DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, & 7, the recitation “means of attachment to a power kite”, is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 15 the recitation “a means of relaying the wind data to a networked server”, is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11- 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHLEICHER ULRICH et al (DE 102004034894 A1).
Regarding claim 1 SCHLEICHER et al teaches at least one anemometry sensor 12 18; at least one electronic processing unit 20 connected to said at least one anemometry sensor 12 18 configured to process the data from said anemometry sensor 12 18; and a means of attachment to a power kite [0016].
Regarding claim 2 SCHLEICHER et al teaches power kite is a leading-edge inflatable power kite [0016].
Regarding claims 3 & 7 SCHLEICHER et al teaches said means of attachment to a power kite [0016] is a mount (inherent feature) holding said device to the leading edge.
Regarding claim 4 SCHLEICHER et al teaches said means of attachment to a power kite [0016] is incorporation into the leading edge (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5 SCHLEICHER et al teaches means of attachment (inherent) to a power kite comprises an attachment to one or more struts (interpreted as connecting junction) of said leading edge inflatable power kite [0016].
Regarding claim 6 SCHLEICHER et al teaches means of attachment (inherent) to a power kite comprises an attachment to the canopy of said power kite [0016].
Regarding claim 8 SCHLEICHER et al teaches anemometry sensors 12 18 is an ultrasonic anemometer (implied)[0010].
Regarding claim 9 SCHLEICHER et al teaches said ultrasonic anemometer is 1-dimensional, i.e. utilizes a single pair of ultrasonic transducers [0010].
Regarding claim 11 SCHLEICHER et al teaches said anemometry sensors is a hot-wire anemometer (abstract).
Regarding claim 12 SCHLEICHER et al teaches an inertial measurement unit [0021].
Regarding claim 13 SCHLEICHER et al teaches data from said inertial measurement [0021] unit is used to account for (intended use) measurement error stemming from kite motion (inherent function of measuring inertia).
Regarding claim 14 SCHLEICHER et al teaches a wireless antenna (implied via the GPS system) (abstract)[0009][0010].
Regarding claim 15 SCHLEICHER et al teaches a means of relaying the wind data to a networked server (implied via the GPS system) (abstract)[0009][0010].
Regarding claim 16 SCHLEICHER et al teaches a GPS unit (abstract)[0009][0010].
Regarding claim 17 SCHLEICHER et al teaches data from said GPS unit (abstract)[0009][0010] is used (intended use recitation) to correct for induced wind from kiter motion.
Regarding claim 18 SCHLEICHER et al teaches a magnetometer configured to provide wind direction data (inherent via the use of a GPS system (abstract)[0009][0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHLEICHER ULRICH et al (DE 102004034894 A1).
Regarding claim 10 SCHLEICHER et al does not teach said anemometry sensors is a vane anemometer. Since SCHLEICHER et al at the very least discloses a hot-wire anemometer (abstract), lacking any criticality it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of aerial wind monitoring vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select whichever anemometer device available to the manufacture for the purpose of accurately monitoring wind speed and / or direction. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In this particular instance 10 SCHLEICHER et al or anyone having skill in the art would have the necessary understanding to select a particular anemometer depending on a particular use case.
5. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHLEICHER ULRICH et al (DE 102004034894 A1) in view of Schafer US 20150251755 A1.
Regarding claims 18-19 SCHLEICHER et al teaches all the basic features of the claimed invention. SCHLEICHER et al does not teach a thermometer and a barometer. Schaefer US 20150251755 A1 discloses an aerial system that comprises a thermometer and a barometer [0075].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of aerial wind monitoring systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by CHLEICHER et al to further include a thermometer and a barometer as taught by Schaefer for the purpose of optimizing the performance of wind monitoring during the flight path of an aerial vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250180596 A1 WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND DEVICE
US 11220320 B2 Lateral propulsion systems and architectures for high altitude balloons
CN 104797955 A Wind indicator
EP 0792461 B1 A METHOD AND A DEVICE FOR DETERMINING WIND VELOCITY OR VELOCITY OF A FLUID AND USE THEREOF
WO 9213825 A1 PROCESS FOR PREPARING SOLID BETAINES
US 4890488 A Ultrasonic anemometer
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855