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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 the abstract contains at least one of the phrases that can be implied, such as the phrase “Various implementations include”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of “NACA” should be spelled out. 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.
Claims 12 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim contains the trademark/trade name “Dyneema®”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph (see Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a material for the sleeve and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “the magnetometer lacks proper antecedent basis. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 21 is rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (Pat. No. US 9,239,041) (hereafter Goldstein) in view of Hubbard, Jr et al. (Pat. No. US 7,415,876) (hereafter Hubbard).
Regarding claim 1, Goldstein teaches a low-drag smart tether system for measuring fluid speed and direction, the system comprising:
a sleeve having a longitudinal axis and an airfoil shaped cross-section as viewed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the sleeve having a leading edge (i.e., jacket 1303) (see Fig. 13 and 14), wherein the sleeve defines a tether opening extending parallel to the longitudinal axis (i.e., opening for core 1301) (see Fig. 13 and 14);
a sensor disposed along a surface of the sleeve, wherein the sensor is configured to measure air moving over the surface of the sleeve (i.e., airborne sensors may be located in one or multiple parts of wing 101 and include speed meter, altimeter, accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor, GPS, compass, cameras and other) (see Column 8, lines 1-20); and
a tether extending through the tether opening defined by the sleeve (i.e., core 1301) (see Fig. 13 and 14), the tether having a tether longitudinal axis, wherein the tether opening is positioned such that fluid flowing around the sleeve causes the sleeve to rotate about the tether longitudinal axis (i.e., a load bearing core 1301, made of para-aramid, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene or another light and strong fiber. Core 1301 is covered with a jacket 1303, made of nylon or another material with good fatigue and UV resistance characteristics. The empty space in the back is filled with foam 1302 and jacket 1303 is cut into subsections at equal distances, exposing core 1301) (see Fig. 13 and 14); but does not explicitly teach a pressure sensor disposed along a surface of the sleeve, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure the pressure exerted on the pressure sensor by air moving over the surface of the sleeve
Regarding the pressure sensor, Hubbard teaches a pressure sensor disposed along a surface of the sleeve, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure the pressure exerted on the pressure sensor by air moving over the surface of the sleeve (i.e., spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field) (see Column 2, lines 20-55). In view of the teaching of Hubbard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a pressure sensor to the surface of the sleeve in order to determine the lift or stall of the fluid flow.
Regarding claims 2-7, Goldstein as modified by Hubbard as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the pressure sensor comprises a strain-based pressure sensor (claim 2);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises a capacitive pressure sensor (claim 3);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises a piezo-electric sensor skin (claim 4);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises a diaphragm pressure sensor (claim 5);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (claim 6);
wherein the pressure sensor includes a pressure sensitive skin, wherein the pressure sensitive skin is flush with the surface of the sleeve (claim 7).
Regarding the pressure sensor, Hubbard teaches that
the pressure sensor comprises a strain-based pressure sensor (claim 2) (i.e., makes use of spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field. These sensors may be formed from materials such as piezoelectric, piezo-resistive and piezo-conductive polymers, composites and crystals, for example) (see Column 2, lines 20-55);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises a capacitive pressure sensor (claim 3) (i.e., makes use of spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field. These sensors may be formed from materials such as piezoelectric, piezo-resistive and piezo-conductive polymers, composites and crystals, for example) (see Column 2, lines 20-55);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises a piezo-electric sensor skin (claim 4) (i.e., makes use of spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field. These sensors may be formed from materials such as piezoelectric, piezo-resistive and piezo-conductive polymers, composites and crystals, for example. Such materials may be applied non-invasively such that they conform to any desired surface. There is a variety of such materials available at low cost and providing the ability to be formed into high performance sensing media. For example, PZT (lead zirconium titanate) and PVDF (polyvinyldifluoride)) (see Column 2, lines 20-55);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises a diaphragm pressure sensor (claim 5) (i.e., makes use of spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field. These sensors may be formed from materials such as piezoelectric, piezo-resistive and piezo-conductive polymers, composites and crystals, for example. Such materials may be applied non-invasively such that they conform to any desired surface. There is a variety of such materials available at low cost and providing the ability to be formed into high performance sensing media. For example, PZT (lead zirconium titanate) and PVDF (polyvinyldifluoride)) (see Column 2, lines 20-55);
wherein the pressure sensor comprises polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (claim 6) (i.e., makes use of spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field. These sensors may be formed from materials such as piezoelectric, piezo-resistive and piezo-conductive polymers, composites and crystals, for example. Such materials may be applied non-invasively such that they conform to any desired surface. There is a variety of such materials available at low cost and providing the ability to be formed into high performance sensing media. For example, PZT (lead zirconium titanate) and PVDF (polyvinyldifluoride)) (see Column 2, lines 20-55);
wherein the pressure sensor includes a pressure sensitive skin, wherein the pressure sensitive skin is flush with the surface of the sleeve (claim 7) (i.e., makes use of spatially distributed sensors that are constructed and arranged to measure pressures corresponding to lift and drag components of a flow field. These sensors may be formed from materials such as piezoelectric, piezo-resistive and piezo-conductive polymers, composites and crystals, for example. Such materials may be applied non-invasively such that they conform to any desired surface. There is a variety of such materials available at low cost and providing the ability to be formed into high performance sensing media. For example, PZT (lead zirconium titanate) and PVDF (polyvinyldifluoride)) (see Column 2, lines 20-55).
In view of the teaching of Hubbard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a pressure sensor to the surface of the sleeve in order to determine the lift or stall of the fluid flow.
Regarding claim 8, Goldstein as modified by Hubbard as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the pressure sensor is disposed closer to the leading edge of the sleeve than to a tailing edge of the sleeve. However, Hubbard teaches that the pressure sensor is disposed closer to the leading edge of the sleeve than to a tailing edge of the sleeve (i.e., sensor distribution layout having sub-elements 51, 52, 53 and 61, 62, 63, for a lift measurement) (see Fig. 5a-d). In view of the teaching of Hubbard, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the sensors closer to the leading edge of the sleeve in order to determine the net lift on the sleeve. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 9, Goldstein teaches a directional sensor for measuring the cardinal orientation of the sleeve, wherein the directional sensor is coupled to the sleeve (i.e., airborne sensors may be located in one or multiple parts of wing 101 and include speed meter, altimeter, accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor, GPS, compass, cameras and other) (see Column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 10, Goldstein teaches that the directional sensor comprises a magnetometer compass (i.e., airborne sensors may be located in one or multiple parts of wing 101 and include speed meter, altimeter, accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor, GPS, compass, cameras and other) (see Column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 11, Goldstein teaches that the directional sensor comprises an angular encoder (i.e., airborne sensors may be located in one or multiple parts of wing 101 and include speed meter, altimeter, accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor, GPS, compass, cameras and other) (see Column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 12, Goldstein as modified by Hubbard as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the tether comprises Dyneema®. However, Goldstein teaches the material of the tether (i.e., cable 502 can be made of aramids or para-aramids, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene or another light and strong material) (see Column 6, line 63, to Column 7, line 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable light and strong material as the tether. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Please note that in the instant specification explicitly states that “the tether is made of any other suitable material” (see paragraph section [0038]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Goldstein as modified by Hubbard as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the sleeve comprises polystyrene (claim 13);
wherein the sleeve comprises a honeycomb shaped material (claim 14). However, Goldstein teaches the material of the sleeve (i.e., a fabric skin 501, which can be made of nylon or another strong and light fabric) (see Column 6, line 63, to Column 7, line 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable light and strong material as the sleeve. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). Please note that in the instant specification explicitly states that “the sleeve can be made out of any suitable material” (see paragraph section [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Goldstein teaches that the sleeve is rotatable about the tether (i.e., Boom 506 goes through wing 101 and is attached to cable 502 by a ring 508) (see Column 6, line 63, to Column 7, line 24).
Regarding claim 16, Goldstein teaches that the system includes two or more sleeves (i.e., jacket 1303 is cut into subsections at equal distances, exposing core 1301, for better flexibility) (see Fig. 13) and two or more pressure sensors, wherein each of the two or more pressure sensors is disposed along the surface of a different one of the two or more sleeves (i.e., airborne sensors may be located in one or multiple parts of wing 101 and include speed meter, altimeter, accelerometer, gyroscopic sensor, GPS, compass, cameras and other) (see Column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 17, Goldstein teaches that each of the two or more sleeves rotates independently of the other sleeves (i.e., jacket 1303 is cut into subsections at equal distances, exposing core 1301, for better flexibility) (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 18, Goldstein teaches that the tether opening is positioned at a center of pressure of the sleeve (i.e., cable 502) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Goldstein teaches that the sleeve has a chord length (see Fig. 5); but does not explicitly teach that and the tether opening is positioned between ⅛ and ⅜ of the chord length from the leading edge. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the tether at the most advantageous location along the chord length of the wing. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)) and that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 20, Goldstein teaches a controller in communication with the pressure sensor and the magnetometer (i.e., control system 805 comprises a ground based subsystem and an airborne subsystem) (see Column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 21, Goldstein teaches that the controller includes a wireless transmission device (i.e., the ground based subsystem comprises one or more central processors or microcontrollers, sensors and communication means for communicating with sensors and actuators on wing 101. Communication means is a wireless network with a transceiver at the airborne end of belt 105 and/or optical or copper wires, going through the cables 102 and then through the length of wing 101 to the wing sensors and actuators 701) (see Column 8, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 22, Goldstein teaches that the airfoil shaped cross-section comprises a NACA 2412 airfoil shaped cross-section (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Goldstein teaches comprising an energy harvester (i.e., wing 101 harvests wind energy over all of its length, even in the points RS and LS, in both upstroke and downstroke, because its motion is at least partially cross-wind) (see Column 6, lines 27-57).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights