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 .
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, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pool (US 2164122).
Pool discloses the limitations in the claims as indicated below:
1. A parachute comprising: a canopy 1 defining a vent 2 having a perimeter defining an open area of the canopy (Shown in Fig. 1); a panel 5 arranged to cover at least a portion of the open area in a closed condition (See Fig. 2), the panel being attached to the canopy at or near the perimeter of the vent (attached at 3 – the perimeter ring shown clearly in Fig. 1 and 3 as the area which houses the eyelets 3); and a connector (3 and 8 – as well as disclosed break cords – Left column page 1 line 60 onward) secured to the panel and configured to control a transition of the panel from the closed condition (in Fig. 2) to an open condition (Fig 1) by being deformable based on an internal pressure within the canopy (Left column page 1 line 24 onward – “ such that the vent is closed or substantially closed when the canopy first takes the air, and is then permitted to open to its maximum size as the canopy deploys and slight air pressure is established therein”).
2. The parachute of claim 1, wherein being deformable comprises having a design breaking strength selected to break under a particular internal pressure (break cords – Left column page 1 line 60 onward).
3. The parachute of claim 2, wherein the connector is a ring (Shown clearly in Fig. 1 and 3).
4. The parachute of claim 3, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of subpanels extending from the perimeter of the vent to a central area of the vent and the ring connects the plurality of subpanels to one another at the central area (See fig. 2 panels shown as canopy gores as well we dotted lines in 5).
7. The parachute canopy of claim 1, wherein the panel, in the closed condition, forms an annular disk (See in Fig. 2) and, in an open position, forms a cylinder extending from the canopy (Seen in Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pool (US 2164122).
6. Pool discloses frangible cords but does not specifically teach The parachute of claim 1, wherein the first connector is at least one stitch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use frangible stiches as opposed to frangible cords, as they are equivalent and an obvious design choice for one in the art to use interchangeably. In this case a stitch would have allowed for a slightly tighter initial state of the cover than the cord.
8. Pool discloses a parachute but does not teach An airplane comprising the parachute canopy of claim 1. The Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art at the time of the invention for parachutes to be used on manned and unmanned aircraft, drones etc. It would have been obvious to use the parachute of Pool in these applications to slow a decent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are allowed.
The closest Prior art teach sliders having grommets, reinforcements, sleeves, for guiding suspension lines and mitigating shock. The prior art does not teach an annular body, a plurality of material strips, forming its own through hole, and the strips having a width that distributes radial load along a length of each suspension line during transition of the slider. Combine that with the limitation of the vent and cover as claimed. It would be nonobvious and in hindsight to construct the invention as claimed.
Claim 5 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.
The Prior art alone or in combination does not teach the cover of the vent for the canopy to have attachment means having more than one ring wherein the rings are connected using breakable stitching such that the different rings have different breaking strengths thereby defining the deformable connector. The closest prior art discloses a cover with breakable cords to maintain the cover lose to the vent, but does not suggest multiple breakable rings, and further does not disclose multiple strengths of breakable stiches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant appears to require the connector to be a rigid element that itself opens like a hinge or to require the panel to permanently remain in an open position. However, claim 1 does not recite these limitations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “connector” reads on Pool’s flexible rigging lines connected to the closure member and slidably extending through eyelets at the vent perimeter. Pool teaches that air pressure beneath the canopy forces the marginal parts of the vent apart, thereby increasing the dimensions of the air vent and drawing the closure member downward. Accordingly, the rigging lines, which are flexible/deformable cord-like members, control movement of the closure member relative to the vent in response to internal canopy pressure. Thus, Pool teaches or at least renders obvious a connector secured to the panel and configured to control transition of the panel from a closed condition to an open or semi-open condition by being deformable based on internal pressure within the canopy allowing air to escape through the edges of the closure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights