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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are apparent typos on pages 3 & 4 of the specification. On page 3, line 20, “said portion 13” should be -- a portion 13 --. On page 4, line 8, “body 14.1” should be -- body 16.1 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there are apparent 3 typos in claim 1. In claim 1, line 3, “re-movably” should be -- removably --. In claim 1, line 5, “a member” should be -- a deactivation member --, based on the rest of the claims. In claim 1, line 7, “com-prising” should be -- comprising --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-14 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1, lines 7-8, recites “the cover comprising, facing the sensor, a uniform internal surface making it possible to calibrate the sensor before the cover is ejected”. It is unclear how the internal surface is making it possible to calibrate the sensor based on the specification, figures, and claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 4 recites “or by any other mechanical system having an energy reserve”. The specification does not support any other mechanical system having an energy reserve, for example, a battery which is a mechanical system having an energy reserve, would not be able to perform the function of ejecting the cover. Therefore this limitation is covering systems that would not be capable of performing the claimed function.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 14 as written, does not appear to make grammatical sense. It appears that there are two different partial trains of thought and no connection between the two trains of thought. It is unclear how the protection of the optronic sensor allows the second sensor to function throughout the entire flight.
Claims 1-14 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 10 recites “the pivot element”. It is unclear which pivot element this is suppose to be. Is this the first pivot element, the second pivot element, both, or either? For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “the pivot element” in claim 10, lines 1-2, as -- the first pivot element --.
The term “close” in claim 12, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “close” to be the same or different shapes, since the Applicant discloses a dome shaped cover and a flat shaped area after the cover is ejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the control module" in claim 13, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “the control module” in claim 13, line 2, as -- the electronic control circuit --, since that is what recited in claim 1 from which claim 13 depends.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-12, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boiman et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0108319 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Boiman teaches an aerial vehicle (See figure 1, ref # 1) comprising a fuselage (See figure 1, ref # 1) having a front portion (See figure 1, ref # 2) provided with an optronic sensor (See paragraphs 0065-0067 & figure 3, ref # 420) and a cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) for protecting the sensor, (See figure 3, ref # 420) the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) being removably mounted (See paragraphs 0097-0098) and held on the fuselage (See figure 1, ref # 1) by at least one retaining member (See paragraph 0100, bolts) arranged to retain the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) against aerodynamic forces exerted on the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) during flight, the aerial vehicle (See figure 1, ref # 1) comprising a member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) for deactivating the retaining member (See paragraph 0100, bolts) and an electronic control circuit (See figure 3, ref # 480) arranged to control the deactivation member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) in flight so as to allow the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) to be ejected, and the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) comprising, facing the sensor, (See figure 3, ref # 420) a uniform internal surface (See figures 1-6, ref # 320) making it possible to calibrate the sensor (See figure 3, ref # 420) before the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) is ejected.
Regarding claim 4
Boiman teaches wherein the energy required to eject the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) is transmitted either by the pyrotechnic member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) or by any other mechanical system having an energy reserve.
Regarding claim 8
Boiman teaches wherein the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) is arranged so as to benefit from the aerodynamic forces involved in its ejection. (See figures 1, 2, & 6)
Regarding claim 9
Boiman teaches wherein the fuselage (See figure 1, ref # 1) comprises a first pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330B) about an axis transverse to a longitudinal axis (See figure 5, ref # LA) of the fuselage (See figure 1, ref # 1) and the cover (See figure 5, ref # 300) comprises a second pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330A) coming to rest against the first pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330B) in such a way that: the first pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330B) retains the second pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330A) as long as the cover (See figure 5, ref # 300) has a portion (See figure 2, ref # 355) opposite the pivot elements (See figure 4-5, ref # 330A & 330B) held applied against the fuselage, (See figure 1, ref # 1) and the second pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330A) escapes from the first pivot element (See figure 5, ref # 330B) when said portion of the cover (See figure 5, ref # 300) is detached from the fuselage. (See figures 2-5, ref # 1)
Regarding claim 10
Boiman teaches wherein the pivot element (See figures 1-6, ref # 330) may also be made using an attachment or any other mechanical element sized in such a way that it may break or separate after the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) is detached.
Regarding claim 11
Boiman teaches wherein the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) has a limited volume to extend just above the optronic sensor. (See figure 3, ref # 420)
Regarding claim 12
Boiman teaches wherein the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) is arranged so that the aerial vehicle (See figures 1-6, ref # 1) has profiles after ejection of the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) and before ejection of the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) which are close to one another. (See figure 6)
Regarding claim 14
Boiman teaches comprising at least one second sensor (See paragraphs 0065-0067 & figure 3, ref # 440) arranged outside the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) and the protection of the optronic sensor (See paragraphs 0065-0067 & figure 3, ref # 420) with said cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) allowing the functionality of the sensor (See paragraphs 0065-0067 & figure 3, ref # 420 & 440) throughout the entire flight phase. (See paragraphs 0065-0067 & 0086) As best as can be ascertained.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiman et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0108319 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Molesini et al. (Pub No. US 2022/0049765 A1).
Regarding claim 2
Boiman teaches wherein the retaining member (See paragraph 0100, bolts) is a bolt (See paragraph 0100, bolts) and the deactivation member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) is a pyrotechnic member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) arranged and sized so as to break the bolt. (See paragraph 0100, bolts)
Boiman does not teach a tie rod.
However, Molesini teaches an aerial vehicle (See paragraph 0071) and mechanical fasteners can be bolts, tie rods, etc. (See paragraph 0071)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tie rod as the fasteners as taught by Molesini in the aerial vehicle of Boiman, since bolts and tie rods are well-known types of fasteners and are therefore functionally equivalent. (See paragraph 0071)
Regarding claim 3
Boiman teaches wherein the bolt (See paragraph 0100, bolts) may be broken either at the bolt (See paragraph 0100, bolts) itself or at weakened areas arranged in the cover. (See paragraph 0100 & figures 1-6, ref # 300)
Boiman does not teach a tie rod.
However, Molesini teaches an aerial vehicle (See paragraph 0071) and mechanical fasteners can be bolts, tie rods, etc. (See paragraph 0071)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tie rod as the fasteners as taught by Molesini in the aerial vehicle of Boiman, since bolts and tie rods are well-known types of fasteners and are therefore functionally equivalent. (See paragraph 0071)
Regarding claim 5
Boiman teaches wherein the bolt (See paragraph 0100, bolts) and the pyrotechnic member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) are arranged in proximity so as to optimize the energy efficiency of the pyrotechnic member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) on the cover. (See paragraph 0100 & figures 1-6, ref # 300; removes cover, therefore is efficient)
Boiman does not teach a tie rod.
However, Molesini teaches an aerial vehicle (See paragraph 0071) and mechanical fasteners can be bolts, tie rods, etc. (See paragraph 0071)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tie rod as the fasteners as taught by Molesini in the aerial vehicle of Boiman, since bolts and tie rods are well-known types of fasteners and are therefore functionally equivalent. (See paragraph 0071)
Regarding claim 7
Boiman teaches wherein the pyrotechnic member (See paragraph 0100, explosive) is arranged to exert on the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) a force greater than the combination of a maximum retaining force exerted by the bolt (See paragraph 0100, bolts) on the cover (See figures 1-6, ref # 300) and the external environmental forces. (See paragraphs 0097-0101; it removes the cover, therefore would have to overcome the forces retaining the cover)
Boiman does not teach a tie rod.
However, Molesini teaches an aerial vehicle (See paragraph 0071) and mechanical fasteners can be bolts, tie rods, etc. (See paragraph 0071)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tie rod as the fasteners as taught by Molesini in the aerial vehicle of Boiman, since bolts and tie rods are well-known types of fasteners and are therefore functionally equivalent. (See paragraph 0071)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boiman et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0108319 A1) in view of Molesini et al. (Pub No. US 2022/0049765 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Patty et al. (Pub No. US 2022/0388695 A1).
Regarding claim 6
Boiman teaches the pyrotechnic element. (See paragraph 0100, explosive)
A modified Boiman is silent about wherein the pyrotechnic element is surrounded, at least partially, by a containment wall.
However, Patty teaches wherein the pyrotechnic element (See figures 1, 7, & 10-15, ref # 110) is surrounded, at least partially, by a containment wall. (See paragraphs 0035, 0044-0048 & figures 1, 7, & 10-15, ref # 110)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pyrotechnic element is surrounded, at least partially, by a containment wall as taught by Patty in the modified aerial vehicle of Boiman, so as to contain all gases, shrapnel, and other materials generated by detonation of the ordinance and prevent damage to other components. (See paragraph 0035 & 0048)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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. However, 112 rejections and claim objections need to be resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the control module is arranged to orientate the aerial vehicle in the terminal phase of flight of the aerial vehicle so as to benefit from the aerodynamic forces involved in ejecting the cover” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647