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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12103716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the present claims are found in the claims of the subject patent.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 claim 9 it is unclear how the first, second, third and fourth cables are meant to be arranged. Claim 9 states that the first and second cables, which are a part of the first set of cables, are coupled to the first and second telescoping poles, and that the third and fourth cables, which are part of the second set of cables, are coupled with the third and fourth telescoping poles. However claim 2, also states that the first set of cables is at a first height, and that the second set of cables is at a second height different from the first height. As seen in fig 2B of the present application, the first and second cables(204A,204B) which make up the first set of cables are positioned at a first height, but are not both connected to the first and second telescoping poles. Likewise the third and fourth cables(204C,204D) are not both connected to the third and fourth poles. As such it is unclear how the cables are to be arranged such that they can be positioned at different heights as in claim 2, while also being connected to the poles as defined in claim 9. It appears that the claim may be meant to read;
“wherein the first cable and the third cable are coupled with the first telescoping pole and the second telescoping pole, and wherein the second cable and the fourth cable are coupled with the third telescoping pole and the fourth telescoping pole.”
As this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention.
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 –
Claim(s) 11,12,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knudsen et al.(US10093433).
[claim 11] Knudsen teaches a system for securing a rocket(2), the system comprising: a platform(36) configured to support the rocket in an upright position after the rocket lands on the platform; a plurality of poles(34) positioned around the platform; and a plurality of cables(28a,28B,32A,32B) extending from the plurality of poles, with one or more first cables(28A,28B) of the plurality of cables configured to tighten about the rocket at a first height and one or more second cables(32A,32B) of the plurality of cables configured to tighten about the rocket at a second height that is different than the first height(fig 4).
[claim 12] wherein each cable of the plurality of cables extends from a first pole of the plurality of poles to a second pole of the plurality of poles(through supports 26,30).
[claim 15] wherein the platform is mobile(on barge 6, fig 2).
Claim(s) 16,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grose et al.(US10822122).
[claim 16] Grose teaches a method of preparing to secure a rocket(110) in an upright position on a platform(130), the method comprising: attaching a first end(123a) of a first cable(122a) with a first pole(front left 120 fig 1A); extending the first cable from the first pole, around a landing region of the platform(fig 1A), over a portion of the first cable, and toward a second pole(rear right pole 120); attaching a second end(123b) of the first cable with the second pole; attaching a first end(first end of 122c) of a second cable(122c) with a third pole(front right pole 120 fig 1A); extending the second cable from the third pole, around the landing region, over a portion of the second cable, and toward a fourth pole(rear left pole 120 fig 1A); and attaching a second end(second end of 122c) of the second cable with the fourth pole.
[claim 17] further comprising attaching a first end(first end of 122b) of a third cable(122b) with the first pole, extending the third cable from the first pole, around the landing region, over a portion of the third cable(fig 1A), and toward the second pole; attaching a second end(second end of 122b) of the third cable with the second pole; attaching a first end of a fourth cable(first end of 122d) of a fourth cable(122d) with the third pole; extending the fourth cable from the third pole, around the landing region, over a portion of the fourth cable, and toward the fourth pole; and attaching a second end(second end of 122d) of the fourth cable with the fourth pole.
[claim 20] wherein the platform is mobile(on barge or ship, see C3 L1) and configured to move to an expected landing site of the rocket.
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) 2-4,6-10,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knudsen et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Fu(US2020/0367643).
[claim 2] Knudsen teaches a system for securing a rocket(2), the system comprising: a platform(36) with a landing region(central portion of 36) configured to support the rocket in an upright position after the rocket lands on the landing region; a plurality of poles(34) attached to the platform and located around the landing region, wherein the plurality of poles are configured to extend upward from the platform; and a plurality of cables(28A,28B,32A,32B) extending from the plurality of poles, the plurality of cables comprising at least a first set of cables(28A,28B) and a second set of cables(32A,32B), with the first set of cables configured to tighten about the rocket at a first height from the platform and the second set of cables configured to tighten about the rocket at a second height from the platform that is different from the first height(fig 4). Knudsen however may not teach that the poles are telescoping poles. The use of telescopic or extending poles is well known, with Fu teaching one example of a support system using poles(2) that telescope upwards to provide an extended in use configuration, as well as a reduced size collapsed configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the poles of Knudsen telescoping as this would provide a reduced size configuration when not in use, as taught by Fu.
[claim 3] wherein each cable of the plurality of cables attaches to two of the plurality of telescoping poles at opposite ends of the respective cables(through supports 26,30).
[claim 4] when arranged as above, wherein when the plurality of telescoping poles are extended upward, he first set of cables are moved upward to the first height, and wherein the first height is greater than the second height(fig 4).
[claim 6] wherein the plurality of cables comprises four cables(28A,28B,32A,32B).
[claim 7] wherein two(28A,28B) of the four cables are located vertically above the other two(32A,32B) of the four cables after tightening about the rocket(fig 4).
[claim 8] wherein the plurality of telescoping poles comprises a first telescoping pole, a second telescoping pole, a third telescoping pole, and a fourth telescoping pole(poles 34, fig 4), wherein the first set of cables comprises a first cable(28A) and a second cable(28B), and wherein the second set of cables comprises a third cable(32A) and a fourth cable(32B).
[claim 9] wherein the first cable and the second cable are coupled with the first telescoping pole(front left 34 in fig 4) and the second telescoping pole(front right 34 in fig 4), and wherein the third cable and the fourth cable are coupled with the third telescoping pole(rear left 34 in fig 4) and the fourth telescoping pole(rear right 34 in fig 4).
[claim 10] wherein the platform is on a ship(6, fig 2).
[claim 13] Knudsen teaches a system as detailed above with respect to claim 11, however Knudsen may not teach that the plurality of poles are configured to telescope upwards. The use of telescopic or extending poles is well known, with Fu teaching one example of a support system using poles(2) that telescope upwards to provide an extended in use configuration, as well as a reduced size collapsed configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the poles of Knudsen telescoping as this would provide a reduced size configuration when not in use, as taught by Fu.
[claim 14] wherein the one or more first cables are configured to move upward to the first height in response to the plurality of poles telescoping upward, when arranged as above.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grose et al. as applied to claims 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Fu(US2020/0367643).
[claim 18,19] Grose teaches a method as detailed above, however Grose may not teach that the first, second, third and fourth poles are configured to telescope away from the platform. The use of telescopic or extending poles is well known, with Fu teaching one example of a support system using poles(2) that telescope upwards to provide an extended in use configuration, as well as a reduced size collapsed configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the poles of Grose telescoping as this would provide a reduced size configuration when not in use, as taught by Fu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 21 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, as well as upon the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer as detailed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claim 5, the prior art teaches a system as defined in claim 2, as noted above, however the prior art does not teach that prior to the rocket being located on the landing region, each cable surrounds the landing region. With regards to claim 21, the prior art teaches a method as recited in claim 16(see above), however the prior art does not teach that the first cable is attached with the first pole and second pole using one or more first elastic cords, and the second cable is attached with the third pole and the fourth pole using one or more second elastic cords.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632