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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Re Claim 5, it is unclear what Applicant is intending to convey and the specification does not have any disclosure regarding claim 5.
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 22-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,738,725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 of US 11, 738,725 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 22-25 and therefore anticipates claims 22-25.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-20 of copending Application No. 18/237,763 (reference application).
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where conflicting claims are not identical but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined claim is either anticipated by or would have been obvious over the reference claims. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, and 4-20 of 18/237,763 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1-4 and 6-21 and therefore anticipates claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-21.
Re claim 6, claim 5 of Application 18/237,763 does not explicitly teach a “redundant deployment actuator”. However, the “deployment actuator” is considered redundant since there is a previously recited “electronic actuator”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/237,763 in view of Giannakopoulos. (US 2013/0221159).
Claim 3 of Application 18/237,763 does not explicitly teach wherein the payload device comprises a race car. Giannakopoulos discloses a parachute deployment system wherein the mechanical actuator comprises a Bowden cable (50) and the payload device comprises a race car (Par 60). (Fig. 2) In view of the teachings of Giannakopoulos it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art provide a race car in the in order to provide emergency braking in a vehicle. The disclosed car of Giannakopoulous is capable of racing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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)(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.
3. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yagihashi et al. (WO 2019039062).
Re claim 1, Yagihashi et al. disclose an electronic parachute deployment system, comprising: an electronic deployment actuator (370) connected to a control module (340) of a payload device; a redundant deployment actuator (390) connected to the payload device (330); a parachute container (186) for releasably containing a parachute (110); a release mechanism (400) coupled to the deployment actuator and the payload device, the release mechanism connected to the parachute container; and a control module (Par. 139), having a memory and a processor connected to the electronic actuator and the release mechanism; wherein the memory includes a set of executable instructions that when executed by the processor causes the control module to perform the following: receiving an activation signal; sending the activation signal to the release mechanism; activating the release mechanism using the activation signal; and deploying the parachute from the payload device. (Par. 143-145) (See US equivalent US 2020/0198790 for translation. Fig 9-11)
Re claim 2, Yagihashi et al. disclose wherein the redundant deployment actuator (390) is a mechanical actuator. (Fig. 10)
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.
6. Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagihashi et al. (WO 2019039062) in view of Giannakopoulos (US 20130221159).
Re claim 3, Yagihashi et al. do not teach wherein the mechanical actuator comprises a Bowden cable and the payload device comprises a race car. Giannakopoulos discloses a parachute deployment system wherein the mechanical actuator comprises a Bowden cable (50) and the payload device comprises a race car (Par 60). (Fig. 2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Bowden cable in the car of Giannakopoulous in the system of Yagihashi et al. to provide a quick release actuation of a parachute to avoid a collision. The disclosed car of Giannakopoulous is capable of racing.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagihashi et al. (WO 2019039062).
Re claim 4, Yagihashi et al. teach wherein the release mechanism comprises a biased puncture needle abutting the seal (Par. 240). Yagihashi et al. do not teach wherein the inert gas is CO2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use CO2 in the system of Yagihashi et al. since CO2 is a well known inert compressible gas.
8. Claims 6, 7, 9-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagihashi et al. (WO 2019039062) in view of Joao (US 20030193404).
Re claims 6, Yagihashi et al. teach an electronic parachute deployment system, comprising: a payload device (330); an electronic actuator (370) coupled to the payload device; a redundant deployment actuator (390) coupled to the payload device; a release mechanism (400) coupled to the payload device; and a control module (Par. 139), having a memory and a processor, connected to the electronic actuator; wherein the memory includes a set of executable instructions. (See above.)
Yagihashi et al. do not teach wherein when executed by the processor causes the payload device to perform the following: providing an authentication key; sending an authorized activation signal to the payload device; and deploying a parachute from the payload device based on the authorized activation signal.
Joao teaches a parachute deployment system (Par. 78) wherein when executed by the processor (4) causes the payload device to perform the following: providing an authentication key (Par. 745); sending an authorized activation signal to the payload device (Par. 385); and deploying a parachute from the payload device based on the authorized activation signal. (Fig. 11B) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an authentication key and authorized activation signal of Joao in the system of Yagihashi et al. in order to provide additional security to the system.
Re claim 7, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach wherein the authentication key comprises a public encryption key (“public-key algorithms”, “public-key digital signature algorithms”. (Par. 745)
Re claim 10, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach a remote device (Joao - 150); wherein the remote device comprises a second memory (Joao - 161, 162), and a second processor (Joao - 151); and wherein the second memory includes a second set of executable instructions that when executed by the second processor causes the remote device to perform the following: sending an access request signal including a random number; verifying the random number is included in an access confirmation signal; and encrypting a deployment activation signal using an encryption key (Joao - Par. 745).
Re claim 11, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach a payload transceiver wherein the payload transceiver comprises a second memory (Joao – 161, 162) and a second processor (Joao – 151); wherein the second memory includes a second set of executable instructions that when executed by the second processor causes the payload transceiver to perform the following: sending an access confirmation signal; receiving the authorized activation signal; and sending a decrypted deployment activation signal (Joao - Par. 745).
Re claim 12, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach wherein the set of executable instructions when executed by the processor causes the control module to perform the following: decrypting a deployment activation signal using an encryption key; verifying the deployment activation signal; and sending the verified deployment activation signal to the deployment actuator. See paragraph 745 describing encryption, paragraph 747 which discusses automatic activation, control and security monitoring and paragraph 321 wherein “The monitoring device or monitoring system can detect sudden change(s) in vehicle movement, erratic behavior, and/or abnormal behavior, and generate and transmit a signal to any one or more of the server computer 510, the server computer 952, the computer 970, and/or the home or personal computer or communication device 150, to alert an authorized user of the sudden change(s) in vehicle movement, erratic behavior, and/or abnormal behavior. Thereafter, a user or operator can take control of the vehicle from a remote location via any one or more of the home or personal computer or communication device 150, the server computer 510, the server computer 952, and/or the computer 970.”
Re claims 13 and 21, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach wherein the redundant deployment actuator (390) comprises a mechanical actuator; and wherein the mechanical actuator and the electronic actuator (370) are connected to the control module of the payload device to simultaneously actuate and affect parachute deployment.
Re claim 14, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach an electronic parachute deployment network (Joao, Par. 311), comprising: a payload device (11); a remote device (Par. 746) communicatively coupled to the payload device; a deployment actuator coupled to the payload device; and a control module (4), having a memory and a processor, connected to the remote device; wherein the memory (5, 6) includes a set of executable instructions that when executed by the processor (4) causes the payload device to perform the following: providing an authentication key, decrypting a deployment activation signal (Par. 745) and sending the decrypted deployment activation signal to the deployment actuator (Par. 385) to deploy a parachute from the payload device. (Fig. 11B)
Re claim 15, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach wherein the authentication key comprises a public encryption key (“public-key algorithms”, “public-key digital signature algorithms”. (Par. 745)
Re claims 9 and 17, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach a parachute deployment system wherein the payload device comprises a car (Par 746). The disclosed car of is capable of racing. Regarding the set of executable instructions are further configured to cause the payload device to perform the following: terminating an active racing mode of the payload device; and indicating, at the control module, a parachute deployment mode. The limitation is an intended use and Joao is capable of terminating an active racing mode of the payload device; and indicating, at the control module, a parachute deployment mode.
Re claim 18, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach a remote device (150); wherein the remote device comprises a second memory (161, 162), and a second processor (151); and wherein the second memory includes a second set of executable instructions that when executed by the second processor causes the remote device to perform the following: sending an access request signal including a random number; verifying the random number is included in an access confirmation signal; and encrypting a deployment activation signal using an encryption key (Par. 745).
Re claim 19, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach a payload transceiver wherein the payload transceiver comprises a second memory (161, 162) and a second processor (151); wherein the second memory includes a second set of executable instructions that when executed by the second processor causes the payload transceiver to perform the following: sending an access confirmation signal; receiving the deployment activation signal; and receiving a command signal from the control module to send the decrypted deployment activation signal to the deployment actuator. (Par. 745).
Re claim 20, Yagihashi et al. as modified teach wherein the set of executable instructions when executed by the processor causes the control module to perform the following: decrypting a deployment activation signal using an encryption key; verifying the deployment activation signal; and sending the verified deployment activation signal to the deployment actuator. See paragraph 745 describing encryption, paragraph 747 which discusses automatic activation, control and security monitoring and paragraph 321 wherein “The monitoring device or monitoring system can detect sudden change(s) in vehicle movement, erratic behavior, and/or abnormal behavior, and generate and transmit a signal to any one or more of the server computer 510, the server computer 952, the computer 970, and/or the home or personal computer or communication device 150, to alert an authorized user of the sudden change(s) in vehicle movement, erratic behavior, and/or abnormal behavior. Thereafter, a user or operator can take control of the vehicle from a remote location via any one or more of the home or personal computer or communication device 150, the server computer 510, the server computer 952, and/or the computer 970.”
9. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagihashi et al. (WO 2019039062) in view of Joao (US 20030193404) and further in view of Peeters et al. (US 20140025950).
Re claims 8 and 16, Yagihashi et al. as modified do not teach a remote device having a private encryption key that is paired with the public encryption key. Peeters et al. teaches a remote device having a private encryption key that is paired with the public encryption key. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a private encryption key that is paired with the public encryption key as taught by Peeters et al. for providing both the vehicle owner and another user with means to access and control the vehicle remotely in an emergency while maintaining system security. (Par. 20, 40)
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joao (US 2003/0193404).
Re claim 22, Joao discloses an electronic parachute deployment network (Par. 311), comprising: a payload device (11); a remote device (Par. 746) communicatively coupled to the payload device; a deployment actuator coupled to the payload device; and a control module (4), having a memory and a processor, connected to the remote device; wherein the memory (5, 6) includes a set of executable instructions that when executed by the processor (4) causes the payload device to perform the following: providing an authentication key (Par. 745); sending an authorized activation signal to the payload device (Par. 385); and deploying a parachute from the payload device based on the authorized activation signal and wherein the parachute deployment causes the payload device to slow or stop, ensuring the safety of the payload device and its contents. (Fig. 11B)
Re claim 23, Joao discloses an indicator; wherein the indicator (11) is configured to indicate an operation of the control module (4) or a parachute deployment mode of the control module. (Par. 319)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qian and Nolan et al. teach similar electronic parachute deployment systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWOctober 31, 2025