DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This document is a 2nd Non-final office action.
Response to Arguments
§ 101 Rejection: The rejection is withdrawn.
§ 102 Rejection: The rejection is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 and 13-14 is/are allowed.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-16 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) or (pre-AIA ) Fourth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent Claims stand on their own without dependency on another claim. The Examiner notes that Applicant has demonstrated their full understanding and ability to properly draft dependent claims based on the presentation of independent Claim 1 tied to “An uncrewed vehicle” followed by explicit language matching the embodiment of the parent claim found in dependent Claims 2 and 5 (i.e., “The uncrewed vehicle according to claim 1”); Claim 3 (i.e., “The uncrewed vehicle according to claim 2”); and Claim 4 (i.e., “The uncrewed vehicle according to claim 3”). Another example demonstrated by Applicant is the presentation of independent Claim 7 tied to “A network node or system” followed by explicit language matching the embodiment of the parent claim found in dependent Claims 8-11 (i.e., “The network node or system of network nodes according to claim 7”).
Claims 12 and 15-16 are rejected because they are written as independent-type claims but they contain two issues: (1) they have explicit language tying dependency on another claim, and (2) they recite an embodiment that is not identical to the embodiment of their respective parent claim.
The Office’s position is that such claim construction provides a way to avoid paying fees associated with independent claims. The Examiner is not accusing the Applicant of such practice but claims that follow this type of claim construction shall be rejected under 35 USC § 112(d) or (pre-AIA ) Fourth Paragraph until amended into independent form.
Solution: Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
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.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV