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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,952 B2 (hereinafter ‘952) in view of Burgess (US9849981B1).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, claim 2 (which depends on claim 1) of patent ‘952 recites a dock and a suspended load control apparatus (“the deployable equipment comprises a suspended load control apparatus” claim 2 of patent ‘952) and method, comprising: a docking interface, an electrical interface, wherein a rechargeable battery of the suspended load control apparatus is to recharge through the electrical interface; wherein the suspended load control apparatus comprises: a thruster, a computer processor, a memory; wherein the memory comprises a load control module (“the deployable equipment module is a load control module” claim 2 of patent ‘952), but lacks wherein the docking interface is to releasably secure the suspended load control apparatus to the dock; the load control module which, when executed by the computer processor, is to control the thruster to influence a motion (“rotation or movement” claim 3 of patent ‘952) the suspended load control apparatus at least in part using an electrical power from the rechargeable battery. Burgess teaches a similar dock and suspending load control apparatus and further teaches wherein the docking interface (114; Figures 1A-1C) is to releasably secure the suspended load control apparatus (106) to the dock (100, 114); the load control module (124, 126; 556; Figures 1D and 5E) which, when executed by the computer processor (120), is to control the thruster (162; 164) to influence a motion the suspended load control apparatus (106; Figure 3B; column 15, line 35 – column 16, line 31; column 30, line 34 – column 31, line 14; control system controls thrusters based on a predetermined path of descent) at least in part using an electrical power from the rechargeable battery (134). It would have been obvious to modify claim 2 of patent ‘952 to include the docking interface as taught by Burgess in order to prevent movement of the suspended load control apparatus and load for better aircraft carrier flight stabilization and preventing impacts with each other; and include the load control module a taught by Burgess in order to stabilize and balance the swinging movement of the suspended load control apparatus and load.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 19, patent ‘952 recites the above dock and suspending load control apparatus, but lacks wherein the dock is further to releasably secure the suspended load control apparatus to a carrier. Burgess teaches a similar dock and suspending load control apparatus and further teaches wherein the dock (100, 114) is further to releasably secure the suspended load control apparatus (106) to a carrier (100; Figure 1A-1B). It would have been obvious to modify patent ‘952 to include the dock and carrier as taught by Burgess in order to prevent movement of the suspended load control apparatus and load for better aircraft carrier flight stabilization and preventing impacts with each other.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, claim 6 (which depends on claim 2) of patent ‘952 recites wherein the carrier comprises a hoist and a suspension cable, wherein the suspended load control apparatus is to be secured to the suspension cable.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, claim 6 (which depends on claim 2) of patent ‘952 recites wherein the suspended load control apparatus is to be secured to a load.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, patent ‘952 recites the above dock and suspending load control apparatus, but lacks wherein the load is to be releasable from the suspended load control apparatus. Burgess teaches a similar dock and suspending load control apparatus and further teaches wherein the load (108) is to be releasable from the suspended load control apparatus (106; Figures 1B-1C). It would have been obvious to modify patent ‘952 to include the releasable load as taught by Burgess in order to pick up and drop a load at specific targeted areas for quick transport.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 21, claim 2 of patent ‘952 recites wherein the suspended load control apparatus further comprises a sensor suite and wherein the load control module, when executed by the computer processor, is to obtain a sensor data and estimate or predict a state of the suspended load control apparatus based on the sensor data.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, claim 4 (which depends on claim 2) of patent ‘952 recites wherein the state of the suspended load control apparatus comprises at least one of an orientation (“orientation mapping”).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, claim 4 (which depends on claim 2) of patent ‘952 recites wherein to control the thruster to influence the motion the suspended load control apparatus at least in part using an electrical power from the rechargeable battery comprises to control the thruster to influence a near-term future state of the suspended load control apparatus.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “Disclosed are” in line 1 should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 2, line 2 of claim 9, and line 2 of claim 17, “motion the” should read ---motion of the---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means to dock” in line 2 of claim 18.
“means to releasably secure” in line 3 of claim 18.
“means to recharge” in line 5 of claim 18.
“means to control” in line 7 of claim 18.
“means to releasably secure” in line 2 of claim 19.
“means to secure” in lines 2-3 of claim 20.
“means to obtain” in line 2 of claim 21.
“means to estimate” in line 3 of claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burgess (US9849981B1).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, Burgess discloses a dock (100, 114; Figures 1A-1D) and a suspended load control apparatus (106), a method to influence a motion of a suspended load control apparatus (106), comprising: a docking interface (114), wherein the docking interface (114) is to releasably secure the suspended load control apparatus (106) to the dock (100, 114); an electrical interface (132, 135), wherein a rechargeable battery (134; column 9, lines 44-63; supplies power to components of the suspended load control apparatus, e.g. thrusters; Figure 1D) of the suspended load control apparatus (106) is to recharge through the electrical interface (132, 135; column 9, lines 44-63; charging terminals 135 may include conductive pads arranged to electrically couple to corresponding terminals on the UAV); wherein the suspended load control apparatus (106) comprises: a thruster (162; 164), a computer processor (120), a memory (122); wherein the memory (106) comprises a load control module (124, 126; 556; Figures 1D and 5E) which, when executed by the computer processor (120), is to control the thruster (162; 164) to influence a motion the suspended load control apparatus (106; Figure 3B; column 15, line 35 – column 16, line 31; column 30, line 34 – column 31, line 14; control system controls thrusters based on a predetermined path of descent) at least in part using an electrical power from the rechargeable battery (134).
Regarding claims 3-4, 11-12, and 19-20, Burgess discloses
wherein the dock (100, 114) is further to releasably secure the suspended load control apparatus (106) to a carrier (100; Figure 1A-1B);
wherein the carrier (100) comprises a hoist (104; Figure 1B) and a suspension cable (102), wherein the suspended load control apparatus (106) is to be secured to the suspension cable (102), wherein the suspension cable (102) is secured to a hoist (104), and the hoist (104) is secured to the carrier (100).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 13-14, Burgess discloses
wherein the suspended load control apparatus (106) is to be secured to a load (108; Figure 1B);
wherein the load (108) is to be releasable from the suspended load control apparatus (106; Figures 1B-1C).
Regarding claims 7-8, 15-16, and 21, Burgess discloses
wherein the suspended load control apparatus (106) further comprises a sensor suite (150; Figure 1D) and wherein the load control module (124, 126), when executed by the computer processor (120), is to obtain a sensor data (column 8, line 58 – column 9, line 14) and estimate or predict a state of the suspended load control apparatus (106) based on the sensor data (column 14, line 4 – column 16, line 31; control system monitors positioning information to detect a deviation from the predetermined path of descent);
wherein estimating or predicting the state of the suspended load control apparatus (106) based on the sensor data further comprises estimating or predicting at least one of a position, orientation, or motion of the suspended load control apparatus (106; column 14, line 4 – column 16, line 31; e.g. estimate current altitude of the payload release device; detect a collision event).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Burgess discloses
wherein to control the thruster (162; 164) to influence the motion the suspended load control apparatus (106) at least in part using an electrical power from the rechargeable battery (134) comprises to control the thruster (162; 164) to influence a near-term future state of the suspended load control apparatus (106; column 15, line 34 – column 16, line 31; Figures 3B and 5A-5B; the control system detects a deviation from the predetermined path of descent and causes the translational positioning system, thrusters, to direct the payload release device toward the predetermined path of descent).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights