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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 12, Line 6, replace “elements 16.1,” with “elements 16.1,”.
The specification references Figure 17. However, Figure 17 is missing from the “drawing” documents as filed. The examiner noting that Figure 17 does appear to be present in the certified foreign priority application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31-35, 37-39, and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of claims 1, 15, 16, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31-35, 37, 38, and 43, replace instances of “organiser(s)”, and “organising” with “organizer(s)” and “organizing”, respectively.
Each of claims 5, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31-35, 37-39, and 43, Line 1, replace “A kite” with “The Kite”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “a catch mechanism for” in claims 38 and 39.
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 § 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, 5, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31-35, 37-39, and 43 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 kite launch-land system which includes…” However, the examiner notes that the preamble of claim 1 appears to lack any type of transition phrase in the form of “comprising”, “consisting of”, or “consisting essentially of”. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what the metes and bounds of claim 1, and its dependent claims, are meant to encompass. For purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the phrase “A kite launch-land system which includes…” means to recite “A kite launch-land system which comprises:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). To overcome this rejection, the phrase “can be disengaged” should be replaced with something similar to “configured to be disengaged”.
Claim 15 recites “which organisers take the form of at least one frame like element pivotally arranged about the base, and/or wherein the organisers take the form of a plurality of frame like elements slidably arranged about the base”. However, this limitation is indefinite and unclear as to what is actually being claimed. Specifically, the limitation above implies that the “organisers” can take the form of BOTH “at least one frame element” and “a plurality of frame like elements…” I.e., is this attempting to say that ALL of the “organsiers” include BOTH “at least one frame element” and “a plurality of frame like elements…”; OR whether the “organisers” include separate “organisers” being in the form of “at least one frame element” and “a plurality of frame like elements…”, respectively? Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites “frame like.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “like”? I.e., what are the metes and bounds of the term “like”?
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the chord axis" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the chord direction" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites “cylinder-like.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “like”? I.e., what are the metes and bounds of the term “like”?
Claim 34 recites “bridles or kite connecting lines extending from the kite canopy” and “bridles or kite connecting lines extending from the kite control system” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “bridles or kite connecting lines” as recite din both limitations as noted above, relate to the previously recited “one or more kite connecting lines” as recited in claim 1? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements?
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the kite control system," in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites “similar speed.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “similar”? I.e., what are the metes and bounds of the term “similar”?
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the organisers" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “organisers” relate to the “arms” as previously recited in claim 37?
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 15, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0071175 (Chafe et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 15, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 35, 37, and 38, Chafe et al. teaches: Claim 1 - a kite launch-land system which includes a base (310); one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) extending from the base (310) for interconnecting a kite (202) and the base (310); and an organising arrangement (312, 320) arranged about the base (310) for manipulating/organising the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) during launch and/or land of the kite for effectively controlling the kite by inhibiting slack in the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) by straightening and/or stretching out and/or tensioning at least a portion of the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) wherein when the organising arrangement (312, 320), while not in use for launch or landing, typically while the kite is in flight, can be disengaged (Figure 5D), not pressing against the kite connecting line(s) (202, 216), so that no forces from the kite connecting lines (202, 216) act on the organising arrangement (312, 320), (Figures 1-13); Claim 5 - a kite control system (340, 350, 360) located in between the base (310) and the kite (202), (Figures 1-13); Claim 15 - wherein the organising arrangement includes a plurality of organisers (320, 1220), wherein the organisers (320, 1220) take the form of a plurality of frame like elements (320, 1220) slidably arranged about the base (310), (Figures 1-13); Claim 21 - wherein the organising arrangement includes one or more sets of organisers (320, 1220), operable dependently from one another in a rotatory movement (both elements (320 and 1120) rotate about mast (312)) within a set, (Figures 1-13); Claim 22 – wherein the organising arrangement takes the form of a plurality of organisers (320, 600, 900, 1220), which plurality of organisers (320, 600, 900, 1220) are displaceable by lateral and/or translational and/or transversal displacement (the various embodiments of guides (320, 600, 900, 1220) are capable of translation/rotational movement) of one organiser relative another for organising and/or manipulating and/or controlling of the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212), (Figures 1-13); Claim 25 - wherein the organising arrangement includes a plurality of organisers (320, 1220) for organising the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) by rotation of at least one of the plurality of organisers (both elements (320 and 1120) rotate about mast (312)), (Figures 1-13); Claim 28 – wherein the organising arrangement comprise at least one organiser (320) for organizing the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) by rotation of the organizer (320) in direction transversally the chord axis of a kite (the guide device (320) is rotatable about the mast (312) within a horizontal plane and is thus capable of moving in a direction transverse to the chord of the kite (202)) connected to the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212), (Figures 1-13); Claim 29 - wherein the organising arrangement comprise at least one organizer (320) for organizing(206, 212) by rotation of the at least one organizer (320) in direction substantially parallel the chord direction of a kite (the guide device (320) is rotatable about the mast (312) within a horizontal plane and is thus capable of moving in a direction parallel to the chord of the kite (202)) connected to the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212), (Figures 1-13); Claim 35 - wherein the organising arrangement includes a plurality of arms (embodiment (600) as seen in Figure 6 contains moveable arms (606a and 606b)) displaceably arranged relative one another, (Figures 1-13); Claim 37 – wherein the organising arrangement includes a plurality of arms (embodiment (600) as seen in Figure 6 contains moveable arms (606a and 606b)), which is positioned so that the organisers (600) do not touch the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212), and are moveable to connect and interconnect with the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212), (Figures 1-13); Claim 38 – wherein the organising arrangement takes the form of a plurality of organisers (320, 600, 900, 1220), at least one of which (900) include a catch mechanism (910b) for operatively engaging the organizer (900) with a portion of the one or more kite connecting lines (206, 212) (Figures 1-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17 and 19, 31-34, 39 and 43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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) 271467. 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