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 .
Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p). A Claim must be a single sentence, Claim 7 is two sentences and must be amended.
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 starts with “Folding vertical fin” it should be written as --A folding vertical fin-- and the dependent claims should start with --The folding vertical fin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-8 objected to because of the following informalities: each of the claims starts with “folding vertical fin, rudder of a fighter jet” which should be written as --folding vertical fin and rudder of a fight jet-- so as to be more grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities: each of the claim’s states “according to claim (1)” which should be amended to --according to claim 1--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 is to a folding vertical fin and rudder of a fighter jet but the claim attempts to positively claim structure that is not part of the fin and rudder such as the ejection handle and the ejection seat. It is not clear if those structure are needed in claim as they are not part of the fin and rudder. The Examiner suggest claiming the aircraft that comprises the various parts of the aircraft such as fin, rudder, ejection seat, ejection handle, etc. As such Claims 2-8 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claim 1, defines that the double profile supports made of carbon, titanium, aluminum. It is not clear how the double profile supports are made out of all three of those of those materials. As such Claims 2-8 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claim 1, line 12 defines movable segments including (2-5) but (2) is a lower fixed segment. As such Claims 2-8 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claims 1 and 2, each of the claims uses the term “strong” which is indefinite as it is not clear what is considered “strong”. Claims 3-8 are indefinite as being dependent on Claims 1 and 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower fixed segment" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper movable segment" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the articulation mechanism" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ejection handle", “the ejection seat”, “the radio receiver”, “the Clinometer”, “the left or right pyrotechnic”, “the catapult piston”, “the U accessory”, “the piston”, “the strong steel socket” etc. in lines 17+. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-8 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 on 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 2/7/2025