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 . Claims 1-13 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 5-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunz (U.S. Patent No. 5,937,698), hereinafter Kunz.
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and Claim 5, Kunz discloses a belt-driven centrifugal force propulsion system (Figure 1) comprising:
a first pulley, 20, coupled to a second pulley, 36, by a weighted belt, 42, where the first pulley has a first pulley size greater than a second pulley size (the size of the first pulley is greater than the size of the second pulley);
a power source, 32, coupled to the second pulley (Column 3, Lines 15-27 – the power source includes an electric motor (Claim 5) that drives the second pulley, 36), where the power source rotates the second pulley (Column 3, Lines 15-27 – the power source includes the motor that drives the second pulley, 36), where a rotation of the weighted belt around the first pulley and around the second pulley generates a laterally directed net motive vector force in the first pulley relative to the second pulley (Figures 1 and 4 – Column 4, Lines 13-18 – the rotation of the belt about the pulleys generates a linear/lateral net motive vector force, as shown by the arrow in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Kunz discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kunz further discloses orientation of the first and second pulleys can be altered to alter direction of the net motive vector force (Column 5, Lines 25-28 –the pulleys are attached to the base which may be moved to change the orientation of the pulleys to effect a change in direction of the force vector).
Regarding Independent Claim 7, Kunz discloses a vehicle, 10, comprising:
an asymmetrical device, 20, 32, 36 and 42 , having a first end wider than a second end (Figure 1 – the asymmetrical device has an end at the first pulley, 20, that is wider than the end at the second pulley, 36), said device having first, 20, and second pulleys, 36, coupled by a weighted belt, 42, said device securely attached within said vehicle (the device is attached within the footprint of the vehicle shown), the device driven by a source of motive power, 32;
where a rotation of the weighted belt around the first pulley and around the second pulley generates a laterally directed net motive vector force in the first pulley relative to the second pulley (Figures 1 and 4 – Column 4, Lines 13-18 – the rotation of the belt about the pulleys generates a linear/lateral net motive vector force, as shown by the arrow in Figure 4), said force propelling said vehicle (Figures 1 and 4 – Column 4, Lines 13-18 – the rotation of the belt about the pulleys generates a linear/lateral net motive vector force, as shown by the arrow in Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Kunz discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kunz further discloses said source of motive power is an electric motor (Column 3, Lines 15-27 – the power source includes an electric motor).
Regarding Claim 12, Kunz discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kunz further discloses orientation of the first and second pulleys can be altered to alter direction of the net motive vector force (Column 5, Lines 25-28 –the pulleys are attached to the base which may be moved to change the orientation of the pulleys to effect a change in direction of the force vector).
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) 2-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz in view of Opalek (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0290770), hereinafter Opalek.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Kunz discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kunz does not disclose a microcontroller to determine at least one of a direction of the net motive vector force or a speed of rotation of the weighted belt around the first pulley and the second pulley.
However, Opalek teaches a centrifugal propulsion system (Title) that uses a microcontroller to determine at least one of a direction of the net motive vector force (Figure 15 – Paragraphs 0064 and 0118 – the microprocessor/microcontroller determines/calculates the force vector and thus the direction of the force vector).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kunz by including a microcontroller to determine at least one of a direction of the net motive vector force, as taught by Opalek, in order to provide a guidance system that governs the drive mechanism (Opalek – Paragraph 0064).
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Kunz in view of Opalek disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the term “embedded” is defined by Merriam-Webster.com as “functioning as part of a larger device rather than as an independent unit or system”. Thus the structure of Kunz in view of Opalek have a microprocessor that is part of the propulsion system, which is a larger device. Thus the combination of Kunz in view of Opalek would result in the limitation of the microcontroller comprises an embedded microcontroller.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Kunz in view of Opalek disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kunz in view of Opalek, as discussed so far, do not disclose an input control device in communication with the microcontroller to communicate the direction of the net motive vector force or a speed of rotation of the weighted belt around the first pulley and the second pulley to the microcontroller.
However, Opalek teaches an input control device in communication with the microcontroller (Paragraph 0075 – the sensors coupled to the microprocessor/microcontroller are input control devices) to communicate the direction of the net motive vector force to the microcontroller (Paragraph 0075 – the sensors provide the information to the microcontroller to determine the propulsion/maneuverability/direction of force vector).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Kunz in view of Opalek to include an input control device in communication with the microcontroller to communicate the direction of the net motive vector force, as taught by Opalek, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claims 2 and 8.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz.
Regarding Claim 13, Kunz discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kunz does not disclose two or more asymmetrical devices are positioned within said vehicle. However it is noted that the limitation “two or more asymmetrical devices are positioned within said vehicle” is a duplication of parts already disclosed by Kunz. . It has been held that "the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B). Thus the Kunz discloses the limitations of Claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barbeito (U.S. Patent No. 11,781,623), Abers (U.S. Patent No. 11,047,369), Silver (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2010/0186527), and Nowlan (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2005/0039556) all show centrifugal propulsion systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
