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 . A cursory review of the application appears to show that the applicant (the inventor) is a pro se inventor (an inventor who is filing their own paperwork without the aid of an attorney). Therefore, if the applicant has any question or concerns with regards to the prosecution of this application (how to amend claims, how to respond, etc.) they are encouraged to the contact the examiner of this application, Joshua Rodden, at (303) 297 – 4258.
Should applicant wish to discuss possible amendments prior to filing an official response, the examiner notes that if applicant filed an Internet authorization Form (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf ) for each inventor, then the examiner and applicant could discuss possible amendments prior to filing by email.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the “a grasping mechanism (18)” as described in paragraph [00028] of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract is object for appearing to contain the title of the invention. The abstract should be resubmitted with just the abstract and nothing else. To submit an amended abstract, applicant should just create a word document titled “Abstract Amendment for Application #18/393,240.” Under this title place the statement “Replace the previously submitted abstract with the following abstract:”. Then under this statement provide your abstract. If you are amending your abstract remember that any changes to previously submitted abstract must be shown by crossing through language being deleted and underling any new language being added.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure as filed on 12/21/23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is required to be double spaced. The specification should be resubmitted in a double-spaced format.
Paragraphs [00010]-[00018] all appear to reference claims. For example, paragraph [00010] states “of claim 1.” This is improper. Claims should not be referenced within the specification in this manner. Any references to “claims” should be removed from Paragraphs [00010]-[00018].
Paragraph [00032], Line 5, replace “(22)and” with “(22) and”
Appropriate correction is required.
In order to submit a corrected specification, applicant is required to file a substitute specification. A substitute specification has specific requirements that I will detail below. A proper “Substitute Specification” requires three documents as follows:
Substitute Specification – Amended Copy – Take your most recent “specification” that you filed officially, and place the title “Substitute Specification – Amended Copy” at the top of the first page of the specification. This copy of the specification will be your specification that you filed previous on 12/21/23. You will then go through this document and show what is being added to the specification by underling what is being added, and crossing through what is being deleted. An example of this would be as follows. Imagine in your specification had the sentence “My favorite color is purple.” If I wanted to change the sentence in my specification and show the changes being made, I would change the above noted sentence to state “My least favorite color is orange.” As you can see, I showed the changes being made by underling what is being added and crossing through what is being deleted. If you are not changing anything just leave it as is. You need to provide the entire specification showing what changes are being made.
Substitute Specification – Clean Copy – This is just the final version of the specification. I.e., take a copy of the above noted “Substitute Specification – Amended Copy”, and replace the title “Substitute Specification – Amended Copy” with “Substitute Specification – Clean Copy”. You will then remove all of the items being deleted and remove all of the underlining’s. I.e., this should be a “clean” version of the specification that you would expect to be published in an official patent. This is the final specification that would appear in any patent that you would be issued.
Substitute Specification Statement – Create a separate WORD document titled “Substitute Specification Statement for Application #********.” Under this title put this statement word for word: “The substitute specification contains no new matter.” This statement just legally states that the substitute specification contains no new matter. You need to sign under this statement with either one of a cursive signature or an electronic signature, over top of a typed signature. An electronic signature just being your first and last name in between forward slashes. For example, as my name is “Joshua Rodden”, my electronic signature would simply be /JOSHUA RODDEN/ over Joshua Rodden. Basically, you just need to type your official signature in between forward slashes on the line above your typed name. A signature is required for every inventor.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8 should be provided in a double-spaced format.
Claim 1, Line 4, delete “above mentioned”.
Claim 1, Line 9, delete “above mentioned”.
Claim 1, Lines 11-12, before “electrical energy storage devices” add “the”
Claim 1, Last Line, before “electrical energy storage devices” add “the”
Claims 2-4 and 6 are objected to for containing multiple sentences. Applicant is reminded that each individual claim must be in the form of single sentence using commas (,) as typical thought breaks, semicolons (;) where paragraph breaks would typically be located, and a single period (.) located at the end of each respective claim.
Claim 2, Line 1, replace “at least one” with “at least one of the”
Claim 2, Line 5, delete “above-mentioned”.
Claim 2, Line 6, replace “an energy storage device” with “the at least one
Claim 2, the reference to “claim 1” should only be made ONCE at the beginning of claim 2 and should NOT be repeated throughout the claim.
Claim 3, the reference to “claim 1” should only be made ONCE at the beginning of claim 2 and should NOT be repeated throughout the claim.
Claim 4, the reference to “claim 1” should only be made ONCE at the beginning of claim 2 and should NOT be repeated throughout the claim.
Claim 6, the reference to “claim 1” should only be made ONCE at the beginning of claim 2 and should NOT be repeated throughout the claim.
Claim 6, Line 4, after “comprising”, replace “a” with “the”
Claim 6, Line 6, after “comprising”, replace “a” with “the”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 7 and 8 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim is improper and as claim cannot dependent upon multiple different previously recited claims. I.e., a claim can only depend upon ONE previously recited claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 5, 7 and 8 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-8 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.
Claims 1-8 appear to replete with 112 issues. The claims appear to be written by a Pro Se applicant. The examiner will do their best to point out the major issues at hand, but notes that numerous other 112 issues may still exist.
Claim 1 recites “An aerial vehicle that can be become airborne by a plurality of means comprising: …” However, the examiner first notes that the term “means” has a specific meaning in patent law under 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph. Therefore, the use of “means” in this line leaves it indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant actually means to invoke 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph. For purposes of examination, based upon the claim language it is assumed that applicant does NOT mean to actually use the term “means” to invoke 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph; specifically, as the “means” is later recited throughout claim 1 has being in the form of a plurality of different structural elements. Additionally, claim 1 goes to recite “means comprising: …” However, this leaves it indefinite and unclear as to whether all of the elements as recited throughout claim 1 are part of the “means” or part of the “aerial vehicle” itself? For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase “An aerial vehicle that can be become airborne by a plurality of means comprising: …” is meant to recite “An aerial vehicle configured to , the vehicle comprising: …”
Claim 1, Line 4 recites “a plurality of devices such as, but not limited to, …” However, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase “a plurality of devices such as, but not limited to, …” with “a plurality of devices including at least one of
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amount of light" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “antecedent basis” means that anytime a new limitation is first introduced within a claim, it should be preceded by one of “a”, “an” or nothing, with each subsequent reference to that term preceded by one of “the” or “said.” This is to make it clear that the same limitations I being referred to throughout the claims. In this instance, as it is the first time the limitation “amount of light” is introduced within the claims, is should be preceded by “an”; with each subsequent reference to the “amount of light” then being recited as “the amount of light.” The examiner notes that this is just one example of an antecedent basis issue throughout the claims. The examiner will attempt to point out other similar antecedent basis issues, but others may be present.
Claim 1, Line 10 recites “the amount of light contacting the photo-voltaic panels…” However, the examiner notes that the “plurality of devices” do NOT appear to ALL be recited. I.e., the listing of the plurality of devices in lines 4-8 appears to state that not all of these devices are required but just some; but then claim 1, starting in line 10, goes on to positively describe the plurality of devices. This leaves it indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant is actually positively claiming the plurality of devices when the plurality of devices are further described as beginning on line 10 of claim 1?
Claim 1, Line 12 recites “a plurality of motion enabling devices such as, but not limited to, …” However, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase “a plurality of motion enabling devices such as, but not limited to, …” with “a plurality of motion enabling devices including at least one of
Claim 2, Line 2 recites “an aerial vehicle.” However, claim 1 has already set forth “An aerial vehicle” in line 1 of claim 1. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “an aerial vehicle” as recited in line 2 of claim 2 relates to the “An aerial vehicle” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are they referring to the same or different elements? For purposes of examination, it is assumed that the “an aerial vehicle” of claim 2 is meant to be a different “aerial vehicle” as recited in claim 1. However, applicant is reminded that different claim elements should not share identical claim language. I.e., the “an aerial vehicle” as recited in claim 2 should be differentiated by reciting something like “an additional aerial vehicle”, “asecond aerial vehicle”, etc. Any additional reference to the “aerial vehicle” of claim 2 should additionally be modified in claim 2 to include this language as well.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the less than fully supplied energy storage device" in Lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the less than fully supplied energy storage device" with "a less than fully supplied energy storage device of the energy storage devices".
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of devices”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a plurality of devices” as recited in claim 3 relate to the “a plurality of devices” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are they referring to the same claim elements of different claim elements? The term “a plurality of devices” in claim 3 should be replaced with one of “the plurality of devices further includes” OR “an additional plurality of devices”.
Claim 3, Line 12 recites “a plurality of devices such as, but not limited to, …” However, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase “a plurality of devices such as, but not limited to, …” with “a plurality of devices including at least one of
Claim 4 recites “An aerial vehicle… from aerial vehicle of claim 1”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what from claim 1 is included within the limitations of claim 4? I.e., is claim 4 including all of the limitations of claim 1 OR is claim 4 meant to be a standalone “aerial vehicle” not including the limitations of claim 1? Clarification is required in order to determine possible further additional 112 issues.
Claim 4, Lines 3-4 recite “electrical components of the vehicle such as, but not limited to, …” However, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase “electrical components of the vehicle such as, but not limited to, …” with “electrical components of the vehicle including at least one of
Claim 6 recites “the aerial structure” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, how does the term “the aerial structure” apply to the elements of the “aerial vehicle” as previously recited in claim 1? I.e., is it meant to include all of the components of the “aerial vehicle” of claim 1? Clarification is required in order to further treat the recited elements of claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
As best understood in view of the 112 rejections above, claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0331408 (Wurden).
Regarding Claim 1, Wurden teaches: Claim 1 - an aerial vehicle (10) that can become airborne by a plurality of means comprising: an array of photo-voltaic (PV) panels (26), on at least one exterior surface of the vehicle (10), used to turn sunlight into electrical energy; a plurality of electrical energy storage devices (56a, 56b) which will be supplied with electrical energy by the above mentioned PV panels (26); a plurality of devices such as, but not limited to, ambient light sensor, photoelectric sensors, power meters and video cameras with artificial intelligent object recognition software, used to detect a change in the amount of light contacting the PV panels, the cause of that change and detect a change in the amount of power produced by the PV panels (described in paragraphs [0062]-[0064]); a programmable central processing unit (PCPU) which receives signals from the above mentioned devices to determine where the vehicle should move to increase the amount of light contacting the photo-voltaic panels and power produced by the PV panels, which will optimize renewable energy collection and energy supply to electrical energy storage devices (described in paragraphs [0062]-[0064]); a plurality of motion enabling devices such as, but not limited to, multiple airfoil rotors (14a, 14b), winch connected tethers, and enclosures filled with lighter-than-air gas, gas pumps and electric heating elements, which are controlled by the above mentioned PCPU and activated to cause the vehicle to move to optimize both renewable energy collection and energy supplied to electrical energy storage devices (described in paragraphs [0062]-[0064]), (Figures 1A-12D).
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood in view of the 112 rejections noted above; Claims 2, 3, 4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. I.e., if the subject matter of ONE of Claims 2, 3, 4 and 6 was placed into independent claim 1; claim 1 would likely be considered patentable if all of said 112 rejections above were addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642