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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
In response to Applicant arguments (pages 6-7) that “all the species A to G correspond to a single species…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As illustrated by the prior art rejection below, the technical feature included in claim 1 is not considered special a posteriori in light of the combination of references, Hosaka et al. (US 8,028,953 B2) and Rosenberg (US 10,040,576 B1).
Additionally, claims 10 & 13 are withdrawn as claim 10 recites “a wire coupled to a support provided on an outside of the take-off assisting member, and a spool provided for winding the wire and coupled to the take-off assisting member” which is only supported in non-elected species G. Claim 13 is withdrawn due to its dependency to claim 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka et al. (US 8,028,953 B2), hereinafter Hosaka, in view of Rosenberg (US 10,040,576 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hosaka discloses a catapult comprising:
a take-off assisting member (accelerating device 100, fig. 1B) in contact with an aircraft (Col. 6, lines 15-16, “[a] passenger plane loading portion 2A, which supports the supersonic passenger plane 1000 at a time of acceleration”; fig. 1B) to push the aircraft (col. 10, claim 1, “[a]n accelerating device that accelerates an aircraft so as to cause the aircraft to take off”),
a winch coupled to the take-off assisting member (Col. 8, lines 8-12, “[t]he supersonic passenger plane 1000 may be taken up by appropriate means such as a winch or the like, or may propel itself by the engine thrust thereof, or may be towed by a towing vehicle and taken up”).
However, Hosaka does not appear to specifically disclose a power source coupled to the take-off assisting member to drive the take-off assisting member such that the power source moves together with the take-off assisting member as the take-off assisting member moves.
Rosenberg is in the field of autonomous takeoff and landing of an aircraft (Abstract) and teaches
a power source coupled to the take-off assisting member to drive the take-off assisting member such that the power source moves together with the take-off assisting member as the take-off assisting member moves (Col. 5, lines 15-16, “the drivetrain 120 can run on free wheels and include a jet or rocket engine configured to accelerate the tram 100”. Furthermore, Col. 5, lines 23-27, “[t]he drivetrain 120 that includes a jet or rocket engine can also include a reverse thruster, and the tram 100 can actuate the reverse thruster to slow the tram 100 and the aircraft during a landing routine or to slow the tram 100 following a takeoff routine”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accelerating device of Hosaka such that it included a jet engine as taught by Rosenberg, in order accelerate the [tram] (Rosenberg: Col. 5, lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 2, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg discloses the invention in claim 1, and Hosaka further discloses wherein the take-off assisting member includes:
a contact frame in contact with a strut provided in a landing gear of the aircraft (Col. 6, lines 21-23, “[t]he front strut stopper 6 and the main strut stoppers 8 correspond to the aircraft-restraining means of the present invention”; as shown in fig. 9, the horizontal portion of the front strut stopper 6 and the main strut stopper 8 are in contact with a strut); and
a body frame extending from the contact frame (as shown in fig. 9, the vertical portion of the front strut stopper 6 and the main strut stopper 8 extend from the horizontal portion as set forth above), coupled to a driving wheel (the vertical portion of the front strut stopper 6 and the main strut stopper 8 is coupled to the front wheel 1002 and main wheel 1004 via the horizontal portion of the front strut stopper 6 and the main strut stopper 8, fig. 9), and coupled to the power source (as modified above, the power source is coupled to the takeoff assisting member. Furthermore, as shown in fig. 9, the vertical portion of the front strut stopper 6 and the main strut stopper 8 is coupled to the accelerating device, and therefore, the vertical portion of stopper 6 and 8 are coupled to the power source).
Regarding claim 5, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not specifically disclose how the system is controlled.
However, Rosenberg is in the field of autonomous takeoff and landing of an aircraft (Abstract)
and teaches wherein the take-off assisting member is operated in autonomous mode (Col. 2, lines 11-15, “[i]n particular, the tram 100 can define a ground-based support vehicle for airport operations to autonomously assist aircraft during takeoff, landing, and taxiing, including assisting the aircraft: in accelerating along a linear runway during takeoff”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the take-off assisting member of Hosaka such that it was autonomously operated as taught by Rosenberg, in order to increase operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg discloses the invention in claim 1, and Rosenberg further discloses wherein the power source includes at least one of a jet engine, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the jet engine is a turbo jet engine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the jet engine of modified Hosaka such that it was a turbo jet engine, since it is well known in the art that a turbo jet engine is a commonly used jet engine variant. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the jet engine of modified Hosaka such that it was a turbo jet engine since they are suitable for high-speed applications (i.e., accelerating the take-off assisting member).
Regarding claim 7, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg discloses the invention in claim 1, and Rosenberg further discloses wherein the power source is configured to generate reverse thrust (Col. 5, lines 23-27, “[t]he drivetrain 120 that includes a jet or rocket engine can also include a reverse thruster, and the tram 100 can actuate the reverse thruster to slow the tram 100 and the aircraft during a landing routine or to slow the tram 100 following a takeoff routine”).
Regarding claim 8, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg discloses the invention in claim 7, and the combination further discloses wherein the take-off assisting member returns to a starting line by at least one of the reverse thrust mode of the power source (as modified above, Rosenberg discloses in at least Col. 5, lines 23-27, “[t]he drivetrain 120 that includes a jet or rocket engine can also include a reverse thruster”), the take-off assisting member and an operation mode of the winch (at least one of the above limitations is required).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka in view of Rosenberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 7,568,658 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg discloses the invention in claim 1, and Hosaka further discloses wherein the winch includes: a wire coupled to the take-off assisting member (Col. 8, lines 8-12, “[t]he supersonic passenger plane 1000 may be taken up by appropriate means such as a winch or the like, or may propel itself by the engine thrust thereof, or may be towed by a towing vehicle and taken up”).
Modified Hosaka does not appear to specifically disclose a spool provided for winding the wire and coupled to a support provided on an outside of the take-off assisting member
However, Li is in the field of an aircraft emergency landing assist vehicle (Abstract) and also teaches a winch coupled to the take-off assisting member (Col. 5, lines 65-67-Col. 6, lines 1-4, “the propulsion means may comprise a cable and winch assembly or a towing vehicle, which pulls the landing assist vehicle along the runway. The cable and winch assembly comprises a cable having a first end and a second end and a winch disposed at the end of an aircraft runway. The first end of the cable is coupled to the winch and the second end of the cable is attached to the front of the vehicle chassis”); and a spool provided for winding the wire and coupled to a support (Col. 5, line 47-Col. 6, lines 2-3, “[t]he cable and winch assembly comprises a cable having a first end and a second end and a winch disposed at the end of an aircraft runway. The first end of the cable is coupled to the winch…”) provided on an outside of the take-off assisting member (see Col. 5, lines 47-Col. 6, lines 1-3 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the winch system of Hosaka such that a spool was provided for winding the wire and coupled to a support provided on an outside of the take-off assisting member as taught by Li, in order to pull the landing assist vehicle along the runway (Li: Col. 6, lines 4-8).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka in view of Rosenberg and Li as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Liebmann (US 2,567,954 A).
Regarding claim 11, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg and Li discloses the invention in claim 9, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a shock absorber is coupled to at least one of the take-off assisting member, the wire, and the support.
However, Liebmann is in the field of an aircraft launching apparatus (Abstract) and teaches wherein a shock absorber is coupled to the wire (Col. 4, lines 26-29, “[t]he reel is provided with a shock absorbing fixture to carry the shock of slack running in and out, and to keep the tow line taut”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winch of Hosaka such that it had a shock absorber coupled to the wire as taught by Liebmann, in order “to carry the shock of slack running in and out, and to keep the ow line taut” (Liebmann: Col. 4, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 12, Hosaka in view of Rosenberg, Li, and Liebmann discloses the invention in claim 11, and the combination further discloses wherein the shock absorber is configured to alleviate shock when the take-off assisting member stops (the shock absorber of Liebmann is disclosed in at least Col. 4, lines 26-29, “to carry the shock of slack running in and out, and to keep the tow line taut”, and as such, the shock absorber contains the structure necessary to alleviate shock, even when the take-off assisting member stops) or1 shock caused by a collision with the support when the take-off assisting member moves backward.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect of the limitations is required due to the alternative (“or”) phrasing.