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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 18, 21-24 and 28-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 6, “…or another payload…” should read “…or a payload…”.
In claim 1 lines 6-7, “…aircraft is intended to take off, to lift, and to accelerate the aerial vehicle…” should read “…aircraft takes off, lifts and accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 1 lines 8-9, “…the tow aircraft is intended to pic up the aerial vehicle from the carrier aircraft in midair by using tow line…” should read “…the at least one supersonic tow aircraft picks up the at least one towed aerial vehicle from the subsonic carrier aircraft midair using tow line…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of claim terminology and clarity.
In claim 1 lines 9-10, “…the ramjet or scramjet engine is intended to accelerate the aerial vehicle…” should read “…the at least one ramjet or scramjet engine accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of claim terminology and clarity.
In claim 1 lines 10-11, “…the rocket engine and/or launch vehicle is intended to accelerate…” should read “…the at least one sustainer rocket engine and/or launch vehicle accelerates…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of claim terminology and clarity.
In claim 2 line 2, “…arrange at least on aerial vehicle…” should read “…arrange the at least one towed aerial vehicle…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 2 line 3, “…outside of aircraft, with the aid of coupling units…” should read “…outside the fuselage, with an aid of coupling units…” for the purpose of clarity and so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 2 lines 4-5, “…and means to extend the aerial vehicle from the fuselage.” should read “…and means to extend, the at least one towed aerial vehicle arranged inside of the fuselage, from the fuselage.” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 3 line 3, “…and is intended to accelerate the…” should read “…and accelerates the…” for the purpose of definitiveness.
In claim 3 line 4, “…to supersonic speed…” should read “…to a supersonic speed…”.
In claim 3 line 5, “…on this towed aerial vehicle…” should read “…on the at least one towed aerial vehicle…” of the purpose of clarity.
In claim 4 lines 3-4, “…outside of the carrier aircraft, before takeoff, with the aid of coupling…” should read “…outside of the fuselage, before takeoff, with an aid of coupling…” for the purpose of clarity and so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 6 line 2, “…with at least one ramjet or scramjet engine…” should read “…with the at least one ramjet or scramjet engine…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 7 lines 1-2,”…the spaceplane is equipped with at least one sustainer rocket engine, the engine intends to accelerate the spaceplane…” should read “…the at least one towed aerial vehicle is equipped with the at least one sustainer rocket engine and/or launch vehicle, the at least one sustainer rocket engine and/or launch vehicle accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle…” for the purpose of clarity and consistency with the disclosure.
In claim 7 line 3, “…the spacecraft to…” should read “…the at least one spacecraft or payload…” for the purpose of clarity and consistency in the use of claim terminology.
In claim 8 lines 2-3, “….the payload and delivering it in the orbit…” should read “…the at least one spacecraft or payload and delivering the at least one spacecraft or payload in the orbit…” for the purpose of clarity in the use of claim terminology and clarity.
In claim 9 line 2, “…an injecting device…” should read “…an ejecting device…” to be consistent with the disclosure.
In claim 9 lines 2-3, “….the payload arranged…” should read “…the at least one spacecraft or payload arranged…” for the purpose of clarity in the use of claim terminology and clarity.
In claim 18 lines 2-6, “…the launch vehicle the launch vehicle is equipped with the rocket engine, the engine intends to accelerate the launch vehicle and the spacecraft or other payload to required velocity and altitude, the launch vehicle intends for delivering the spacecraft to an orbit and is equipped with an injecting device for deploying the spacecraft.” should read “…the launch vehicle, the launch vehicle is equipped with a rocket engine, the rocket engine accelerates the launch vehicle and the at least one spacecraft or payload to required velocity and altitude, the launch vehicle intends for delivering the spacecraft to an orbit and is equipped with an ejecting device for deploying the at least one spacecraft or payload”.
In claim 21 line 2, “…delivering the payload…” should read “…delivering a payload…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 21 line 2, “…comprising steps:…” should read “…comprising steps of:…”.
In claim 21 lines 6-7, “…or another payload; arranging at least one spacecraft or another payload inside the bay area of the aerial vehicle…” should read “…or payload; arranging the at least one spacecraft or payload inside a bay area of the at least one aerial vehicle…” to resolve antecedent issues and for the purpose of consistency in the use of claim terminology.
In claim 21 lines 8-9, “…outside of the carrier aircraft…” should read “…outside of the fuselage…”.
In claim 21 line 15, “…vehicle thru an aperture of a fuselage…” should read “…vehicle through an aperture of the fuselage…”.
(Please refer to the rejections below for additional objections that were identified).
Note: The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claim set, correct all such informalities. The examiner suggest using consistent term for the limitation throughout the claim sets for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: injecting/ejecting device in claims 9 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Disclosure doesn’t .
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 9, 18 and 21-24 and 28-30 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 limitation “injecting/ejecting device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Disclosure doesn’t disclose structure corresponding to the injecting/ejecting device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 21 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
(Please refer to attached “Claim drafting for beginners with Examples” document for properly drafting claims.)
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yifrach (US 2024/0199237) in view of Bernstein (US 3,208,692).
Regarding claim 1, Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches a reusable combined multistage aerospace system for repeatedly delivering payload to an orbital or suborbital trajectory and to midair comprises:
a subsonic carrier aircraft/carrier vehicle (500) (Para 0088; carrier vehicle is subsonic turbofan aircraft);
at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300) (Para 0092; payload vehicle /aerial vehicle is coupled to and carried by booster vehicle);
at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) (Para 0063);
at least one ramjet engine (350) (Para 0081);
at least one sustainer rocket engine/rocket driven propulsion system (250) (Para 0063);
a payload (P) (Para 0064);
wherein the subsonic carrier aircraft/carrier vehicle (500) takes off, lifts and accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) to a certain height and speed (Para 0112, 0145); and
wherein the at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300) picks up the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) from the subsonic carrier aircraft/carrier vehicle (500) midair (Para 0145; the at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300) and the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) decouples together from the subsonic carrier aircraft/carrier vehicle (500) i.e., the at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300) is picked up by the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) as the at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300) continues further flight); and
the ram jet engine (350) accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle in atmosphere (Para 0081); and
the at least one sustainer rocket engine/rocket driven propulsion system (250) accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) and the payload (P) in orbital or suborbital trajectory (Para 0157).
but it is silent about the aerospace system wherein the at least one supersonic tow aircraft picks up the at least one towed aerial vehicle from the subsonic carrier aircraft midair using tow line
Bernstein ‘692 (figure 1) teaches a self-propelled tug airplane (1) and tow aircraft (8) with conventional means for midair uncoupling and re-coupling (10) using tow cable (9) (Col. 4 Lines 52-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yifrach ‘237 to incorporate the teachings of Bernstein ‘692 to configure the aerospace system wherein the at least one supersonic tow aircraft picks up the at least one towed aerial vehicle from the subsonic carrier aircraft midair using tow line.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance fuel efficiency of carrier aircraft by significantly reducing the weight of the carrier aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the subsonic carrier aircraft/carrier vehicle (500) is adapted to arrange the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) outside of the fuselage with an aid of coupling units/coupling system (700C), and take off from a runway for horizontal flight, and the carrier aircraft has doors (Para 0133; aircraft has doors).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) is a reuseable flying payload and releasably arranged outside of the fuselage, before takeoff, with an aid of coupling units/coupling system (700C) (Para 0133; aircraft has doors).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) is equipped with lift producing surfaces (body of the aerial vehicle produces lift), providing a flight in an atmosphere, and adapted to take off from the carrier aircraft in midair, by aid of the at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300), and reaching supersonic velocity, while being towed by the at least one supersonic tow aircraft/booster vehicle (300) to a required altitude and a velocity (Para 0081).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) is equipped with the at least one sustainer rocket engine/rocket driven propulsion system (250), the at least one sustainer rocket engine/rocket driven propulsion system (250) accelerates the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) and the payload (P) to required velocity and altitude (Para 0157)
Regarding claim 8, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) is equipped with a bay area/payload bay (290) for arranging the payload (P) and delivering the payload in orbit (Para 0076, 0157).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) is equipped with an injecting/ejecting device/ejectable payload bay doors for deploying the payload (P) arranged inside the bay area after reaching a required altitude and a velocity (Para 0078).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the at least one towed aerial vehicle/payload vehicle (200) is equipped with a connecting device/means to connect with the tow line connecting assembly during pick up by the tow aircraft in a midair (as modified by Bernstein ‘692).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yifrach ‘237 (figures 1-12) teaches the aerospace system wherein the rocket plane is detachable coupled with the at launch vehicle, the launch vehicle is equipped with a rocket engine, the rocket engine accelerates the launch vehicle and the at least one spacecraft or payload to required velocity and altitude, the launch vehicle intends for delivering the spacecraft to an orbit and is equipped with an ejecting device for deploying the at least one spacecraft or payload.
(Claim 18 is optional due to “or” clause in claim 1 and 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642