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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the booms having a tapered shape (the booms are labeled as element 413, but truss 412 is the element described as having a tapered shape) and the booms being in direct contact with the opening (the trusses 412 are shown as being direct contact with the opening) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 and 6 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.
The term “low-friction” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “low-friction” renders the term material indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain how much friction a material could provide and still be considered “low-friction”.
The term “low-friction” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “low-friction” renders the term material indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain how much friction a material could provide and still be considered “low-friction”.
Claim 6 contains the phrase “a low-friction material” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain if the material is the same as in claim 5 or if it is a different material.
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.
(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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Sanz.
Regarding claim 1, Sanz discloses a system for landing an aircraft in an enclosure (Figure 1 element 100 and Figures 4a-e), comprising: an enclosure (Figure 2 element 102, 201 and 202) comprising a landing platform comprising a landing cavity, the landing cavity defining an opening in the landing platform, the opening having a shape of a regular polygon having N corners and N sides (Figure 2 element 204 and Figure 7 element 704); and an aircraft (Figure 3 element 104) having an airframe having a top end and a bottom end (Figure 3 element 302), the airframe having N booms, the N booms extending outward from the airframe along an angle from the bottom end to the top end defining a tapered shape (Figure 3 elements 304a-d and 314a-d and Figure 6 elements 614a-d, Paragraphs 66, 69 and 98); wherein the landing cavity is configured to receive the aircraft in an orientation such that when the aircraft is at rest on the landing platform, each of the N booms is proximate to one of the N corners of the opening (Figure 4e); and wherein N is a number greater than 2 (Figures 3, 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 2, see figure 4e.
Regarding claim 3, see figures 3, 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 4, see figure 3 elements 306a-d.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanz
Regarding claim 5, Sanz discloses the above system wherein the opening of the cavity has an edge (Figure 2), but is silent as to the material from which it is made.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the opening be made of a low-friction material, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. This would for the predictable result of allowing the aircraft to slide into the cavity easily.
Regarding claim 6, Sanz discloses the above system wherein the system comprises N booms with outer surfaces (Figure 3), but is silent as to the material from which they are made.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the booms’ outer surfaces be made of a low-friction material, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. This would for the predictable result of allowing the aircraft to slide into the cavity easily.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that there is not a power of attorney on file. If the applicant wishes the examiner to speak to a representative, please file a power of attorney.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights