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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
“means of connection” in claim 1
“means to cause runner to travel” in claim 1
“means to stop runners” in claim 1
“means to cause runner to travel” in claim 1
“means to transmit pulling forces” in claim 1
“a mechanism which slows, stops, actuates or otherwise controls the motion of the runners” in claim 7
“means of a drive mechanism” in claim 12
“attachment devices” in claim 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification resulted in the following corresponding structures for performing the claimed functions:
“means of connection” corresponding structure is “duty tethers 201”; Page 5, last paragraph
“means to cause runner to travel” corresponding structure is a “drive system”; Page 5, last paragraph
“means to stop runners” corresponding structure is “clamp” or “brake”; Page 7, third paragraph
“means to transmit pulling forces” corresponding structure is “duty tethers 201” and “runners 300”; Page 5, first paragraph of the “Detailed Description” section
“a mechanism which slows, stops, actuates or otherwise controls the motion of the runners” – no corresponding structure found, see corresponding 112(b) rejection below
“means of a drive mechanism” corresponding structure is “serpentine winch 302”, “spiral winch”, “tether-gripping opposed drive wheels”, “a reciprocating, 'walking' clamp drive mechanism”, “rocket”, “jet”, “fan”, “propeller”, or “another runner”.
“attachment devices” – no corresponding structure found, see corresponding 112(b) rejection below
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the duty aerofoils". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously introduces “one or more duty aerofoils”. It is unclear if the “the duty aerofoils” of the instant limitation refer to all of the one or more duty aerofoils or only some, or other duty aerofoils not previously introduced in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “the one or more duty aerofoils”. Examiner suggests amending claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the aerofoils". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously introduces “at least one auxiliary aerofoil” and “one or more duty aerofoils”. It is unclear if the “the aerofoils” of the instant limitation refer to all of the “at least one auxiliary aerofoil” and “one or more duty aerofoils” or only some, or other aerofoils not previously introduced in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “the one or more duty aerofoils”. Examiner suggests amending claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the primary tether or tethers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously introduces “a primary tether or set of primary tethers”. It is unclear if the “tethers” of the instant limitation refer to all tethers in the set of primary tethers or only some, or other tethers not previously introduced in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “the primary tether or set of primary tethers”. Examiner suggests amending claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the runners' connections to the primary tethers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “each runner having a connection to a corresponding primary tether”. Examiner suggests amending claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claims 2-18 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "runners restrain a duty aerofoil as it launches into the air under its own power or pulled by a launching kite, surging, maybe at a controlled rate, along the primary tethers and coming to a halt at the required position". It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim due to the awkward phrasing. It is unclear if the runners or a duty aerofoil is launched into the air under its own power. If the aerofoil is launched under its own power, it unclear what power source the aerofoil has. Further, the term “maybe” added further confusion as to what is being claimed, since it is not understood to what extend “at a controlled rate” limits the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “runners restrain a duty aerofoil as it launches into the air along the primary tethers and coming to a halt at the required position”. Examiner suggests amending claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "it applies to the use of hydrofoils in place of aerofoils and kites, where the working medium is water in place of air and the foils may be deployed below, on or above the horizontal. It is not understood to what feature “it” applies. Further, the phrase “it applies to the use of…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. It is further unclear what structure is required by the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly define what structural limitations are being claimed. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as intended use.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
In Claim 7 the limitation “a mechanism which slows, stops, actuates or otherwise controls the motion of the runners” and in claim 14, the limitation “attachment devices” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to describe any corresponding structure related to the ““a mechanism which slows, stops, actuates or otherwise controls the motion of the runners” and “attachment devices”. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-10, 13-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noble et al. (GB 2098951), hereinafter: “Noble”.
In Regard to Claim 1
Noble teaches:
A system for deploying multiple tethered aerofoils(6,7) to form a series array(Fig 1-4b), the system comprising:
a primary tether or set of primary tethers(3,3);
at least one auxiliary aerofoil(1);
one or more duty aerofoils(6,7);
runners(tie or clamp at 3; Pg 1, ln. 74-94); and
means of connection between the duty aerofoils and the runners(body of tie or clamp that tethers 6,7 to 3; Pg 1, ln. 74-94) wherein:
the duty aerofoils are added to the array by connecting the duty aerofoils to the primary tether or tethers using runners(Fig 1-4b; Pg 1, ln. 74-94), such that the aerofoils can be raised into the air using the primary tether or tethers for guidance, traction, security, reaction or restraint or for all of these purposes(duty aerofoils 6,7 are structurally capable of being raised into the air using the primary tethers 3 for guidance, traction, security, reaction and restraint; Fig 1-4b);
the runners' connections to the primary tethers are such that their radial motion relative to the primary tethers is limited(once tied or clamped along 3 the radial motion relative to 3 is limited); and
the system further comprises:
means to cause runners to travel outbound along the primary tethers(4,5; turning blocks and winches drive the runners outbound);
means to stop runners at one or more required positions(winches 5 inherently have an clamping/braking device to be able to attach a series of aerofoils 6,7 at different positions along 3; Pg 1, ln. 74-94);
means to cause runners to travel inbound(4,5; turning blocks and winches drive the runners inbound when retrieving the aerofoils); and
means to transmit pulling forces from a duty aerofoil to the primary tethers(body of tie or clamp that tethers 6,7 to 3 transmits pulling force from the aerofoils to 3; Pg 1, ln. 74-94), and
the duty aerofoils' connections to the array are temporary, such that they can be disconnected from the array(the aerofoils 6,7 are attached in series, one by one, temporarily until they need to be disconnected from the array in a reverse manner for maintenance, repair, replacement or the like; Pg 1, ln. 74-94).
In Regard to Claim 2
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein duty aerofoils can be recovered from the air singularly, without necessitating the retraction of other aerofoils in the array(the aerofoils 6,7 are attached in series, one by one, and can be recovered from the array in a reverse manner, one by one, without retraction of at least the auxiliary aerofoil 1; Pg 1, ln. 74-94).
In Regard to Claim 3
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein duty aerofoils can be added to the array in any desired order, to allow choice of, for example, size or type of aerofoil(as shown in Fig 1-4b and described at Pg 1, ln 74-94, the aerofoils 6,7 are structurally capable of being added to array in any desired order for different types of aerofoils 6,7) .
In Regard to Claim 4
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the duty aerofoils can be secured to the primary tethers at predefined positions(as is visually apparent in Fig 1-4b, the aerofoils 6,7 are secured to 3 at predefined positions).
In Regard to Claim 5
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the duty aerofoils can be secured to the primary tethers at any position along their length(as shown in Fig 1-4b and described at Pg 1, ln 74-94, the aerofoils 6,7 are structurally capable of being added to array at any desired position along 3).
In Regard to Claim 6
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the runners can be connected to, and disconnected from, the primary tethers(as shown in Fig 1-4b and described at Pg 1, ln 74-94, the runners are structurally capable of being added to connected to and disconnected from 3; the aerofoils 6,7 are attached via the runners in series, one by one, temporarily until they need to be disconnected from the array in a reverse manner for maintenance, repair, replacement or the like).
In Regard to Claim 7
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the system further comprises a mechanism(4,5) which slows, stops, actuates or otherwise controls the motion of the runners along the tethers(turning blocks 4 and winch 5 control the motion of the runners along 3; Pg 1, ln. 65-94).
In Regard to Claim 8
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein runners tow the duty aerofoils into the air(tie or clamp at 3 enables the duty aerofoils to be towed into the air when paid out by 4,5; Pg 1, ln. 74-94)
In Regard to Claim 9
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein runners travel outbound along the primary tethers to a position from which they haul duty aerofoils into the air(tie or clamp at 3 travels to a position when paid outbound by 4,5 at which point they pick up the load of the duty aerofoils 6,7 and haul them into the air; Pg 1, ln. 74-94)
In Regard to Claim 10
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein runners restrain a duty aerofoil as it launches into the air under its own power or pulled by a launching kite, surging, maybe at a controlled rate, along the primary tethers and coming to a halt at the required position(interpreted as discussed above; the runners restrain aerofoils 6,7 as it launches into air being powered by the wind, the rate at which the aerofoils move outbound and the position at which they come to a halt is controlled by 4,5).
In Regard to Claim 13
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein some or all duty aerofoils are launched, positioned or recovered using two or more runners on at least one of the primary tethers, for example an upper runner and a lower runner(all duty aerofoils 6,7 are launched, positioned and/or recovered using two runner, one on each primary tether 3; Fig 1-4b).
In Regard to Claim 14
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the duty aerofoils are secured to the primary tethers(20) by attachment devices(rings 21) which are separate from the runners(rings 21 are separate from the tie or clamp used to secure the ring to the aerofoil 22; visually apparent in Fig 4b).
In Regard to Claim 17
Noble teaches:
The system as described in claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein it applies to the use of hydrofoils in place of aerofoils and kites, where the working medium is water in place of air and the foils may be deployed below, on or above the horizontal.
Examiner notes the limitation “it applies to the use of hydrofoils in place of aerofoils and kites, where the working medium is water in place of air and the foils may be deployed below, on or above the horizontal” is either intended use or is a mere function of the system in which case it is inherent to the system and therefore anticipated by Noble. Regarding intended use, it has been held that the recited modification with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220090576 A1
SIA; Yik Hei
US 8405244 B2
Zhang; Jianjun et al.
US 4124182 A
Loeb; Arnold
US 6072245 A
Ockels; Wubbo Johannes
US 10697433 B2
Kingsley; Gordon Bruce
US 7275719 B2
Olson; Gaylord G.
US 6523781 B2
Ragner; Gary Dean
US 5056447 A
Labrador; Gaudencio A.
US 4497272 A
Veazey; Sidney E.
US 8894001 B2
Calverley; Grant
US 6918346 B2
Grenier; Maurice
US 0417755 A
Thayer, D.
The above reference are cited for teachings similar systems for deploying multiple tethered aerofoils in a series array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Court D. Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745