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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and/or 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12492003 (henceforth 003). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because these claims of 003 anticipate claim 1-2 and 7 of the present application.
Regarding claim 1, 003 claims a control system for a de-icing system for removing ice from an aircraft surface, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors (003, claim 9, sensor array) configured to be mounted to or within an external surface of the aircraft surface (003, claim 9, sensor array installed on a surface of an aircraft structure), and to determine a change in sensed characteristic that is indicative of ice shedding from the surface (003, claim 9, controller determines changes in signals from sensors to detect abnormal conditions).
Regarding claim 2, 003 claims the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are temperature sensors arranged to sense temperature or change in temperature at the external surface (003, claim 14, temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 7, 003 claims the control system of claim 1, further comprising a controller (003, claim 9, controller) to receive the determined change in characteristic (003, claim 9, controller reads signals from sensors to determine abnormal readings).
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and/or 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11618575 (henceforth 575). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because these claims of 003 anticipate claim 1-2 and 6-8 of the present application.
Regarding claim 1, 575 claims a control system for a de-icing system for removing ice from an aircraft surface, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors (575, claim 6, temperature sensors) configured to be mounted to or within an external surface of the aircraft surface (575, claim 6, sensors installed on a heater strip in turn on a surface of an aircraft), and to determine a change in sensed characteristic that is indicative of ice shedding from the surface (575, claim 6, controller determines changes in signals from sensors to detect abnormal conditions).
Regarding claim 2, 575 claims the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are temperature sensors arranged to sense temperature or change in temperature at the external surface (575, claim 6, temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 6, 575 claims the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors is configured to be mounted onto the external surface (575, claim 6, sensors mounted to heater strip mounted in turn to surface of aircraft).
Regarding claim 7, 575 claims the control system of claim 1, further comprising a controller (575, claim 6, controller) to receive the determined change in characteristic (575, claim 6, controller in communication with temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 8, 575 claims the control system of claim 7, wherein the controller controls operation of one or more heater elements of the de-icing system (575, claim 6, controller in electronic communications with the heater element), in use, based on the sensed characteristic (575, claim 8, supplementary de-icing).
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18444655 (henceforth 655). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this claim of 655 anticipates claim 1 of the present application.
Regarding claim 1, 655 claims a control system for a de-icing system for removing ice from an aircraft surface, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors (655, claim 11, sensing element) configured to be mounted to or within an external surface of the aircraft surface (655, claim 11, sensing element capable of being mounted to or within an external surface of an aircraft surface), and to determine a change in sensed characteristic that is indicative of ice shedding from the surface (655, claim 11, sensing element capable of sensing).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boruta (US 11618575 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Botura claims a control system for a de-icing system for removing ice from an aircraft surface, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors (Botura, claim 6, temperature sensors) configured to be mounted to or within an external surface of the aircraft surface (Botura, claim 6, sensors installed on a heater strip in turn on a surface of an aircraft), and to determine a change in sensed characteristic that is indicative of ice shedding from the surface (Botura, claim 6, controller determines changes in signals from sensors to detect abnormal conditions).
Regarding claim 2, Botura claims the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are temperature sensors arranged to sense temperature or change in temperature at the external surface (Botura, claim 6, temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 6, Botura claims the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors is configured to be mounted onto the external surface (Botura, claim 6, sensors mounted to heater strip mounted in turn to surface of aircraft).
Regarding claim 7, Botura claims the control system of claim 1, further comprising a controller (Botura, claim 6, controller) to receive the determined change in characteristic (Botura, claim 6, controller in communication with temperature sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Botura claims the control system of claim 7, wherein the controller controls operation of one or more heater elements of the de-icing system (Botura, claim 6, controller in electronic communications with the heater element), in use, based on the sensed characteristic (Botura, claim 8, supplementary de-icing).
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Opificus (US 11242152 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Opificus (US 11242152 B2) discloses a control system for a de-icing system for removing ice from an aircraft surface, the control system comprising:
one or more sensors (Opificus, figures 2-4, items 20 and 40, sensor patch and sensors) configured to be mounted to or within an external surface of the aircraft surface (Opificus, figures 2-4, item 20, col 5, lines 49-55 sensors located inside a patch mounted to/within an external surface of the aircraft surface), and to determine a change in sensed characteristic that is indicative of ice shedding from the surface (Opificus, col 11, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 2, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are temperature sensors arranged to sense temperature or change in temperature at the external surface (Opificus, col 5, lines 36-43).
Regarding claim 3, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the sensed characteristic comprises a change from an increase to a decrease in temperature (Opificus, figure 6, item T4, col 11, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 4, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the sensed characteristic comprises a change in rate of change of temperature (Opificus, figure 6, item T4-, col 5, lines 36-43).
Regarding claim 5, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors is configured to be incorporated into the external surface (Opificus, figures 2-4, item 40, col 5, lines 49-55 sensors located inside a patch incorporated into an external surface).
Regarding claim 7, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 1, further comprising a controller (Opificus, figures 2, item 24) to receive the determined change in characteristic (Opificus, col 6, line 62-col 7, line 2, temperature sensor data connected to controller to send data to controller).
Regarding claim 8, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 7, wherein the controller controls operation of one or more heater elements of the de-icing system, in use, based on the sensed characteristic (Opificus, col 7 line 58- col 8 line 2, controller controls heating element based on detection of ice accretion which is in turn based on temperature sensor readings).
Regarding claim 9, Opificus discloses a de-icing system for removing ice from an aircraft surface comprising:
one or more heater elements arranged within the surface (Opificus, figure 2, item 32); and
a control system as claimed in claim 1 (Opificus, figure 2, items 20 and 24), for controlling operation of the one or more heating heater elements in response to the sensed characteristic (Opificus, col 7 line 58- col 8 line 2, controller controls heating element based on detection of ice accretion which is in turn based on temperature sensor readings).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opificus (US 11242152 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and alternatively further in view of Botura (US 11618575 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Opificus discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors is configured to be mounted onto the external surface (Opificus, figures 2-4, item 40, col 5, lines 49-55 sensors located inside a patch into an external surface).
Alternatively, Botura (US 11618575 B2) teaches one or more sensors is configured to be mounted onto the external surface (Botura, figure 2, item 120).
Opificus and Botura are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft anti-icing systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Opificus with the sensor mounted onto the external surface of Botura with a reasonable expectation of success in order to detect temperature at the external surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10018580 B2 teaches two heaters and heat sensors for these heaters used to reach a target temperature; power consumption of heaters compared to determine whether water or ice are present
US 10850857 B2 teaches two heaters producing heat to an equilibrium temperature and heat sensors for these heaters; heaters located at leading and trailing edges; equilibrium temperature difference of heaters compared to determine whether water or ice are present
US 11034457 B2 teaches a heater producing an initial heat; temperature drop over time is measure by sensors to determine whether ice has been built up
US 11358727 B2 teaches a heater used produce heat to a target temperature (when low temperature is reached) and turning off (when high temperature is reached) in cycles; the time between cycles is measured to determine icing conditions or presence and then ice is removed using heating
US 11390387 B2 teaches a heater producing heat on a propeller; power usage, temperature, and the derivative of temperature are used by a controller to monitor ice buildup, shedding, and subsequent buildup or other behavior; temperature sensor inside external surface (fig 3a, items 140 and 111)
US 20140191084 A1 teaches a heater used as a temperature sensor; temperature and derivative of temperature are monitored to determine ice buildup
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights