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 .
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.
1. Claim 11 is 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 11, the term “a first path to ground and second path to ground” is unclear. Is the “ground corresponds to a first path and a second path “ the same or different”?.
For purpose of examination, examiner assumes a first path and a second path correspond to the same ground.
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.
2. Claims 1, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Drulard (USPN 4,447,847).
Regarding claim 1, Drulard discloses a dual telescoping lightning diverter system (10, see figures 1-3) configured to increase a height of a lightning rod while improving structural stability, the dual telescoping lightning diverter system comprising:
a first telescoping lightning rod assembly (a first telescoping segment 21);
a second telescoping lightning rod assembly (a second telescoping rod segment 23); and
wherein the second telescoping lightning rod assembly (23) is nested within and operatively coupled to the first telescoping lightning rod assembly (21) (see figure 3, col. 3, lines 18-21);
wherein the first telescoping lightning rod assembly (21) and the second telescoping lightning rod assembly (23) are concentrically disposed and configured to move between an extended configuration and a retracted configuration (the segments 21, 23 are configured to telescope, so they can move between an extended and retracted positions, see col. 3, lines 18-21, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 10, Drulard discloses wherein the second telescoping lightning rod assembly comprises: a first inner segment (15); and a second inner segment (29) telescopically coupled with the first inner segment (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Drulard discloses wherein the first telescoping lightning rod assembly comprises a first path (41, 29, 25) to ground (19) and wherein the second telescoping lightning rod assembly comprises a second path (47, 16) to ground (19).
3. Claims 1, 13, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Skinner, II et al (USPN 5,657,197).
Regarding claim 1, Skinner discloses a dual telescoping lightning diverter system (a system 10, see figures 1-2) configured to increase a height of a lightning rod while improving structural stability, the dual telescoping lightning diverter system comprising:
a first telescoping lightning rod assembly (a first telescoping segment 18);
a second telescoping lightning rod assembly (a second telescoping rod segment 12, also see figure 2); and
wherein the second telescoping lightning rod assembly (12) is nested within and operatively coupled to the first telescoping lightning rod assembly (18) (see figure 2);
wherein the first telescoping lightning rod assembly (18) and the second telescoping lightning rod assembly (12) are concentrically disposed and configured to move between an extended configuration and a retracted configuration (the segments 12, 18 are configured to telescope, so they can move between an extended and retracted positions, see claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Skinner discloses wherein the dual telescoping lightning diverter system (10) automatically transitions between the extended configuration and the retracted configuration using at least one of pneumatically-activated pistons (24, see col. 2, lines 8-15, and claim 1), hydraulic actuators, electromechanical rotational gears, and motor-driven linear actuators.
Regarding claim 16, Skinner discloses a lightning rod protection system (see figures 1-2) comprises an automatic transition system (e.g. 20, 30, 36, 40, 32, 24, see figure 1) comprising: at least one sensor (lightning sensors 40, 32) configured for monitoring at least one environmental parameter (a lightning event); and at least one processor (a controller 36) configured for:
receiving at least one first signal from the at least one sensor (32);
determining if the at least one environmental parameter fails satisfy at least one environmental parameter threshold (when the lightning vent detected);
sending at least one second signal (38) to at least one of a plurality of electrical components (24, 30) in electrical communication with the at least one processor (36); and
automatically transitioning the dual telescoping lightning diverter system (12), based on the at least one environmental parameter, between the extended configuration and the retracted configuration (e.g. see col. 2, lines 22-25, lines 51-56, also see figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Skinner discloses an automatic transition system (20, 24, 30, 36, see figure 1), comprising:
at least one sensor (40, 32) configured for monitoring at least one environmental parameter, wherein the at least one environmental parameter comprises a static charge of a static charge buildup from lightning strike event) within a predetermined area (a predetermined area 10); and
at least one processor (a controller 36) configured for automatically transitioning the dual telescoping lightning diverter system, based on the at least one environmental parameter, between the extended configuration and the retracted configuration (see claim 1, col. 2, lines 22-25, lines 51-56).
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.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte (USPN 2006/0285267) in view of Behr (USPN 12,230,946).
Regarding claim 9, Schulte discloses all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose an interchangeable tip as claimed.
Behr discloses a telescopic lightning protection structure comprises
an interchangeable tip (160) in attachment a second telescoping lightning rod assembly (120b) (see figures 4).
It 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 to have modified the tip of Schulte to incorporate an interchangeable tip as disclosed by Behr in order to easily transport and reuse at different location.
an automatic transition system (e.g. 20, 30, 36, 40, 32) comprising: at least one sensor (a lightning sensor 32) configured for monitoring at least one
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-8, 12, 14-15, 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. Claim 20 is allowed over prior art of record.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach:
A telescoping lighting diverter system comprising: a first engaging section on an inward facing surface of at least one telescoping segment of the plurality of hierarchical telescoping segments; and a second engaging section on an outward facing surface of a subsequent telescoping segment of the plurality of hierarchical telescoping segments; wherein the second engaging section is configured to operatively interact with the first engaging section of the preceding segment to transition between an extended configuration and a retracted configuration as recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. 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.
/DANNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838