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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pajank (US 20230294807 A1) in view of Meyerscough (US 20210047020 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pajank discloses a self-contained traction wing which is intended to be used in combination with a gliding device capable of interacting with the feet of a user is controlled by the user via manual gripping means placed on the wing, the wing comprising: a structure having a sail defined by a leading edge (BA) formed by an inflatable tube (Element 7) and a trailing edge (BF) (Element 12) said structure being symmetrical relative to a central batten; and half-wings located on either side of the central batten. (See Fig 2.) Pajank does not explicitly disclose each comprise at least one additional transverse batten placed between the central batten and the end of the wing, wherein said additional transverse batten 2 is closer to the end of the wing than to the central batten 1 comprises an inflatable tube structure, having a length provided to create a positive trailing edge BF.
Meyerscough discloses a kite supporting structure each comprise at least one additional transverse batten placed between the central batten and the end of the wing, wherein said additional transverse batten such that each wing half comprises at least one additional transverse batten placed between the central batten and the end of the wing, wherein said additional transverse batten is closer to the end of the wing than to the central batten comprises an inflatable tube structure, having a length provided to create a positive trailing edge BF It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a batten of Meyerscough to the wing of Pajank which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pajank is to provide additional stiffness to the wing tips side of Pajank.
Regarding Claim 2, Pajank in view of Meyerscough discloses a self-contained traction wing, according to claim 1, wherein the leading edge (BA) is extended by wing tip battens forming an angle with the leading edge (BA). (See Pajank Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 3, Pajank in view of Meyerscough discloses a self-contained traction wing, according to claim 2, wherein the central batten and the wing tip battens are comprised of inflatable tube. (See combination proposed in rejection of Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4, Pajank in view of Meyerscough discloses a self-contained traction wing, according to claim 3, wherein the inflatable tube of the leading edge (BA), the inflatable strand of the central batten, the inflatable tubes of the transverse battens and the inflatable tubes of the wing tip battens are connected by a common inflation system. (meyerscough, paragraph 38)
Regarding Claim 5, Pajank in view of Meyerscough discloses a self-contained traction wing, according to claim 1, wherein the central batten is attached to the direct contact of the sail near its rear end. (Pajank, paragraph 54)
Regarding Claim 6, Pajank in view of Meyerscough discloses a self-contained traction wing, according to claim 1, wherein the central batten comprises a portion located between its rear end and its junction with the inflatable tube of the leading edge (BA) which is not in contact with the sail V and is connected thereto by a panel of flexible material of the fabric type. (Pajank, paragraph 54)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pajank (US 20230294807 A1) in view of Meyerscough (US 20210047020 A1) in view of Berrang (US 20200139665 A1).
Regarding Claim 7 Pajank in view of Meyerscough discloses self-contained traction wing, according to claim 1, wherein the sail V is comprised of fabric (See Pajank Fig. 2.), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the direction of the straight yarn of the fabric is oriented, in each half-wing, at least in the vicinity of the trailing edge (BF), parallel to a fictitious line drawn between the rear end of the central batten and the rear end of the additional batten.
Berrang discloses wherein the orientation for some fabrics is a result effective variable for strength. (paragraph 33) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to orient the cloth of Pajank wherein the direction of the straight yarn of the fabric is oriented, in each half-wing, at least in the vicinity of the trailing edge (BF), parallel to a fictitious line drawn between the rear end of the central batten and the rear end of the additional batten which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pajank is to provide additional strength along the most heavily loaded direction. (See MPEP 2144.05 regarding result effective variables.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 13 Dec 2021
Prosecution Insights