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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 08/21/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 09/06/2023):
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “collecting/capturing the target object by the unmanned aerial vehicle” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently, the drawings only show the “collecting/capturing the target object 100 by the capture tool 15 connected to plural unmanned aerial vehicles,” not to “an/the unmanned aerial vehicle,” as claimed.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “collecting/capturing the target object by the unmanned aerial vehicle” as described in the specification. Currently, the drawings only show the “collecting/capturing the target object 100 by the capture tool 15 connected to plural unmanned aerial vehicles,” not to “an/the unmanned aerial vehicle,” as claimed and/or specified. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
1, 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.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “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) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “state information generation unit” in claims 3 and 10.
Per fig. 3, Para [0032, 0034, 0037] of the specification, at least as published/originally filed, the claimed/specified "state information generation unit 30” appears to be a structure element/component of a bigger structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
1.1 Claims 1-10 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1, 4-5 and 10 recite the limitations/features: “collecting a target object falling through the air by using an unmanned aerial vehicle;” “collection step of capturing the target object by the unmanned aerial vehicle;” “the unmanned aerial vehicle;” “a capture tool supported by the unmanned aerial vehicle;” “system that collects a target object falling through the air by using an unmanned aerial vehicle,” which is unclear to understand whether the claimed/specified “target object falling through the air” is being captured/caught by the claimed/specified “unmanned aerial vehicle,” OR the claimed/specified “target object falling through the air” is being captured/caught by the claimed/specified “capture tool having a net shape and supported by a plurality of the unmanned aerial vehicles,” in accordance with claim 6, which renders the claims indefinite.
It is also unclear how the claimed/specified “collecting a target object falling through the air by using an unmanned aerial vehicle;” “collection step of capturing the target object by the unmanned aerial vehicle;” “a capture tool supported by the unmanned aerial vehicle;” “system that collects a target object falling through the air by using an unmanned aerial vehicle” are being executed/performed/made/implemented, etc., compare to the “capturing the target object by the capture tool having a net shape and supported by a plurality of the unmanned aerial vehicles,” in accordance with claim 6, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
Additionally, the claimed/specified “collecting/capturing the target object by an/the unmanned aerial vehicle” is not shown in the drawings that renders the claims indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI it will be interpreted that the claimed/specified “target object falling through the air” is being captured/caught by the claimed/specified “capture tool having a net shape and supported by a plurality of the unmanned aerial vehicles,” in accordance with claim 6.
1.1.2 Claims 2-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
1.1.3 Claim 7 recites the limitation "the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
1.1.4 Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of its dependency on rejected dependent claim 7, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Interstellar Glory Space Technology (CN109823577A), hereinafter BEIJING SPACE TECH.
As per claims 1 and 10, BEIJING SPACE TECH discloses through the invention (see entire document), a collection method/system of collecting a target object falling through the air by using an unmanned aerial vehicle (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, abstract, Para [0010, 0012, 0015-0020], claim 5 – teaching space return object recovery device according that includes four or six unmanned aerial vehicles (2) arranged around the periphery of the capture net (1) and connected to the capture net (1)), the method/system comprising:
an information transmission step of transmitting state information of the target object falling through the air from the target object (see entire document, particularly abstract, Para [0020, 0031, 0036, 0038, 0040] – teaching real-time communication established between the space reentry object and the flight crew, by setting up a return control system and a capture control system; capture and control system located on the ground or other structures and connected to the aircraft via wireless communication; return control system installed inside fairing 3 that uses the position and velocity at the moment of separation as initial values for navigation calculation, provides the position and velocity of fairing 3 in real time, and transmits them to the capture control system via a wireless channel; controller that uses the position and velocity at the moment of separation as initial values for navigation calculation, provides the position and velocity of fairing 3 in real time, and transmits them to the capture control system via transmitter and antenna; the position and velocity of fairing 3 collectively referred to as flight information); and
a collection step of capturing the target object by the unmanned aerial vehicle flying in accordance with command information generated based on the state information (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, abstract, Para [0010, 0012, 0015-0020, 0031, 0036-0038], claim 5 – teaching capturing control system that receives the flight information and guides the flight crew in moving to an estimated landing point obtained according to the flight information; space return object recovery device according that includes four or six unmanned aerial vehicles (2) arranged around the periphery of the capture net (1) and connected to the capture net (1); return control system installed inside fairing 3 that uses the position and velocity at the moment of separation as initial values for navigation calculation, provides the position and velocity of fairing 3 in real time, and transmits them to the capture control system via a wireless channel; flight crew guided to move towards the vicinity of the expected landing point, and any possible deviations in the landing point corrected in a timely manner based on the real-time flight information transmitted back);
a state information generation unit provided in the target object and configured to generate and transmit state information of the target object (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, abstract, Para [0010, 0012, 0015-0020, 0030-0031, 0036-0038] – teaching control system installed inside fairing 3 that provides the position and velocity of fairing 3 in real time, and transmits them to the capture control system via a wireless channel); and
a controller provided in the unmanned aerial vehicle and configured to generate command information based on the state information and control flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see entire document, particularly fig. 1, abstract, Para [0010, 0012, 0015-0020, 0030-0031, 0036-0038] – teaching real-time communication link established between the space return object and the flight crew guided to move towards the vicinity of the expected landing point; one of the plurality of drones 2 in the flight crew as the lead aircraft that controls and coordinates the flight of the flight crew).
BEIJING SPACE TECH does not explicitly teach “transmitting state information of the target object falling through the air from the target object.”
However, it was known in the art at the time of Applicant's filing that the “transmitting state information of the target object falling through the air from the target object” was a common thing, meaning that “state information of the target object falling through the air is being transmitted via a transmitter positioned inside of the target object, or mounted/attached onto the target object,” similar to how it is presented in Para [0036] of BEIJING SPACE TECH – “control system installed inside fairing 3 that uses the position and velocity at the moment of separation as initial values for navigation calculation, provides the position and velocity of fairing 3 in real time, and transmits them to the capture control system via a wireless channel.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's filing to modify BEIJING SPACE TECH such that it comprises “transmitting state information of the target object falling through the air from the target object.” The result of such a combination would have been predictable and would not change the operation of BEIJING SPACE TECH.
As per claim 2, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) state information that includes position state information of the target object relative to the ground, and velocity state information of the target object relative to the ground (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0031, 0036]).
As per claim 3, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) state information generation unit provided in the target object that generates the position state information and the velocity state information based on radio waves received from a satellite positioning system (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in Para [0013, 0031, 0036], claim 2).
As per claim 4, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) command information that includes position command information for the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the ground, speed command information for the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the ground, and acceleration command information for the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the ground (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in abstract, Para [0007, 0012, 0015-0017, 0020, 0030, 0033, 0037-0038] – teaching guiding the flight crew (e.g., plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles) to the expected landing point and promptly correct any potential landing point deviations based on real-time flight information, which the Examiner finds that the above in the BEIJING SPACE TECH reference teaches on “commanding position information, speed, acceleration for the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the ground in the instant application, by giving these limitations/features BRI).
As per claim 5, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) target object captured by a capture tool supported by the unmanned aerial vehicle (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, abstract, Para [0007, 0009-0010, 0016-0017, 0020, 0030, 0037-0039]).
As per claim 6, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) target object captured by the capture tool having a net shape and supported by a plurality of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, abstract, Para [0007, 0009-0010, 0016-0017, 0020, 0030, 0037-0039]).
As per claim 7, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) flight of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles controlled such that relative positions of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles with respect to the target object are at a fixed distance from each other (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0016, 0030, 0037]).
As per claim 8, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) flight of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles controlled such that respective distances between the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles are maintained at a fixed distance from each other (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0016, 0030, 0037]).
As per claim 9, BEIJING SPACE TECH further discloses through the invention (see entire document) target object falling through the air supported by a parachute (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features particularly in fig. 1, Para [0014, 0032, 0035]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Hanlon (US9663234) – (see entire Hanlon document, particularly abstract – teaching systems and methods for delivering packages via aerial vehicles; the system that comprises a label that includes a parachute to enable the packages to be dropped from the aerial vehicle, yet land at the package's destination without damage; the system that includes a self-adhesive backing, a plurality of parachute cords, a parachute, and a breakaway cover; the parachute cords that includes a shock absorber to reduce the shock on the package of the parachute opening; the parachute and/or the breakaway cover that include graphics to provide address, velocity, or spin information for the package; the parachute cords that include a harness to separate the cords and reduce tangling of the cords and spinning of the parachute canopy with respect to the package).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. 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.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662