DETAILED ACTION
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 it includes implicit phraseology (e.g. “in some embodiments”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 1, “six rotor” should be --six rotors--.
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 1-10 and 14 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 a body of an unmanned flight device, and a control box underneath the inflatable portion. However, these are generally disclosed to be the same device. It is unclear whether the features are separate as claimed or the same as disclosed. See MPEP 2173.03.
Similarly, claim 14 recites a rigid structure, however this is also generally disclosed to include the body of claim 1 ([0016]).
Claim 5 recites two or more rotors connected to the control box in a star configuration. However, a star generally requires at least five “points”. It is unclear how the rotors can be arranged in a star configured when there are insufficient rotors to do so (i.e. 2-4 rotors).
Claim 9 recites the airship “further comprising” six rotors. It is unclear whether these rotors are part of the two or more rotors of claim 1 or additional.
Similarly for claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Capper (US 8 544 788).
Regarding independent claim 11:
Capper discloses a method of operating an unmanned airship having a body (as seen in e.g. Figs 2 or 17), an inflatable portion (14) filled with gas (20) having an ellipsoid shape (e.g. Fig 1; col 3, lines 43-46) connected to the body to provide lift and two or more rotors (e.g. 86 or 236) connected to the body to provide lift, the method comprising:
lifting the airship into the atmosphere using the inflatable portion and rotors (e.g. col 10, lines 47-51), and
creating when flying, a higher pression on a frontal inferior part of the inflatable portion and a lower pression on a superior part of the inflatable portion (as noted by applicant’s disclosure in [0025], this occurs due to the atmospheric/aerodynamic forces acting upon the balloon, which would act in the same manner upon the ballon of Capper during movement thereof).
Regarding claim 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 11 is relied upon.
Capper discloses diminishing a rotating laminar flow of the airship using one or more segments of the inflatable portion that act as a keel (the portion facing the direction of movement vs. those to the sides; the diminishing would naturally occur according to [0025] of applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 11 is relied upon.
Capper discloses a parachute effect produced during failure (as noted in applicant’s disclosure in [0026], this is an effect of the shape of the balloon, which Capper discloses).
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) 1-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babkin et al. (DE 100 35 844) in view of Balaskovic (US 2008/0179454).
Regarding independent claim 1:
As best understood, Babkin discloses an airship comprising:
a body (20) of a flight device:
an inflatable portion (11) filled with gas and connected to the flight device that provides lift (as seen in e.g. Fig 1);
two or more rotors (70/71) connected to the body to provide lift;
a control box (20) underneath the middle of the inflatable portion (e.g. Fig 1) and each of the rotors being connected by a rod (as seen in Fig 2) to the control box and being adjacent a periphery of the inflatable portion (as seen in Figs 1 and 2); and
the airship has a systemic symmetry (Figs 1 and 2) for weight distribution and flight control (due to the radially symmetrical shape).
Babkin does not disclose an unmanned airship.
Balaskovic teaches an airship that may be manned on unmanned ([0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Babkin to use an unmanned airship as taught by Balaskovic as these are recognized equivalents for operating airships, and to reduce the danger to operators from e.g. crashes, fires, etc.
Babkin discloses a lenticular inflatable portion of the airship (e.g. Fig 1), but does not disclose an ellipsoid portion.
Balaskovic teaches an airship having either lenticular or ellipsoid (“oblate spheroid”) shapes ([0046]-[0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Babkin to use an ellipsoid portion as taught by Balaskovic as these are recognized equivalent shapes for providing an airship inflatable portion, to provide aerodynamic lift in flight (Balaskovic, [0006]) or provide proper height for storage, and since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses the inflatable portion as a balloon (11).
Regarding claim 3:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses the body lifted by the rotors and inflatable portion
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 3 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses rotors and an inflatable portion providing lift, but does not disclose the inflatable portion providing 70-90% of the lift and the rotors the remainder.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Babkin to use the specific lift distribution for the predictable advantage of reducing noise and/or power consumption (less rotor thrust permits smaller/slower rotors), and since a change (e.g. larger balloon to create more buoyancy and/or smaller rotors) in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses a star configuration of rotors with the box at the center (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses a helium filled balloon (11, 15 being the helium container), but does not disclose the balloon made of polyurethane.
Balaskovic teaches an airship balloon envelope made of low drag and/or light-weight materials, such as polyurethane ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Babkin to use polyurethane as taught by Balaskovic for the predictable advantage of reducing the drag and/or weight of the airship, thus providing more efficient travel (less drag) for equivalent power and/or allowing greater carrying capacity.
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Babkin as modified renders an unmanned airship, which has flight electronics (Balaskovic, [0102], necessary for remote control) and engines, but does not disclose a battery.
Balaskovic teaches an airship powered by batteries, solar energy, gasoline, diesel, or other suitable fuel sources ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Babkin to use batteries as taught by Balaskovic for the predictable advantage of reducing emissions of the airship, and supplying “greener” energy (which may be resupplied via renewable sources).
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 7 is relied upon.
Babkin as modified renders an electronic speed controller “connected to” each rotor (as this is part of the onboard control system; [0077]).
Note: “connected to each rotor” does not require a separate controller for each rotor, rather only that there is at least one controller that can provides signals to each rotor.
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses six rotors with respective rods adjacent the periphery of the inflatable portion (as seen in Fig 2).
Regarding independent claim 11:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Babkin as modified renders lifting the airship with the inflatable portion and rotors, and creating higher and lower pressions (due to the aerodynamic forces acting upon the ballon during flight).
Regarding claim 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 11 is relied upon.
Babkin as modified renders a parachute effect produced during failure (due to the shape of the balloon).
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 11 is relied upon.
Babkin discloses absorbing by a rigid structure (generally 81) a landing of the airship (as seen in e.g. Fig 1; landing forces would be absorbed and distributed through the frame).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10 919 610. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 recites a body and control box separately. Since these are disclosed as the same feature, they are treated as such, similar to in the patented claim.
Claim 1 also cites “an inflatable portion” rather than “a single inflatable portion.” This change is not deemed sufficient to differentiate the claims because only one inflatable portion is disclosed.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10 919 610. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the structure claimed is substantially identical in nature, and the steps of the method relate primarily to the inherent use of the airship and results thereof.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11 999 460. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the structure claimed is substantially identical in nature with the location of the rotors underneath an obvious modification (as taught e.g. Capper or Babkin), and the steps of the method relate primarily to the inherent use of the airship and results thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 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, Anita Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619