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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
The examiner is aware of the functional/intended use language in the claims below.
Drawings Objections
MATERIAL NOT SHOWN
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, contact portion, contact portions, an orbital track, landing guide unit partially surrounds the sail from a side and above, 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.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire drawings and correct all such informalities.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “being” are not positive limitations inasmuch as the terms including the word "being" are passive and thus do not serve to clearly limit the structure in an active sense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 objected to because of the following informalities: (there). Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
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 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the term “in such a manner” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination, it is unclear what the term “in such a manner” refers to.
Re claim 1 the phrases "the contact portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, also, it is unclear what "the contact portions” refer to.
Re claim 4 the phrases "the outer periphery”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, also, it is unclear what "the outer periphery” refer to.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
Reference of prior art
Labrador. (US 5435259, Rein-deer Kite And Its Control Systems).
Vander Lind. (US 20150183516, Spar Buoy Platform).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrador and further in view of Vander Lind.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Labrador discloses:
A kite launching and landing guide device that is disposed in a floating unit including a winch and a sail (items 22, 13, 16), the winch being configured to unwind and wind a tether with a kite attached to the tether (items 1, 13, 16, 20, 2), the kite launching and landing guide device comprising: a position setting unit configured to set a position where the tether is unwound and wound to a position where the tether and the kite do not interfere with at least the sail of the floating unit (item 29 comprising unnumbered pully); and
However Labrador fails to teach as disclosed by Vander Lind: a launching and landing guide unit including a contact portion, the launching and landing guide unit being configured to, when the tether is wound by the winch, fix the kite by contacting the kite at the contact portion by a tension received from the winch via the tether (items 56a, 56b, …extend outwardly from rotatable drum ), and being configured to, when the tether is unwound or wound via the position setting unit , guide the kite and the tether in such a manner that the tether passes through a space beside the contact portion or between the contact portions (items 56a, 56b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Vander Lind teachings of a launching and landing guide unit including a contact portion, the launching and landing guide unit being configured to, when the tether is wound by the winch, fix the kite by contacting the kite at the contact portion by a tension received from the winch via the tether, and being configured to, when the tether is unwound or wound via the position setting unit, guide the kite and the tether in such a manner that the tether passes through a space beside the contact portion or between the contact portions into the Labrador, to include perch support members for the kite.
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Labrador, as modified above, discloses: The kite launching and landing guide device according to claim 1, wherein: the launching and landing guide unit includes, as the contact portion, a pair of arms provided at both sides of the position setting unit (Vander Lind items 56a, 56b); and the launching and landing guide unit is configured to when the tether is wound, hold the kite in a predetermined attitude for launching and landing by contacting the kite at the arms, and when the tether is unwound or wound, guide the kite and the tether by causing the tether to pass between the arms (Vander Lind items 56a, 56b).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Labrador, as modified above, discloses: The kite launching and landing guide device according to claim 1, further comprising a movement guide unit configured to hold the position setting unit and the launching and landing guide unit in such a manner that the position setting unit and the launching and landing guide unit are movable along an outer periphery of an interference region, the interference region being a region where there is a possibility that the sail is present when the sail is rotated, as viewed in plan (Labrador items 26, 29).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Labrador, as modified above, discloses: The kite launching and landing guide device according to claim 3, wherein: the movement guide unit includes a guide rail having an orbital track laid along the outer periphery (Labrador items 26, 29); the position setting unit includes a movable pulley mounted so as to be movable along the guide rail (Labrador items 26, 29 comprise unnumbered pully); and the launching and landing guide unit is mounted so as to be movable with the position setting unit along the guide rail (Labrador items 26, 29).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Labrador, as modified above, discloses: The kite launching and landing guide device according to claim 1, wherein the launching and landing guide unit has such a shape that the launching and landing guide unit partially surrounds the sail from a side and above (Labrador items 26, 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights