 146 connected to the connector 100).
Regarding claim 19, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Adibhatla further discloses:
A propulsion system comprising the system as claimed in claim 8 (Figure 1 and ¶ [0042]; see also claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 20, Adibhatla discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving one or more of:
sensor configuration data or sensor calibration data from a memory of a connector connected to a sensor (¶ [0060] describing receiving and storing sensor calibration data; ¶ [0049] describing receiving the sensor data via a connector 100 between the recorder and the sensor; See also Figure 2 depicting the connector 100 positioned between the recorder 220 and the sensors 144, 146);
reading the connector to receive a digital signal (¶ [0049] describing reading the connector 100 to receive the sensor signal; ¶ [0058] describing the signals received by the connector as digital);
processing the received digital signal (¶ [0050] describing processing the received digital signal); and
controlling storage of data in processed digital signal in a memory of a data recorder (¶ [0050] describing the recorder 220 controlling the storage of the data).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adibhatla in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0074489 to Steger et al.
Regarding claim 5, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Adibhatla does not expressly disclose wherein the data recorder further comprises an isolator configured to electrically connect to the connector.
Steger et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of isolation circuity connected to connectors (¶ [0004] describing the isolation circuity that can isolate the computer signals).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adibhatla’s invention to incorporate isolation circuitry that can connect and disconnect the computer/recorder to a sensor based on detecting whether the recorder is connected to the connector, as taught by Steger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in protecting the recorder from spurious signals, signal noise, harmful voltage and/or current surges, impedance mismatches, and the like (Steger et al. at ¶ [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Adibhatla and Steger et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5. Steger et al. further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of: determining whether the connector is electrically connected to the data recorder; controlling the isolator to electrically disconnect in response to determining that the connector is not electrically connected to the data recorder; and controlling the isolator to electrically connect in response to determining that the connector is electrically connected to the data recorder (¶ [0213] describing the isolation circuitry used between the sensors and the recorder, and determining whether to connect and/or disconnect based on when the recorder/computer is connected to the connector).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adibhatla’s invention to incorporate isolation circuitry that can connect and disconnect the computer/recorder to a sensor based on detecting whether the recorder is connected to the connector, as taught by Steger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in protecting the recorder from spurious signals, signal noise, harmful voltage and/or current surges, impedance mismatches, and the like (Steger et al. at ¶ [0021]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adibhatla in view of U.S. Pat. No. 6,243,654 to Johnson et al.
Regarding claim 13, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Adibhatla does not expressly disclose wherein the second contact comprises a plurality of contact pins electrically connected to the data recorder.
Johnson et al., in the same field of endeavor and solving the same problem, teaches use of electrical contacts that comprise a plurality of contact pins that confirm an electrical connection between control equipment (Col. 4, l. 63 – Col. 5, l. 15 describing the contacts having a plurality of contact pins; Col. 12, ll. 8-22 describing same).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adibhatla’s invention to incorporate contact pins connect to the recorder, based on the teachings of Johnson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one known component for electrical connection with another known component for electrical connection to obtain expected results of creating an electrical connection between two components, as well as providing a suitable configuration for mating with the digital data acquisition or control equipment (Johnson et al. at Col. 12, ll. 8-22).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Adibhatla and Johnson et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 13. Johnson et al. further discloses:
wherein at least one contact pin of the plurality of contact pins being configured to confirm an electrical connection between the data recorder and the connector (Col. 12, ll. 8-22 describing the pins that confirm the electrical connection between the components).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adibhatla’s invention to incorporate contact pins connect to the recorder, based on the teachings of Johnson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one known component for electrical connection with another known component for electrical connection to obtain expected results of creating an electrical connection between two components, as well as providing a suitable configuration for mating with the digital data acquisition or control equipment (Johnson et al. at Col. 12, ll. 8-22).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adibhatla in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0304268 to Anderson et al.
Regarding claim 16, Adibhatla discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Adibhatla further discloses:
a hub (Figure 2 depicting the housing for connector 100) comprising:
a housing defining a cavity (Figure 2 housing 100); and
a connector, the connector being positioned within the cavity of the housing of the hub (Figure 3 depicting each of the components of the connector housed within the housing of the hub), the connector comprising:
circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor and to transmit a digital signal to the data recorder (¶ [0058] describing the circuitry of the connector used to receive a signal from the sensor and send data to the recorder); and
a memory storing the one or more of: the sensor configuration data; or the sensor calibration data (¶ [0058] describing storing the sensor data in the connector).
Adibhatla does not expressly disclose a plurality of connectors.
Anderson et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches use of a plurality of connectors (¶¶ [0063], [0069] describing the plurality of connectors sending and receiving data from sensors).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adibhatla’s invention to incorporate use of a plurality of connectors, as taught by Anderson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in receiving sensor data from a plurality of aircraft subcomponents (Anderson et al. at ¶¶ [0069], [0081], [0083]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Adibhatla and Anderson et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16. Anderson et al. further discloses:
wherein the hub further comprises a bus extender connected to the plurality of connectors (¶ [0065] describing that all the components, including the connectors, communicate via a universal serial bus).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adibhatla’s invention to incorporate use of a plurality of connectors connected via bus extender, as taught by Anderson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in receiving sensor data from a plurality of aircraft subcomponents (Anderson et al. at ¶¶ [0069], [0081], [0083]).
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 14-19 of copending Application No. 19/349,167. The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference publication are compared in the table below.
App. No. 19/349,218
Reference App ‘167
1. A data recorder comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory comprising computer readable instructions;
the at least one processor being configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of:
receiving one or more of: sensor configuration data; or sensor calibration data from a memory of a connector connected between the data recorder and a sensor;
reading the connector to receive a digital signal;
processing the received digital signal; and
controlling storage of data in the processed digital signal in the at least one memory of the data recorder.
15. The system as claimed in claim 14,
wherein the data recorder comprises:
at least one processor;
at least one memory comprising computer readable instructions;
the at least one processor being configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of:
receiving one or more of: sensor configuration data or sensor calibration data from the memory of the connector;
reading the connector to receive the digital signal;
processing the received digital signal; and controlling storage of data in the processed digital signal in the at least one memory of the data recorder.
[A connector for connecting a sensor to a data recorder, the connector comprising: circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor and to transmit a digital signal to the data recorder; and
a memory storing one or more of: sensor configuration data or sensor calibration data.] (Claim 14)
[A connector for connecting a sensor to a data recorder, the connector comprising: circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor and to transmit a digital signal to the data recorder; and a memory storing one or more of: sensor configuration data or sensor calibration data.] (Claim 1, 12)
2. The data recorder as claimed in claim 1, wherein reading the connector comprises reading the connector using the received sensor configuration data to receive the digital signal.
16. The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein reading the connector comprises reading the connector using the received sensor configuration data to receive the digital signal.
3. The data recorder as claimed in claim 1, wherein processing the received digital signal comprises processing the received digital signal using the received sensor calibration data.
17. The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein processing the received digital signal comprises processing the received digital signal using the received sensor calibration data.
5. The data recorder as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data recorder further comprises an isolator configured to electrically connect to the connector.
18. The system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the data recorder further comprises an isolator configured to electrically connect to the connector.
6. The data recorder as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of: determining whether the connector is electrically connected to the data recorder; controlling the isolator to electrically disconnect in response to determining that the connector is not electrically connected to the data recorder; and controlling the isolator to electrically connect in response to determining that the connector is electrically connected to the data recorder.
19. The system as claimed in claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of: determining whether the connector is electrically connected to the data recorder; controlling the isolator to electrically disconnect in response to determining that the connector is not electrically connected to the data recorder; and controlling the isolator to electrically connect in response to determining that the connector is electrically connected to the data recorder.
8. A system comprising:
the data recorder as claimed in claim 1; and
[data recorder comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory comprising computer readable instructions;
the at least one processor being configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of:
receiving one or more of: sensor configuration data; or sensor calibration data from a memory of a connector connected between the data recorder and a sensor;
reading the connector to receive a digital signal;
processing the received digital signal; and
controlling storage of data in the processed digital signal in the at least one memory of the data recorder] (Claim 1)
a connector connecting a sensor to the data recorder, the connector comprising:
circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor and to transmit a digital signal to the data recorder; and
a memory storing the one or more of: the sensor configuration data; or the sensor calibration data.
Sensor and connector positively recited in claim 8.
15. The system as claimed in claim 14,
[comprising a data recorder, the connector being electrically connected to the data recorder] (Claim 14)
wherein the data recorder comprises:
at least one processor;
at least one memory comprising computer readable instructions;
the at least one processor being configured to read the computer readable instructions to cause performance of:
receiving one or more of: sensor configuration data or sensor calibration data from the memory of the connector;
reading the connector to receive the digital signal;
processing the received digital signal; and controlling storage of data in the processed digital signal in the at least one memory of the data recorder.
[A connector for connecting a sensor to a data recorder, the connector comprising: circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor and to transmit a digital signal to the data recorder; and
a memory storing one or more of: sensor configuration data or sensor calibration data.] (Claim 14)
12. A system comprising: the connector as claimed in claim 1; and a sensor connected to the connector.
Claim 1
Claim 15 of the reference patent application depends from and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 14. Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 of the reference application recite the same limitations as claim 1 of the instant application, while reciting additional limitations.
Claim 2
Claim 16 of the reference patent application depends from and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 14, and 15. Claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of the reference application recite the same limitations as claim 2 of the instant application, while reciting additional limitations.
Claim 3
Claim 17 of the reference patent application depends from and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 14, and 15. Claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 17 of the reference application recite the same limitations as claim 3 of the instant application, while reciting additional limitations.
Claim 5
Claim 18 of the reference patent application depends from and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 14, and 15. Claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 18 of the reference application recite the same limitations as claim 5 of the instant application, while reciting additional limitations.
Claim 6
Claim 19 of the reference patent application depends from and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 12, 14, and 15. Claims 1, 12, 14, 15, and 19 of the reference application recite the same limitations as claim 6 of the instant application, while reciting additional limitations.
Claim 8
Claim 15 of the reference patent application depends from and includes all the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 14. Claims 1, 12, 14, and 15 of the reference application recite the same limitations as claim 8 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0051209 to Nicol et al. teaches a recorder having a connector and sensor (¶¶ [0018] – [0023]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0025297 to Demont et al. teaches a recorder that receives sensor data (¶¶ [0119] – [0123]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0339863 to Allwardt et al. teaches recorders that receive sensor data and have connectors (¶¶ [0043] – [0048]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0143447 to Miller teaches a recorder that receives sensor data via connectors (¶¶ [0005] – [0011]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights