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 office action is in regards to application # 18/875,873 that was filed on 12/17/2024. Claims 36-55 are currently pending and are under examination.
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 36-55 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.
In the preamble, Independent claim 36 recites “an air intake module for a projectile” without positively claiming the “projectile” . the projectile is written as a functional limitation where the claimed ‘air intake module’ can be used. Later in line 6 of the claim, the air intake module is claimed to be connected to a forward portion of the projectile (“….said module forward end comprises a module forward interface configures to connecting the air intake module to a forward portion of the projectile…”). It is not clear from the recitations if the recited ‘projectile’ is a part of the claim or not. Also the claim also recites “…said module aft end comprises a module aft interface configured for enabling the air intake module to be mounted to a propulsion system of the projectile…” in lines 7-8. It also not clear if the recited propulsion system of the projectile is part of the claimed air intake module or not. Additionally, projectiles and propulsion systems are not standard entities with plug and play interfaces. The configurations of the air intake module recited in lines 5-8 are not clear and how it works. Can the claimed air-intake module standalone without the recited ‘projectile’ and ‘propulsion system’? The examiner suggests to amend the limitation of independent claim 36 with the limitation of claim 52 that positively recites the ”projectile” that comprises the air intake module. The examiner considers the limitation of claim 36 as being vague and indefinite. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the rail struts" in line 2. The ‘rail struts’ are first introduced in claim 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 44 recites the limitation "the sliding rail elements" in line 2 and "said sliding rail elements" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "said cone element pivot axis" in lines 1-2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the central axis" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 49, it not clear how ‘an air intake module’ can have ‘a propulsion system’. It seems it should be the other way arounds in that ‘a propulsion system’ having ‘an air intake module’. Appropriate correction/clarification required.
Dependent claims 37-55 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of independent claim 1 above solely based on their dependency from the parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent and closest to applicant's disclosure:
Geswender (US7851733) discloses an air intake module (11, 19, 31) for a projectile (10), comprising a module forward end, a module aft end, and an aft facing intake cone arrangement (26) (Fig. 1, Fig. 2,col. 2, lines 57-col. 33 lines 28) "wherein: said module forward end comprises a module forward interface configured for connecting the air intake module (11, 19, 31) to a forward portion (22) of the projectile (10)(col. 2 lines 44-lines 56, fig. 1, fig. 2, Fig. 3, fig. 4) said module aft end comprises a module aft interface (13) configured for enabling the air intake module (11,19,31) to be mounted to a propulsion system (21) of the projectile (10)(col. 2 lines 30-43, col. 2 lines 44-56, Fig. 1, fig. 2); said module aft end (13) being longitudinally displaceable with respect to the module forward end (22) between a module stowed configuration and a module deployed configuration,(fig. 3, fig. 4, col. 3 lines 29-57); wherein in the module stowed configuration the module forward end is at a first longitudinal spacing with respect to the module aft end, wherein in the module deployed configuration the module forward end is at a second longitudinal spacing with respect to the module aft end (col. 3 lines 29-57, fig. 3, Fig. 4), wherein the second longitudinal spacing is greater than the first longitudinal spacing (fig. 3, fig. 4).
But, Geswender lacks to disclose, teach, or suggest the said aft facing intake cone arrangement comprising a plurality of intake cone elements, each said intake cone element being pivotably mounted with respect to the module front end and being pivotably movable between a respective open position, corresponding to the module stowed configuration, and a respective closed position, corresponding to the module deployed configuration; wherein in the open position the intake cone elements are in overlying spatial relationship with respect to the module aft end; and wherein in the closed position, the intake cone elements are pivoted towards one another to form an aft facing cone structure forward of the module aft end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642