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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the improper use of shading in several figures, such as 1B, 1D, 1F, and 8C. Shading is permitted under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m) if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility; “Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings.” The drawings do not appear to follow these guidelines for shading. Furthermore, solid black shading areas are only permitted when used to represent bar graphs or color.
However, the drawings appear to be the grayscale conversion of color drawings or photographs. In the event that photographs or color drawings are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention, 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(2) and (b)(1,2) set forth the requirements for submitting color drawings and photographs. No petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(2) has been received or granted to accept color drawings. It does not appear that photographs or color drawings are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention, nor do the drawings appear to be of sufficient quality such that all details are reproducible in black and white. “Note that good quality copies are acceptable if the lines are uniformly thick, black, and solid” MPEP 608.02, section V. “If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph” 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1).
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, the limitations of claim 1 which claim a single embodiment with both a “spring-loaded pin” and “munition-retaining bolts” 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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “direction 2A”, “motion 2B”, “motion 2C” (Para 0100-0101) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “102b” has been used to designate both an ordnance/armed explosive (Fig. 1F) and a retention mechanism and pogo pins (perhaps in Fig. 1G). Also, “160” has been used. Also, “180” has been used to designate both “battery” in Fig. 1E and “deployment mechanism” in Fig. 1G. 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. 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 drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 110B (Para 0163), motor 3600 (Para 0129). 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. 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 drawings contain multiple issues such as these and should be inspected for further corrections, particularly regarding incorrect reference characters as they relate to the specification.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
The specification often refers to what seems like the same element by many different names. For example, “spring-loaded pin”, “munition-retaining bolt”, “pin”, “horizontal engagement pin”, “horizontal pin”, “retention pins”, “release pins”. As best understood, these may refer to the same element, but it is not clear. Further, there are other pins which it seems are not the same element, but that also is not clear (such as the “safety pin” which it seems is incorrectly being called the “spring-loaded pin” in the claims).
It is often unclear what embodiment is being referred to in the specification (and in the claims), and what overlap there is between embodiments. This is due to inconsistent nomenclature (as noted above) as well as inconsistent reference numerals. For example, 102b refers to “an armed explosive” (Para 0070), “a retention mechanism” (Para 0101), “digital pogo pins” (Para 0101), “an electronic arming device” (Para 0102), “pogo stick mechanism” (Para 0141). Also, 160 refers to both “flange” (Para 0086) and “horizontal engagement pin” (Para 0098). There are many other instances of this, such as reference character 180.
The issues are numerous, and often it is not clear what was intended in the first place. For these reasons a detailed revision should be made to the entire specification (and drawings) to comply with comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2: “a user operating remote controller” should read --a user operating a remote controller--.
Claim 7: “the electronic fuse activate” should read --the electronic fuse activates--.
Claim 12: “the motor is a servo motor a operably coupled” should read --the motor is a servo motor operably coupled--.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “munition-retaining bolts 155 configured to restrict a position of the munition in a loading position such that the at least one munitions module is prevented from moving when the spring- loaded pin is being removed in the loading position”. A munition-retaining bolt is referred to in the disclosure as 155 which is only shown in Fig. 1D. However, Para 0086 refers to 155 as “a pin 155”. This pin seems to be referring to the “spring-loaded pin” although this is not clear as there is also a safety pin which is a separate element. Fig. 1D does also refer to element 160 and in Para 0098 this element 160 is referred to as “horizontal engagement pin” and just as “the pin”. So which pin is which, and is element 155 a pin or the bolt?
Further, the claim states “the spring- loaded pin is being removed in the loading position”, but that is not what is described in the disclosure. The safety-pin is what seems to have this function. The spring-loaded pin cannot both be removed in the loading position, and then also released in order to release a munition as is recited at the end of the claim.
As such, it appears there is not one embodiment which includes all the claimed limitations, and therefore it fails the written description requirement.
Claim 5, 6, 17, and 18 recite “deployment unit having a rotatable dispensing plate operably coupled to multiple lids”. This does not relate to the embodiment of Fig. 1C-1D and therefore there does not seem to be an embodiment that contains all these limitations.
Claim 9 recites “multiple lever munition holding units”. This does not relate to the embodiment initially claimed (Fig. 1C-1D) and therefore there does not seem to be an embodiment that contains all these limitations.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1:
“a lever engaging interlock engagement frame 150”. It is not clear what structure this is claiming. Is it describing one element which is a frame? Or is there a lever which is engaging an interlock engagement frame?
Lack of antecedent basis for “each of the plurality of munitions”, as only “munitions modules” have been introduced. Also “the munition” in page lines 11, 14.
Lack of antecedent basis for “the spring-loaded pin” and “the loading position”.
Lack of antecedent basis for “the lever engaging frame” and “the interlock engagement frame”.
Lack of antecedent basis for “the at least one munitions module”. Likely should read --the plurality of munitions modules--.
Lack of antecedent basis for “the loading position” in line 16.
Lines 19-20 recite “engagement features configured to translate a corresponding release the spring-loaded pins such that at least one of the plurality of munitions is released”. It is unclear grammatically what is meant by this.
Claim 2:
It is unclear what is meant by “POGO ports”. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
Lack of antecedent basis for “the munition”.
Claim 3:
It is unclear what is meant by “the AMLDS”. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
Claim 4:
The preamble states “The munitions of claim 1”, but claim 1 is not drawn to a munitions, it is an “LBDS”. It is unclear how this further limits the claim.
It is unclear what is meant by “the AMLDS”. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
Claim 5:
“a multiple lever munitions holding units” – it is unclear what is meant by this. It is at least grammatically unclear. Also, it is stated: “holding units further comprising…”, but they have not first been defined by comprising anything, so how can they further comprise something?
Claim 5 and 6 appears to claim elements of a dispensing plate and lids which do not relate to the embodiment of Fig. 1C
Claim 7:
The phrase "(e.g.)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8:
Lack of antecedent basis for “each of the plurality of munitions” and “the plurality of munitions”, as only “munitions modules” have been introduced. Also “the munition” in line 12, 14.
Lines 11-12 recite “engagement features configured to translate a corresponding release pins pins such that at least one of the plurality of munitions is released”. It is unclear what is meant by this. What are “a corresponding release pins” and what are “the plurality of munitions”?
Claim 9:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the plate configured with protrusions”, “the engagement of the protrusions”, “the lever engaging frame”.
“multiple lever munitions holding units” – it is unclear what is meant by this. It is at least grammatically unclear.
Claims 10-11:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the lever engaging frame”, “the spring-loaded pin”, “the munition”, “the safety pin”.
Claim 12:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the spring-loaded pin”, “the stowage mode”, “the munition”, “the lever engaging frame”.
Claim 13:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the munition”, “the safety pin”.
Lack of antecedent basis for “the at least one munitions module”. Likely should read --the plurality of munitions modules--.
Claim 14:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the munition”.
It is unclear what is meant by “POGO ports”. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
Claim 15-16:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the servo”, “the launched munition”.
It is unclear what is meant by “the AMLDS”. Is it an acronym? What does it stand for?
Claim 16:
The preamble states “The munitions of claim 1”, but claim 1 is not drawn to a munitions, it is an “LBDS”. It is unclear how this further limits the claim.
Claim 17:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the multiple lever munitions holding units”. It is unclear what is meant by this. It is at least grammatically unclear.
Claim 17 and 18 appears to claim elements of a dispensing plate and lids which do not relate to the embodiment of Fig. 1C-1D.
Claim 19:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the munition”, “the safety pin”, “the spoon of the munition”, “the detonation mechanism”.
The phrase "(e.g.)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20:
Lack of antecedent basis for “the activation signal”.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
In light of the numerous issues with the disclosure and the claims regarding clarity, it is not clear how to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims. As such, and as best interpreted by the examiner, it is not clear what prior art could read on the claims, and therefore prior art cannot be applied until a level of understanding is established.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 J MICHENER can be reached at (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 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642