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 .
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.
(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(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (US Patent No. 6513760).
Regarding claim 1, Mueller teaches an aerial device comprising: a body member (element 32); and a retention member (element 34) having an interior space and a rearward portion that is operable to matingly engage with a forward portion of the body member to carry a payload within the interior space in cooperation with the forward portion of the body member (Figure 1); wherein the retention member includes a collar (element 48) having an inner perimeter that defines an opening that is in communication with the interior space (Figure 1); wherein a forward portion of the payload extends through the opening (element 34 comprises engine 45 and orbital maneuvering device 46 as depicted in Figures 6A-6F. These elements extend through the opening and satisfy the limitation inasmuch as applicant has claimed) while the rearward portion of the retention member is matingly engaged with the forward portion of the body member (as depicted in Figure 1); and wherein the inner perimeter of the collar substantially abuts a portion of an outer surface of the payload while the rearward portion of the retention member is matingly engaged with the forward portion of the body member (as depicted in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Mueller teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the retention member includes at least one rail having an end portion connected to the collar (per Figure 1, retention member and collar comprise a plurality of unlabeled rails spanning from propellant tank 144 to the collar 48).
Regarding claim 3, Mueller teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein at least a portion of an inward surface of the at least one rail significantly abuts a portion of the outer surface of the payload while the rearward portion of the retention member is matingly engaged with the forward portion of the body member (as depicted in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mueller teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising at least one engagement member mounted on at least one of the body member and the retention member (Col. 3, lines 54-60); wherein the at least one engagement member is operable to be reversibly engaged with an engagement unit of an aerial vehicle (Col. 3, lines 54-60).
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) 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US Patent No. 6513760) in view of Ransom et al. (US Patent No. 5593110).
Regarding claim 5, Mueller teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a thruster to selectively provide a thrust force (elements 40, 45, 46, and 72). Mueller fails to specifically teach a plurality of fins connected to and extending from the body member; wherein at least a portion of each one of the plurality of fins is operable to rotatably move. However, use of a control system comprising sensors and rotatably supported control fins with control surfaces used on board rockets is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figure 1 and the abstract of Ransom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate the control fin system of Ransom onto Mueller’s rocket system, in order to sense and provide position adjustments to compensate for crosswise forces (as taught by Ransom).
Regarding claim 8, Mueller in view of Ransom teaches the invention in claim 5, further comprising: a controller in communication with the thruster (Col. 4, lines 60-65, and Col. 5 lines 34-57 of Mueller), and the plurality of fins (see cited response of Ransom in response to claim 5); at least one sensor positionable in communication with the controller and operable to sense at least one characteristic data point (abstract of Ransom); and a power unit in communication with the controller and the at least one sensor (Avionics package, batteries, proximity sensors, and controllers found in Col. 5 lines 34-57 of Mueller incorporated with Ransom’s sensors, controllers, and fins as cited in response to Claim 5); wherein the at least one sensor is operable to provide a sensor signal based on the at least one characteristics data point (abstract of Ransom); and wherein the controller is operable to selectively control at least one of the thruster and the fins based on the sensor signal (Col. 4, lines 60-65 of Mueller and the abstract of Ransom).
Regarding claim 10, Mueller in view of Ransom teaches the invention in claim 8, wherein the controller is operable to determine at least one path of travel based on the sensor signal (Avionics package, star trackers, batteries, proximity sensors, and controllers found in Col. 5 lines 34-57 of Mueller incorporated with Ransom’s sensors, controllers, and fins as cited in response to Claim 5); and wherein the controller is operable to selectively control at least one of the thruster and the fins based on the at least one path of travel determined (Col. 4, lines 60-65 of Mueller and the abstract of Ransom).
Regarding claim 11, Mueller teaches an aerial device comprising: a body member (element 32); a retention member (element 34) having an interior space and a rearward portion that is operable to matingly engage with a forward portion of the body member to carry a payload within the interior space in cooperation with the forward portion of the body member (Figure 1); at least one engagement member mounted on at least one of the body member and the retention member (Col. 3, lines 54-60); a thruster to selectively provide a thrust force (elements 40, 45, 46, 72); wherein the retention member includes a collar (element 48) having an inner perimeter that defines an opening that is in communication with the interior space (Figure 1); wherein a forward portion of the payload extends through the opening (element 34 comprises engine 45 and orbital maneuvering device 46 as depicted in Figures 6A-6F. These elements extend through the opening and satisfy the limitation inasmuch as applicant has claimed) while the rearward portion of the retention member is matingly engaged with the forward portion of the body member (as depicted in Figure 1); wherein the inner perimeter of the collar substantially abuts a portion of an outer surface of the payload while the rearward portion of the retention member is matingly engaged with the forward portion of the body member (as depicted in Figure 1); wherein the retention member includes at least one rail having an end portion connected to the collar (per Figure 1, retention member and collar comprise a plurality of unlabeled rails spanning from propellant tank 144 to the collar 48); wherein at least a portion of an inward surface of the at least one rail significantly abuts a portion of the outer surface of the payload while the rearward portion of the retention member is matingly engaged with the forward portion of the body member (as depicted in Figure 1); and wherein the at least one engagement member is operable to be reversibly engaged with an engagement unit of an aerial vehicle (Col. 3, lines 54-60). Mueller fails to specifically teach a plurality of fins connected to and extending from the body member. However, use of a control system comprising sensors and rotatably supported control fins with control surfaces used on board rockets is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figure 1 and the abstract of Ransom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, to incorporate the control fin system of Ransom onto Mueller’s rocket system, in order to sense and provide position adjustments to compensate for crosswise forces (as taught by Ransom).
Regarding claim 14, Mueller in view of Ransom teaches the invention in claim 11, further comprising: a controller in communication with the thruster (Col. 4, lines 60-65, and Col. 5 lines 34-57 of Mueller) and the plurality of fins (see cited response of Ransom in response to claim 11); at least one sensor positionable in communication with the controller and operable to sense at least one characteristic data point (abstract of Ransom); and a power unit in communication with the controller and the at least one sensor; wherein the at least one sensor is operable to provide a sensor signal based on the at least one characteristics data point (Avionics package, batteries, proximity sensors, and controllers found in Col. 5 lines 34-57 of Mueller incorporated with Ransom’s sensors, controllers, and fins as cited in response to Claim 5); wherein at least a portion of each one of the plurality of fins is operable to rotatably move; wherein the controller is operable to selectively control at least one of the thruster and the fins based on the sensor signal (Col. 4, lines 60-65 of Mueller and the abstract of Ransom).
Regarding claim 16, Mueller in view of Ransom teaches the invention in claim 14, wherein the controller is operable to determine at least one path of travel based on the sensor signal (Avionics package, star trackers, batteries, proximity sensors, and controllers found in Col. 5 lines 34-57 of Mueller incorporated with Ransom’s sensors, controllers, and fins as cited in response to Claim 5); and wherein the controller is operable to selectively control at least one of the thruster and the fins based on the at least one path of travel determined (Col. 4, lines 60-65 of Mueller and the abstract of Ransom).
Claim(s) 6-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US Patent No. 6513760) in view of Ransom et al. (US Patent No. 5593110), and Bauer et al.(DE 102017113058 A1), hereinafter “the combination of Mueller”.
Regarding claim 6, Mueller in view of Ransom teaches the invention in claim 5, but fails to specifically teach the device further comprising wings connected to at least one of the body member and the retention member; wherein at least a portion of each of the wings is operable to rotatably move. However, use of rotatably supported wings with control surfaces used on board rocket systems is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-7 and the abstract of Bauer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the payload system of Mueller with the rotatable wings of Bauer, in order to provide glide and control capabilities for the payload upon re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mueller teaches the invention in claim 6, further comprising a travel propulsion member mounted on and extending from at least one of a portion of the body member and a portion of the retention member (elements 45, 46, and 72 of Mueller satisfy this limitation); wherein the travel propulsion member is operable to generate a travel thrust in a rearward direction (elements 45, 46, and 72 satisfy this limitation).
Regarding claim 12, Mueller in view of Ransom teaches the invention in claim 11, but fails to specifically teach the device further comprising wings connected to at least one of the body member and the retention member; wherein at least a portion of each of the wings is operable to rotatably move. However, use of rotatably supported wings with control surfaces used on board rocket systems is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-7 and the abstract of Bauer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the payload system of Mueller with the rotatable wings of Bauer, in order to provide glide and control capabilities for the payload upon re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mueller teaches the invention in claim 12, further comprising a travel propulsion member mounted on and extending from at least one of a portion of the body member and a portion of the retention member (elements 45, 46, and 72 of Mueller satisfy this limitation); wherein the travel propulsion member is operable to generate a travel thrust in a rearward direction (elements 45, 46, and 72 of Mueller satisfy this limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowable.
Claims 9, and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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 D 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644