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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The invention is” should be removed. 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both the “loading part” and the “load”, for example in Fig. 29. 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.
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 4, 9-10, and 14-17 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 4 recites the limitation "the covering member" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional shape" of the second portion and “the cross-sectional shape” of the first portion in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the mounting part" in line 2. How does the “mounting part” in line 2 of claim 13 relate to the “loading part” in line 3 of claim 12? Are there two different parts being claimed? For purposes of examination, the “mounting part” is being interpreted as the “loading part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the suspending member" in line 2. How does the “suspending member” in line 2 of claim 14 relate to the “suspension member” in line 1 of claim 1? Are there two different suspension members being claimed? Applicant may want to consider using ---suspension member--- instead. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-17 recites the limitation "the first suspension member" and “the second suspension member” in line 2 of claim 15, lines 2-3 of claim 16, and lines 2-3 of claim 17. How does the “first suspension member” and “second suspension member” in line 2 of claim 15, lines 2-3 of claim 16, and lines 2-3 of claim 17 relate to the “first suspending member” and “second suspending member” in lines 3-4 of claim 14? Are there two different first and second suspension members being claimed? Applicant may want to consider using ---first suspending member--- and ---second suspending member--- instead. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected because it is a dependent of claim 9.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichihara (JP2017087898A).
Regarding claim 1, Ichihara discloses a flying vehicle (1; Figures 1-2) comprises a suspension member (30, 40) suspending a load (B), wherein the suspension member (30, 40) comprises a first portion (40) and a second portion (30) which is different in configuration from the first portion (40) and which is to be grasped.
Regarding claim 2, Ichihara discloses wherein the first portion (40) and the second portion (30) are different cord-like members and are connected to each other (page 6, ¶7).
Regarding claim 3, Ichihara discloses wherein the second portion (30) is comprised of a member that is thicker than the first portion (40).
Regarding claim 12, Ichihara discloses wherein the suspension member (30, 40) is connected to a loading part (B1; Figure 2) that carries the load (B).
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamato (WO2020194707A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamato discloses a flying vehicle (1; Figure 1) comprises a suspension member (3, 24) suspending a load (W), wherein the suspension member (3, 24) comprises a first portion (3) and a second portion (24) which is different in configuration from the first portion (3) and which is to be grasped.
Regarding claim 4, Yamato discloses wherein the second portion (24) is covered by the covering member (30; Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Yamato discloses wherein the second portion (24) comprises a higher coefficient of friction than the first portion (3; page 10, ¶4).
Regarding claim 6, Yamato discloses wherein the first portion (3) and the second portion (24) have a common cord-like member (linear member 3; Figures 3 and 7), wherein the second portion (24) has a member (25; 30) covering the common cord-like member.
Regarding claim 7, Yamato discloses wherein the member (25; 30) covering the common cord-like member is a covering member with a high coefficient of friction (page 10, ¶4, elastomers contain high friction property compared to wire).
Regarding claim 11, Yamato discloses wherein the second portion (24) is provided in the vicinity of the load (W).
Regarding claim 12, Yamato discloses wherein the suspension member (3, 24) is connected to a loading part (T) that carries the load (W).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato in view of Enku (JP2004131897A).
Regarding claim 8, Yamato discloses the above flying vehicle, but fails to teach wherein the member covering the common cord-like member is a member with a concave-convex shape on the surface.
Enku teaches a similar suspension member and further teaches wherein the member (4; 4a; Figures 1-4) covering the common cord-like member is a member with a concave-convex shape on the surface (grooves 5 form a concave and convex outer surface; Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Yamato to include the concave-convex shaped covering member as taught by Enku in order to improve the friction coefficient of the suspension member surface and help balance vibrations of the suspension member from the effects of wind.
Regarding claims 9-10, Yamato discloses the above flying vehicle, but fails to teach wherein the cross-sectional shape of the second portion is different from the cross-sectional shape of the first portion; wherein the cross-sectional shape of the second portion is polygonal.
Enku teaches a similar suspension member and further teaches wherein the cross-sectional shape of the second portion (1a; Figures 1-5) is different from the cross-sectional shape of the first portion (3 of Yamato, circular shape); wherein the cross-sectional shape of the second portion is polygonal (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Yamato to include the second portion cross-sectional shape as taught by Enku in order to improve the friction coefficient of the suspension member surface and help balance vibrations of the suspension member from the effects of wind.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichihara in view of Kojima (JP6630893B1).
Regarding claim 13, Ichihara discloses the above flying vehicle, but fails to teach wherein the mounting part is equipped with a rotary wing part.
Kojima teaches a similar flying vehicle and further teaches wherein the mounting part (100; Figures 1-2) is equipped with a rotary wing part (101). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Ichihara to include the mounting/loading part as taught by Kojima in order to help redirect the second portion of the suspension member to a precise position and location for loading or releasing a load.
Regarding claim 14, Ichihara discloses the above flying vehicle and further teaches wherein the suspending member (30, 40) comprises: a first suspending member (suspension member 30, 40) between the flying vehicle (1) and the loading part (B1), but fails to teach a second suspending member between the loading part and the load.
Kojima teaches a similar flying vehicle and further teaches a second suspending member (rope below loading part 100; Figure 6) between the loading part (100) and the load (V; H; Figures 1 and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Ichihara to include the second suspending member as taught by Kojima in order to better control the position and location of the load in relation to the flying vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ichihara discloses the above flying vehicle and further teaches the first suspending member (30, 40) and second suspending member (rope below loading part 100 of Kojima) and wherein the first suspension member (30, 40) has the second portion (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Ichihara to include the second suspending member as taught by Kojima and duplicate the second portion of Ichihara to be included in the second suspending member of Kojima in order to improve stability and rigidity of the second suspending member for better load handling control.
Regarding claim 16, modified Ichihara discloses the above flying vehicle and further teaches wherein the first suspension member (30, 40) has the second portion (30), wherein the second suspension member (rope below loading part 100 of Kojima) does not have the second portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Ichihara to include the second suspending member as taught by Kojima in order to better control the position and location of the load in relation to the flying vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, modified Ichihara discloses wherein the first suspension member (suspension member 30, 41; Figure 5) does not have the second portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying vehicle of Ichihara to include the second suspending member as taught by Kojima comprising the second portion of Ichihara in order to provide improved stability nearest the load and provide better control of the position and location of the load in relation to the flying vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm 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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights