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 Objections
Claims 9, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 2 contains a period instead of a comma. Claim 19, line 1: “system of according to” should be “system according to”. Claim 20, line 6: “carrying the load hovering” should be “carrying the load is hovering”.
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 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 18 and 20 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 suspended member" in lines 3, 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “the suspension member” as previously recited.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the suspension part” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “the suspension member” as previously recited.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the guide portion” within line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending to “the guide part” as previously recited. This rejection likewise applies to claim 9.
Claim 8 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“position restriction device”) while then claiming a process (“device is moved...”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p). Examiner recommends amending “moved” to “moveable” consistent with previous claims.
Claim 12 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“load receiving system”) while then claiming a process (“detachment…performed”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p).
Claim 13 is directed to a product and a process, it is unclear to Examiner what the scope of the claimed limitations are. The claim is dependent upon a product claim and claims a product (“load receiving system”) while then claiming a process (“motor…does not stop rotating in a state in which…”) which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP § 2173.05(p).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends changing “the structure” to “a structure”.
Claim 20 recites “releasing the restricted portion from securing the restricted portion.” within line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the restricted portion” and the limitation is unclear as to how the restricted portion would be securing itself. Examiner recommends amending to, “releasing the restricting part from fixing the restricted part.” consistent with previous limitations within the claim.
Claim 20 also recites, “a step of the flight body detaching the load and moving the load to the load receiving device”. It is unclear how the flight body is able to move the load to the load receiving device if the flight body has detached the load.
Claim 10 is rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eck et al. (US 9975651 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Eck discloses a position restriction device for a suspension member suspended from a flight body (Fig.7c), comprising: a restricting member (140 ; Fig.7c) for restricting the movement of the suspended member (402; Fig.7c); a guide part for guiding the suspended member to a position at least where the movement of the suspended member can be restricted by the restricting member (114; Fig.7c).
Regarding claim 2: Eck further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, further comprising: a load receiving part (302; Fig.7a) below the restricting member (140; Fig.7a) for receiving a load (200; Fig.7a) connected to the suspension part (402; Fig.7a).
Regarding claim 5: Eck further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting member includes a configuration to keep the suspension member within a predetermined enclosed space (402 within 140; Fig.7c).
Regarding claim 6: Eck further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting member is provided below the guide portion (104; Fig.7c).
Regarding claim 7: Eck further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting member and the guide part are moveable in at least a horizontal direction (funnel movement; Fig.9).
Regarding claim 9: Eck further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting member (140; Fig.7c) and the guide portion (114; Fig.7c) are movable at least vertically (movement of 140 shown in Fig.7c and telescopic movement of bottom of 140 shown in Fig.2b; Col.7, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 11: Eck discloses a load receiving system (100; Fig.7a), comprising: a load receiving device (300; Fig.7a) and a flight body (400; Fig.7a) for delivering loads (200; Fig.7a), wherein the load receiving device has a restricting part (140; Fig.7c) and the flight body has a restricted part (402; Fig.7c), wherein the restricting part is provided so that the restricted part can be fixed (Fig.7c), and the flight body's movement is restricted when the restricting part is in a state where the restricting part fixes the restricted part (Fig.7c).
Regarding claim 12: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein, in a state in which the restricting part secures the restricted part, detachment of the load by the flight body is performed (detachment shown in Fig.7d).
Regarding claim 13: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein the flight body is provided with a propeller and a motor for rotating the propeller, wherein the motor provided by the flight body does not stop rotating in a state in which the movement of the restricted part is restricted by the restricting part (apparent from Fig.7c).
Regarding claim 14: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein the load is connected to the lower end of the restricted part (Fig.7a).
Regarding claim 15: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein the restricted part is a string-like member (402; Fig.7a).
Regarding claim 16: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 15, wherein the flight body is further provided with a winch for adjusting the suspension length of the restricted part (Col.9, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 18: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein the structure on which the load receiving system is installed is a roof of a building (Col.5, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 19: Eck further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, further comprising: a lifting device to transport the load received from the flight body (300; Fig.1a).
Regarding claim 20: Eck discloses a method of moving objects wherein a load delivered by a flight body is received by a load receiving device (Figs.7a-7e), wherein the load receiving device is provided with a restricting part (140; Fig.7c), wherein the flight body (400; Fig.7c) is provided with a restricted part (402; Fig.7c) that can be physically secured by the restricting part (140; Fig.7c), comprising: a step in that the flight body carrying the load is hovering near the load receiving device (Fig.7a); a step of restricting the flight body's movement by the restricting part fixing the restricted part (Fig.7c); a step of the flight body detaching the load and moving the load to the load receiving device (Fig.7d); and a step of releasing the restricted portion from securing the restricted portion (Fig.7e).
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gentry et al. (US 9387928 B1).
Regarding claim 1: Gentry discloses a position restriction device (Fig.3A) for a suspension member (105d; Fig.3C) suspended from a flight body (105; Fig.3B), comprising: a restricting member (305a; Fig.3C) for restricting the movement of the suspended member (105d; Fig.3C); a guide part for guiding the suspended member to a position at least where the movement of the suspended member can be restricted by the restricting member (325; Fig.3A).
Regarding claim 2: Gentry further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, further comprising: a load receiving part (115; Fig.3A) below the restricting member (305a; Fig.3A) for receiving a load connected to the suspension part (Fig.3A).
Regarding claim 3: Gentry further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting member includes a member that grips the suspension member (305a; Fig.3C).
Regarding claim 5: Gentry further discloses the position restriction device according to claim 1, wherein the restricting member includes a configuration to keep the suspension member within a predetermined enclosed space (Fig.3C).
Regarding claim 11: Gentry discloses a load receiving system, comprising: a load receiving device and a flight body for delivering loads (Fig.3A), wherein the load receiving device has a restricting part (305a; Fig.3C) and the flight body has a restricted part (105d; Fig.3C), wherein the restricting part is provided so that the restricted part can be fixed, and the flight body's movement is restricted when the restricting part is in a state where the restricting part fixes the restricted part (Fig.3B-C).
Regarding claim 12: Gentry further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein, in a state in which the restricting part secures the restricted part, detachment of the load by the flight body is performed (Col.5, lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 17: Gentry further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein the restricted part is a bar-shaped member (105d; Fig.3C).
Regarding claim 18: Gentry further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, wherein the structure on which the load receiving system is installed is a roof of a building (Col.2, lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 19: Gentry further discloses the load receiving system according to claim 11, further comprising: a lifting device to transport the load received from the flight body (Col.6, lines 51-54).
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry in view of Strahlendorf et al. (US 10746348 B2).
Regarding claim 7: Gentry teaches the position restriction device including the restricting member (305a; Fig.3C) and the guide part (325; Fig.3A). Gentry does not teach the device being moveable in at least a horizontal direction.
However, Strahlendorf teaches a load receiving platform that is moveable in at least the horizontal direction (Fig.13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Gentry to be moveable in at least the horizontal direction to provide movement means for additional location adaptation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Gentry teaches the position restriction device provided on a structure (Fig.3A and Col.2, lines 54-56). Gentry does not teach wherein the device is moved horizontally such that at least a portion of the device is concealed by the structure.
However, Strahlendorf teaches a load receiving platform that is moved horizontally such that at least a portion of the device is concealed by the structure (platform movement under balcony Fig.13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Gentry to be moved to be concealed by the structure to provide cover of the device when not in use for component longevity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Gentry teaches the position restriction device including the restricting member (305a; Fig.3C) and the guide portion (325; Fig.3A). Gentry does not teach the device being moveable at least vertically.
However, Strahlendorf teaches a load receiving platform device being moveable at least vertically (platform moving up from Fig.12 to 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Gentry to be moveable at least vertically to provide movement means for additional location adaptation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Gentry teaches the position restriction device (Fig.3A) with an arm part (arm structure attached to platform; Fig.3A). Gentry does not teach the device wherein the arm part is movable at least vertically by movement of the arm part.
However, Strahlendorf teaches a load receiving platform device wherein the arm part is movable at least vertically by movement of the arm part (arm of platform moving up from Fig.12 to 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Gentry to be moveable at least vertically with an arm part to provide movement means for additional location adaptation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eck in view of Buchmueller (US 9676481 B1).
Regarding claim 4: Eck teaches a position restriction device (Fig.7c) with a restricting member (140; Fig.7c). Eck does not teach the use of a roller portion that moves the suspension member by rotation.
However, Buchmueller teaches the use of a roller portion that moves the suspension member by rotation during load delivery (150A; Fig.1A and Col.2, lines 59-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Eck to include rollers to cooperate with the suspension member to prevent any damage to the suspension member and maintain positive control during load delivery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615