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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “safety device” in claims 1-4, and 6-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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) 1-5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0331407 (SUZUKI) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0135403 (Perry et al.).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 9 and 10, SUZUKI teaches: Claim 1 – a flying object (100) comprising: a main body part (60); and a safety device (parachute as described in paragraph [0117]), wherein the main body part (60) is configured to have a forward inclination in a traveling state (Figure 25) compared to an attitude during a landing or hovering state (Figure 26), (Figures 1-27); Claim 5 - wherein the safety device comprises a parachute (parachute as described in paragraph [0117]) within the safety device, (Figures 1-27).
SUZUKI does not teach: the safety device provided on the main body part and configured to attenuate a fall speed of the flying object, wherein the safety device is fixedly connected to the main body part at a predetermined angle, and wherein the safety device is mounted the predetermined angle such that a frontal projected area of the safety device in a direction of travel does not increase in the traveling state compared to the attitude during the landing or hovering state (Claim 1); wherein a relative angle of the safety device with respect to the main body part is fixed, and wherein the safety device is mounted at the relative angle such that a frontal projected area of the flying object in a direction of travel does not increase in a forward-tilted posture during the traveling state compared to the posture during the landing or hovering state (Claim 2); wherein, in the landing or hovering state, a centerline of the safety device is inclined towards a rear of the flying object (Claim 3); wherein an inclination angle of the centerline of the safety device is the same or similar in magnitude to an angle of forward inclination of an airframe of the flying object while the flying object is in the traveling state (Claim 4); wherein the safety device is at least partially covered by a cover on the flying object (Claim 9); and wherein the cover has a portion that is opened or detached in response to the safety device being deployed (Claim 10).
However, Perry et al. teaches: Claim 1 – a flying object (100) having a safety device (1204 – parachute), the safety device (1204) provided on a main body part (102) and configured to attenuate a fall speed of the flying object (100), wherein the safety device (1204) is fixedly connected to the main body part (102) at a predetermined angle, and wherein the safety device (1204) is mounted the predetermined angle such that a frontal projected area of the safety device (1204) in a direction of travel does not increase throughout various states of the flying object (100) as the safety device (100) is located within the contours of the body (102) of the flying object (100), (Figures 1A-21); Claims 2-4 - wherein a relative angle of the safety device (1204) with respect to the main body part (102) is fixed, and wherein the safety device (1204) is mounted at the relative angle such that a frontal projected area of the flying object in a direction of travel does not increase throughout various states of the flying object (100) as the safety device (100) is located within the contours of the body (102) of the flying object (100), and wherein an inclination angle of the centerline of the safety device (1204) is the same or similar in magnitude to an angle of forward inclination of an airframe (102) of the flying object (100) while the flying object (100) is in the traveling state or is inclined towards a rear if the flying object (100) when the flying object is climbing, (Figures 1A-21); Claim 9 – wherein the safety device (1204) is at least partially covered by a cover (1203) on the flying object (100), (Figures 1A-21); Claim 10 - wherein the cover (1203) has a portion that is opened or detached in response to the safety device (1204) being deployed, (Figures 1A-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flying object of SUZUKI to have the safety device provided on the main body part and configured to attenuate a fall speed of the flying object, wherein the safety device is fixedly connected to the main body part at a predetermined angle, and wherein the safety device is mounted the predetermined angle such that a frontal projected area of the safety device in a direction of travel does not increase in the traveling state compared to the attitude during the landing or hovering state (Claim 1); wherein a relative angle of the safety device with respect to the main body part is fixed, and wherein the safety device is mounted at the relative angle such that a frontal projected area of the flying object in a direction of travel does not increase in a forward-tilted posture during the traveling state compared to the posture during the landing or hovering state (Claim 2); wherein, in the landing or hovering state, a centerline of the safety device is inclined towards a rear of the flying object (Claim 3); wherein an inclination angle of the centerline of the safety device is the same or similar in magnitude to an angle of forward inclination of an airframe of the flying object while the flying object is in the traveling state (Claim 4); wherein the safety device is at least partially covered by a cover on the flying object (Claim 9); and wherein the cover has a portion that is opened or detached in response to the safety device being deployed (Claim 10) as taught by Perry et al. for the purposes of providing a well-known safety device/parachute which is easy to find and manufacture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights