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.
Claims 4 and 10-11 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation 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.
Claim 4: “A sliding means” is not a recognized name for structure in this art. As such, it is a generic placeholder for structure. The verb “sliding” provides a function, but does not add structure to the limitation. Therefore, this limitation should be interpreted under 112(f) because it satisfies the 3-prong analysis. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification as a “an eyelet, a spring hook, a loop, a friction ring, a twin cone or a pulley,” so as to allow sliding of the launching rigging lines. Therefore, the BRI of the limitation would be the disclosed “eyelet, spring hook, loop, friction ring, twin cone or pulley” and equivalents thereof that allow sliding of the launching rigging lines as described in the specification.
Claims 10 and 11: “a first means for attaching the first control line” and “a second means for attaching the second control line.” “A means for attaching” is not a recognized name for structure in this art. As such, it is a generic placeholder for structure. “Attaching the first/second control line” provides a function of what the “means” does, but does not add structure to the limitation. Therefore, this limitation should be interpreted under 112(f) because it satisfies the 3-prong analysis. The specification does not appear to provide any description of a corresponding structure. Therefore, the BRI of the limitation would be any structure that is capable of attaching a control line.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C., 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 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claim function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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 1-20 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 the limitation “retaining points intended to cooperate with a launching line” in line 7. This is indefinite because the scope of “cooperate” is unclear. Are the retaining points capable of connecting to or supporting a launching line, for example? What is the scope of “cooperate” in this context? Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 4 recites “a launching line” in line 2, despite previously introducing “a launching” in Claim 1. It is unclear if this recitation in Claim 4 intends to reference the previous recitation of claim 1, or intends to introduce new, additional “launching line.” For purposes of examination, this recitation in Claim 4 is interpreted as “the launching line.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 (“a launching line”) and Claims 7-8 (“a single launching line”) are similarly rejected. Claim 9 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 12 recites “loosening the sail to progressively release the sail at the retaining points” in line 7. This is indefinite because line 4 appears to only require retaining via “at least the retaining point closest to the first anchoring point”, while line 7 appears to require a plurality of retaining points being used. Can the sail be retained by only the retaining point closest to the first anchoring point, or is it retained by a plurality of the retaining points? Appropriate correction is required. Claims 13-17 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 12 recites “loosening the sail to progressively release the sail at the retaining points so that the sail inflates and lifts off, the release being achieved…one retaining point after another…” This is indefinite because these limitations appear contradictory. Is the sail loosened in order to release the retaining points? Or is the sail loosened as a result of releasing the retaining points, for example? What is doing the loosening? Appropriate correction is required. Claims 13-17 fail to cure the deficiency.
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) 1-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Berrang et al. (US 20150129721 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Berrang discloses a sail (12, Fig. 1) for a kite (Fig. 1) of a traction device for pulling along a floating craft (Abstract and Fig. 1) or a rolling and/or sliding land vehicle, wherein:
the sail extends over a length (length of 12, Fig. 1), and
the sail comprises retaining points (14, and 34, Fig. 4) intended to cooperate with a launching line (13, Figs. 1 and 4) to facilitate lift-off of the sail (13 is clearly capable of this function, as it supports the sail during lift off/flight, see Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 2, Berrang discloses the sail as claimed in claim 1, wherein the retaining points are distributed along the length of the sail (Fig. 4 and para. [0096]).
Regarding Claim 3, Berrang discloses the sail as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sail comprises a leading edge (22, Fig. 4) and the retaining points are arranged in a lower zone of the leading edge (Fig. 4 and para. [0096]).
Regarding Claim 4, Berrang discloses the sail as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sail comprises a sliding means for a launching line at each retaining point (14 and 34 allow sliding, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Berrang discloses the sail as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sail comprises a first anchoring point of the sail (attachment point of 16 on left side, Fig. 1) and a second anchoring point of the sail (attachment point of 16 on right side, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Berrang discloses a traction device (Fig. 1) for pulling along a floating craft (Abstract, “…used in kite boarding”) or a rolling and/or sliding land vehicle , the traction device comprising:
-the sail as claimed in claim 5 (12, Fig. 1),
- a launching line (13, Fig. 1),
- a first control line of the sail connected to the first anchoring point of the sail (16 on left side, Fig. 1), and
- a second control line of the sail connected to the second anchoring point of the sail (16 on right side, Fig. 1),
wherein the launching line passes through each of the retaining points (13 branches into 15 and passes through 14 and 34, Fig. 4, see para. [0096]) and/or is fixed in jettisonable fashion to each of the retaining points.
Regarding Claim 7, Berrang discloses a traction device (Fig. 1) for pulling along a floating craft (Abstract, “…used in kite boarding”) or a rolling and/or sliding land vehicle, comprising:
- the sail as claimed in claim 5 (12, Fig. 1),
- a single launching line (13, Fig. 1),
- a first control line of the sail connected to the first anchoring point of the sail (16 on left side, Fig. 1), and
- a second control line of the sail connected to the second anchoring point of the sail (16 on right side, Fig. 1),
wherein the single launching line passes through each of the retaining points (13 branches into 15 and passes through 14 and 34, Fig. 4, see para. [0096]) and/or is fixed in jettisonable fashion to each of the retaining points.
Regarding Claim 8, Berrang discloses a traction device (Fig. 1) for pulling along a floating craft (Abstract, “…used in kite boarding…”) or a rolling and/or sliding land vehicle, comprising:
- the sail as claimed in claim 5 (12, Fig. 1),
- a single launching line (13, Fig. 1)
- a first control line of the sail connected to the first anchoring point of the sail (16 on left side, Fig. 1),
- a second control line of the sail connected to the second anchoring point of the sail (16 on left side, Fig. 1),
the single launching line joining each of the retaining points (13 branches into 15 and passes through 14 and 34, Fig. 4, see para. [0096]).
Regarding Claim 9, Berrang discloses the traction device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the traction device comprises a plate (18, Fig. 1) comprising at least one pulley block and/or holes through which the launching line passes (para. [0095]).
Regarding Claim 10, Berrang discloses a floating craft comprising the traction device as claimed in claim 6 (11, Fig. 1),
wherein the floating craft comprises a bridge (18, Fig. 1) comprising a first means for attaching the first control line (first connection point of 16 to 18, Fig. 1) and a second means for attaching the second control line (second connection point of 16 to 18, Fig. 1), the first attachment means and the second attachment means being spaced apart from one another by a given value (attachment points of 16 to 18 are spaced apart across length of 18, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Berrang teaches the sail as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sail is a flexible sail (para. [0097], “elastomeric material”) with boxes (para. [0098], “two or more compartments”).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrang (US 20150129721 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Born (DE 102010052081 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Berrang discloses the traction device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the rolling and/or sliding land vehicle comprises a frame (18, Fig. 1) comprising a first means for attaching the first control line (first connection point of 16 to 18, Fig. 1) and a second means for attaching the second control line (second connection point of 16 to 18, Fig. 1), the first attachment means and the second attachment means being spaced apart from one another by a given value (attachment points of 16 to 18 are spaced apart across length of 18, Fig. 1).
Berrang is silent about wherein the craft is a rolling and/or sliding land vehicle.
Born teaches a rolling land vehicle employing a similar device (14, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the traction device as disclosed by Berrang with a rolling land vehicle as taught by Born, in order to use the device for land transportation.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrang (US 20150129721 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Pascal et al. (FR 3082184 A1), hereafter Pascal.
Regarding Claim 12, Berrang discloses the traction device as claimed in claim 6, and retaining the sail on the floating craft or on the vehicle via the first anchoring point (Fig. 1) and via at least the retaining point closest to the first anchoring point (Berrang, Fig. 1, 12 is also retained by the anchoring point closest to 21, for example retaining point at the left most 34, Fig. 4),
Berrang is silent about a method of operation, the method comprising loosening the sail so as to progressively release the sail at the retaining points so that the sail inflates and or lifts off, the release being achieved progressively, one retaining point after another retaining point, moving away from the first anchoring point and drawing closer to the second anchoring point.
Pascal teaches loosening a similar sail so as to progressively release the sail at the retaining points so that the sail inflates and or lifts off (from Fig. 6 to Fig. 4, in other words, the opposite order of the launch sequence depicted from Figs. 4-6), the release being achieved progressively, one retaining point after another retaining point, moving away from the first anchoring point and drawing closer to the second anchoring point (Pg. 5 of attached translation, last 2 paras., and Pg. 6, first 2 paras.), until the sail is retained only by the first and second anchoring points (configuration of Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Berrang whereby the sail is progressively released at the retaining points, as taught by Pascal, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to release the sail in a controlled way from a folded stowed position, enhancing the safety of the system.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Berrang discloses the method as claimed in claim 12.
Modified Berrang is silent about wherein the loosening is controlled by at least one of the following: an automatic friction means, an automatic speed control means (winch of Pascal, see Abstract), a manual means, a brake.
Pascal teaches loosening controlled by an automatic speed control means (winch, see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of modified Berrang with the automatic speed control means as taught by Pascal, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to automate the launch of the sail, enhancing efficiency and safety of the system.
Regarding Claim 20, Berrang discloses the sail as claimed in claim 1.
Berrang is silent about wherein the sail has rigging lines or straps which distribute a traction force over a plurality of points attached to the lower surface of the sail.
Pascal teaches rigging lines with distribute a traction force over a plurality of points attached to a similar lower surface (lines 4, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the sail of Berrang with the rigging lines of Pascal, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the stability and strength of the sail.
Claim(s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrang (US 20150129721 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Hagianu (US 20190161183 A1), hereafter Hagianu.
Regarding Claim 14, Berrang discloses a traction device.
Berrang is silent about hardware and/or software elements adapted to implement the method as claimed in claim 12.
Hagianu teaches hardware and/or software elements for controlling a similar kite (para. [0089])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the traction device and method of Berrang with a hardware and/or software elements as taught by Hagianu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to automate the process of deploying the device for a user.
Regarding Claim 15, Berrang discloses the method as claimed in claim 12.
Berrang is silent about a computer program product comprising program code instructions recorded on a computer-readable medium adapted to implement the method as claimed in claim 12 when the program runs on a computer.
Hagianu teaches a computer program product comprising program code instructions recorded on a computer-readable medium adapted to implement the method as claimed in claim 12 when the program runs on a computer (para. [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Berrang with a winch and control module comprising program code instructions recorded on a computer readable medium as taught by Hagianu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to automate the process of deploying the device for a user.
Regarding Claim 16, Berrang discloses the method as claimed in claim 12.
Berrang is silent about a data recording medium, readable by a computer, on which a computer program is recorded which comprises program code instructions for implementing the method as claimed in claim 12 when the program runs on the computer.
Hagianu teaches a data recording medium, readable by a computer, on which a computer program is recorded with comprises program code instructions (para. [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Berrang with a date recording medium, readable by a computer, on which a computer program is recorded and comprises program code instructions, as taught by Hagianu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to automate the process of deploying the device for a user.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Berrang teaches the computer product program as claimed in claim 15, wherein the computer program product is downloadable from a communication network (Hagianu, para. [0095]).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrang (US 20150129721 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lynn (US 20040113019 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Berrang discloses the sail as claimed in claim 1.
Berrang is silent about wherein the sail has a single skin.
Lynn teaches a single skin (para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modified the sail of Berrang to have a single skin as taught by Lynn, with a reasonable expectation of success, for simplicity of assembly of the sail.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jan et al. (US 20240166321 A1) teaches a tethered traction wing.
Jalala (US 20220388612 A1) teaches a collapsible wing for towing a boat.
McGarley (US 20240083565 A1) teaches a system for deploying kites.
Chafe et al. (US 20190071175 A1) teaches an automated kite launching system.
Grenier (US 20040099196 A1) teaches a kite for towing a marine craft.
Schrems (US 5355817 A) teaches a collapsible wing for a marine craft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights