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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13-14, 19, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 1 appears to contain a typographical error where it is lacking a comma after the preamble. Claims 13-14, 19, and 22 are similarly objected to. 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 and 4-22 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 “wherein the parachute is positioned on a back of a parachutist opposite to a chest of the parachutist…” in lines 3-4. This is indefinite because it is unclear how a parachutist can be required as part of the apparatus. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the parachute is configured to be positioned on a back of a parachutist opposite to a chest of the parachutist…”. Claim 1, lines 8-9 are similarly rejected. Claim 15 is similarly rejected. Claims 2, 4-14, and 16-22 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “…once pulled jettisons the propulsion system….from the device by lowering a line….” in lines 15-16. The use of the active verbs “pulled” and “jettisons” cause a lack of clarity as to whether the limitations are infringeable when the apparatus is not in operation. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “…once pulled is configured to jettison the propulsion system…from the device by lowering a line…”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claim 15 is similarly rejected. Claims 2, 4-14, and 16-22 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 8 recites “a deployment arm that is configured to move the at least the motor from the first position to the second position.” This is indefinite because it is unclear if the “deployment arm” of Claim 8 is the same structure as the “scissor type collapsable arm” of Claim 1, or is an additional structure, as the two elements appear to perform the same function in the claims. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claim 9 is similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 13-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazurkiewicz (WO 2020167150 A1), in view of Berge (US 20120291234 A1) and Deemyad et al. (US 20230365280 A1), hereafter Deemyad.
Regarding Claim 1, Mazurkiewicz discloses a device (Fig. 2) comprising:
a harness system (5, Fig. 2) configured to be attached to a parachute harness of a parachute (as depicted in Figs. 6-9, for example), wherein the parachute is positioned on a back of a parachutist opposite to a chest of the parachutist when the harness system is worn (as depicted in Figs. 6-9, for example);
a propulsion system connected to the harness system (1, 2, 3, Fig. 2), wherein the propulsion system is configured to be off when undeployed and during freefall (Pg. 1, last para. – Pg. 2, first para.), and wherein the propulsion system is configured to deploy during canopy flight stage to generate thrust for a parachutist of the parachute (Pg. 2, first para.), wherein the propulsion system is positioned on the chest of the parachutist when the harness system is worn (Fig. 7), and wherein a collapsable arm of the propulsion system extends laterally to extend the propulsion system laterally when the propulsion system is deployed (draw-out arm 2, Fig. 3);
a circuitry configured to control power generation by the propulsion system to control the thrust (elements of 3 and 4, Fig. 2, and Pg. 4, last para., “…setting of a power unit thrust…”);
a power source configured to power the circuitry and the propulsion system (Pg. 4, 2nd to last para. “battery pack powering electric engines…”).
Mazurkiewicz is silent about wherein the collapsable arm is a scissor type, and a release handle connected to a cable that once pulled jettisons the propulsion system, the circuitry, and the power source, from the device by lowering a line without fully disconnecting the propulsion system, the circuitry, and the power source from the device.
Berge teaches a release handle (58, Fig. 2) connected to a cable that once pulled jettisons an attached system (18para. [0041]), from a similar device by lowering a line without fully disconnecting the from the device (para. [0041]).
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 Mazurkiewicz with a release handle and cable as taught by Berge, whereby Mazurkiewicz’s propulsion system, circuitry, and power source are jettisoned from the device by the lowering line with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of releasing the propulsion system before landing to avoid subjecting the parachutist to increased impact forces and reducing possible injury (Berge, para. [0002]).
Deemyad teaches a scissor type collapsable arm (200, Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make modified Mazurkiewicz’s collapsable arm a scissor type, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the equivalence of a rod type collapsable arm and a scissor type collapsable arm for their use in the aviation art and the selection of any known equivalents to a scissor type collapsable arm would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the propulsion system comprises at least a motor to generate more thrust in comparison to absence of the motor (Mazurkiewicz, Pg. 4, para. 1, “fan engine or engines (drives) (electric…engines…)”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 4, wherein the motor is a fan electric motor (Mazurkiewicz, Pg. 4, para. 1, “fan engine or engines (drives) (electric…engines…)”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 4, wherein the propulsion system includes a deployment lever (Mazurkiewicz, 6, Fig. 2), wherein the at least the motor is mechanically moved from a first position (Mazurkiewicz, position of Fig. 1) to a second position during a canopy flight stage and in response to the deployment lever being moved (Mazurkiewicz, position of Fig. 2 and Pg. 5, para. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 6, wherein the at least the motor is mechanically moved from the second position to the first position during the canopy flight stage for landing (Mazurkiewicz, Figs. 1-2 and Pg. 5, para. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 6, further comprising a deployment arm that is configured to move the at least the motor from the first position to the second position (2, Fig. 2, as modified by Berge, additionally see Mazurkiewicz Figs. 1-2 for first and second positions).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 8, wherein the deployment arm comprises a plurality of portions that fold to retract and expand (Berge, plurality of 206, Figs. 2-3 and para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 1, wherein the propulsion system includes a left portion and a right portion wherein the left portion and the right portion are symmetrical when the propulsion system is deployed during the canopy flight (Mazurkiewicz, configuration of Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 10, wherein the circuit is configured to control thrust by controlling the left portion and the right portion (Mazurkiewicz, Pg. 4, last para., “…setting of a power thrust…”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 1 further comprising a lever activation arm configured to deploy the propulsion system during canopy flight stage in response to a user moving the lever activation arm (Mazurkiewicz, 6, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 1 further comprising a control device configured to control operation of the propulsion system and the circuitry in response to a user manipulation (Mazurkiewicz, 6, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Mazurkiewicz discloses an apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising:
a harness configured to be attached to a parachutist (5, Fig. 2,and Pg. 4, “parachute harness with an (optional) parachute independent harness”));
a parachute configured to be deployed by the parachutist during freefall to enter a canopy flight stage (Pg. 1, last para. – Pg. 2, first para.), wherein the parachute is positioned on a back of the parachutist opposite to a chest of the parachutist when the harness system is worn (as depicted in Figs. 6-9, for example); and
a range extension apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising:
a range extension harness system configured to be attached to the harness of the parachute (portion of 5 supporting the propulsion system, for example, Fig. 2, examiner notes 5 is capable of being attached to a parachute harness);
a propulsion system (1, 2, 3, Fig. 2) comprising a motor (Pg. 4, para. 1, “fan engine or engines (drives) (electric…engines…)”), a circuitry (elements of 3 and 4, Fig. 2, and Pg. 4, last para., “…setting of a power unit thrust…”), a propulsion mechanism (1, Fig. 2), and a power source (Pg. 4, 2nd to last para. “battery pack powering electric engines…”), wherein the propulsion system is positioned on the chest of the parachutist when the harness system is worn (Fig. 7), and wherein a collapsable arm of the propulsion system extends laterally to extend the motor laterally when the propulsion system is deployed (draw-out arm 2, Fig. 3); and
wherein the circuitry is configured to control operation of the motor (elements of 3 and 4, Fig. 2, and Pg. 4, last para., “…setting of a power unit thrust…”), wherein the motor and the propulsion mechanism are configured to generate thrust (Pg. 4, last para., “…setting of a power unit thrust…”),
wherein the power source is configured to power the circuitry and the motor (Pg. 4, 2nd to last para. “battery pack powering electric engines…”), wherein the motor is configured to generate no thrust when undeployed and during freefall (Pg. 3, last para.), and wherein the motor is configured to generate thrust for the parachute once it is deployed during canopy flight stage (Pg. 4, first para.).
Mazurkiewicz is silent about wherein the collapsable arm is a scissor type, and a release handle connected to a cable that once pulled jettisons the propulsion system, the circuitry, and the power source, from the device by lowering a line without fully disconnecting the propulsion system, the circuitry, and the power source from the device.
Berge teaches a release handle (58, Fig. 2) connected to a cable that once pulled jettisons an attached system (18para. [0041]), from a similar device by lowering a line without fully disconnecting the from the device (para. [0041]).
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 Mazurkiewicz with a release handle and cable as taught by Berge, whereby Mazurkiewicz’s propulsion system, circuitry, and power source are jettisoned from the device by the lowering line with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of releasing the propulsion system before landing to avoid subjecting the parachutist to increased impact forces and reducing possible injury (Berge, para. [0002]).
Deemyad teaches a scissor type collapsable arm (200, Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make modified Mazurkiewicz’s collapsable arm a scissor type, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the equivalence of a rod type collapsable arm and a scissor type collapsable arm for their use in the aviation art and the selection of any known equivalents to a scissor type collapsable arm would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 15.
Modified Mazurkiewicz is silent about wherein the range extension harness system comprises a fastener for attaching to the harness via at least one webbing to a single point release system, and wherein the single point release system comprises the release handle connected to a cable that once pulled releases the range extension apparatus from the apparatus.
Berge teaches a fastener (18, Fig. 2) for attaching to a similar harness via at least one webbing (18, Fig. 2) to a single point release system (Fig. 2), and wherein the single point release system comprises the release handle (58, Fig. 2) connected to a cable that once pulled releases the range extension apparatus from the apparatus (60, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the harness of modified Mazurkiewicz via at least one webbing to a single point release system, as taught by Berge, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mechanism to quickly release the range extension apparatus from the apparatus in the event of a malfunction or emergency.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the motor is a fan electric motor (Mazurkiewicz, Pg. 4, para. 1, “fan engine or engines (drives) (electric…engines…)”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 15,
wherein the range extension apparatus includes a deployment lever (Mazurkiewicz, 6, Fig. 2), wherein the motor is mechanically moved from a first position (Mazurkiewicz, position of Fig. 1) to a second position during the canopy flight stage and in response to the deployment lever being moved (Mazurkiewicz, position of Fig. 2 and Pg. 5, para. 2),
and wherein the motor is mechanically moved from the second position to the first position during a canopy flight stage for landing (examiner notes Mazurkiewicz’s range extension apparatus is capable of folding and unfolding, see Figs. 1-2, and is therefore capable of this function).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 18 further comprising a folding arm that is configured to move the motor from the first position to the second position (Mazurkiewicz, 2, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 15, wherein the motor includes a left portion and a right portion wherein the left portion and the right portion are symmetrical when the range extension apparatus system is deployed during the canopy flight (configuration of Fig. 2), and wherein the circuit is configured to control thrust by controlling the left portion and the right portion (Mazurkiewicz, Pg. 4, last para., “…setting of a power thrust…”).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 15 further comprising a control device configured to control operation of the range extension apparatus in response to a user manipulation (Mazurkiewicz, 6, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mazurkiewicz as applied above, in further view of Bahniuk (US 6644597 B1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 1.
Modified Mazurkiewicz does not specifically teach the structure of the attachment between the harness system and parachute harness, and is therefore silent about wherein the harness system comprises a fastener for attaching to the parachute harness via at least one webbing to a single point release system.
Bahniuk teaches a fastener (quick release device 5, Fig. 2) for attaching to a similar parachute harness via at least one webbing (webbing 6, Fig. 2) to a single point release system (Col. 2, lines 18-19, “a single pull releases both sets of harness or webbing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the harness system of modified Mazurkiewicz with the fastener for attaching via at least one webbing to a single point release system, as taught by Bahniuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mechanism to quickly release the harness system with a single point release system, in the event of a malfunction or emergency.
Claim(s) 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mazurkiewicz as applied above, in further view of Ifill (US 20240278915 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the device of Claim 1.
Modified Mazurkiewicz is silent about wherein the propulsion system is programmable to provide a preprogrammed lateral distance to the freefall once deployed at a given altitude.
Ifill teaches a similar system programmable to provide a preprogrammed lateral distance during a descent at a given altitude for a propulsion system (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the propulsion system of modified Mazurkiewicz with the ability to provide a preprogrammed lateral distance at a given altitude, with a reasonable expectation of success, as this is a common function of a control system and would provide the benefit of programming a safe landing point.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Mazurkiewicz teaches the apparatus of Claim 15.
Modified Mazurkiewicz is silent about wherein the range extension apparatus is programmable to provide a preprogrammed lateral distance to the freefall once deployed at a given altitude.
Ifill teaches a similar system programmable to provide a preprogrammed lateral distance during a descent at a given altitude for a propulsion system (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the range extension apparatus of modified Mazurkiewicz with the ability to provide a preprogrammed lateral distance at a given altitude, with a reasonable expectation of success, as this is a common function of a control system and would provide the benefit of programming a safe landing point.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights