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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 17, 2024 and April 10, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of the phrase “The present invention is related” and the use of the term “means” on line 2. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1-11 are replete with errors under 35 USC 112 too numerous to mention specifically; however, examples of those errors are as follows:
In claims 1 and 4, lines 4 and 5 and lines 3-4 and 5, respectively, the applicant claims “a radio-controlled vehicle” and “an attachment”. There is a prior mention of both “a radio-controlled vehicle” (claims 1 and 4, lines 1-2) and “an attachment” (claims 1 and 4, lines 5) and it is unclear as to exactly how many of each feature/limitation that the applicant is attempting to claim in that under 35 USC 112 each distinct feature/limitation is required to have an exact nomenclature and subsequent references to the same feature/limitation should be preceded by a “said” or “the”. The lack of clarity renders the claimed subject matter indefinite.
Note: In claim 3, lines 2-3, applicant claims “said radio-controlled vehicle”. Because of the above lack of clarity as to how many “radio-controlled vehicle(s)” are being claimed, it is now further unclear as to which is being referred.
In claims 1 and 4, lines 8 and 6-7, respectively, “the physical involvement” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claim 3, line 2, respectively, “the movements” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
In claims 2, 5 and 9, the applicant employs the phrase “in particular”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
In claim 8, line 4, applicant claims “a respective coupling unit”; however, there is only a prior mention of a single “coupling unit” (claim 4, line 3) and therein rendering the claimed limitations indefinite.
In claims 9 and 10, “the interaction unit” appears to lack proper antecedent basis.
As mentioned above, these are only examples of errors under 35 USC 112 and all clams should be revisited and revised as necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2995724 (‘724).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 11: ‘724 discloses a method and apparatus to connect an attachment (paragraph [0008]) to a radio-controlled vehicle (paragraph [0026] to [0027]) by means of a connection system (as seen in figure 1A and 4), which comprises:
a support (as seen in figure 2, generally 31),
an attachment-holder unit (as seen in figure 1B, generally 1),
and a coupling unit (as seen in figure 1A, generally 2);
wherein said support is configured to be fixed, in use, to the radio-controlled vehicle (column 3, paragraph [0008]);
wherein said attachment-holder unit is configured to be fixed, in use, to the attachment (column 3, paragraph [0008]);
wherein said coupling unit is configured to selectively connect to each other said support and said attachment-holder unit (as seen in figure 4);
wherein said coupling unit is remotely operable (as seen in figures 5A and 5B; also, column 7, paragraph [0026]);
the method comprising to dispose selectively and automatically, namely without physical involvement of an operator,
the coupling unit in a fixing configuration, wherein the attachment-holder unit and the support are fixed together (as seen in figure 4);
in a release configuration, wherein the attachment-holder unit and the support are reciprocally movable (as seen in figures 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 2: ‘724 discloses the method of claim 1. Further, ‘724 discloses wherein said coupling unit comprises a hydraulic mechanism and is fed, in use, by a pressurized oil inlet; wherein the operation of the coupling unit is function of flux parameters of the pressurized oil inlet (as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 3: ‘724 discloses the method of claim 1. Further, ‘724 discloses wherein the method comprising the step of remotely operating the movements of said support by means of said radio-controlled vehicle (as seen in figures 5A and 5B; also, column 7, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claims 5-10: ‘724 discloses the apparatus of claim 4. Further, ‘724 discloses wherein the system has a hydraulic drive system (as seen in figure 3) employing a hydraulic cylinder (as seen in figure 3, at 34) selectively actuated by pressurized oil which in turn drives selective pins into and out of engagement to operate the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Helbig et al. (USPGPub 2012/0305025) discloses a remotely operated vehicle having the ability to change various tools/attachments.
Pfaff et al. (USPGPub discloses a remote control for a power machine allowing for various work means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights