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 § 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 16-30 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 limitations “articulation members” and “controlling means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clearly linked as to what structural element performs the function of articulating or controlling. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency from rejected claims.
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) 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazes (US 7,303,168) in view of Borisenko (RU 4278).
Regarding claim 16, Lazes discloses a device for discharging a fluid off an aircraft, the device comprising:
two articulation members (the members connecting the base of the door 8 to the aircraft);
a foldable nozzle (7) having an inlet (22), an outlet (the opening created by the rear edge of the aircraft door and the tail of the aircraft), and closing means (24) configured for closing a portion of the inlet of the foldable nozzle (The valve opens and closes the inlet), wherein the foldable nozzle further comprises a deflector plate (32);
actuating means (The actuator for opening the cargo door), but fails to disclose the device including a plurality of frames and a covering material located in between frames of the plurality of frames, wherein the plurality of frames has two ends rotatably attached to the articulation members.
Borisenko discloses a spray device that includes a plurality of frames (16) and a covering material (8) located in between frames of a plurality of frames (Figure 4), wherein the plurality of frames has two ends rotatably attached to the articulation members (Figure 4; the members are attached to the rotating portions of the floor).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lazes with the disclosures of Borisenko providing the device to include a plurality of frames (Borisenko, 16) and a covering material (Borisenko, 8) located in between frames of a plurality of frames (Borisenko, Figure 4), wherein the plurality of frames has two ends rotatably attached to the articulation members (Figure 4; the members are attached to the rotating portions of the Lazes cargo door), in order to provide for a discharge device appropriate for chemical protection of forests, as disclosed by Borisenko (lines 181-183).
As modified, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses a device that include actuating means configured for rotating the plurality of frames (actuation by the plane will rotate the frames to an open position);
The deflector plate (Lazes, 32) located in between at least two frames of the plurality of frames.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 17, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, further comprising: supporting means arranged connecting the articulation members (Examiner’s Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the deflector plate is located between a last two successive frames of the plurality of frames at the outlet of the foldable nozzle (As modified).
Should it be found that the member is not arranged as claimed, it would have been obvious to arrange the deflector plate as claimed since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 19, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the actuating means comprise a manual actuator, an electro mechanic actuator, an electromotor actuator, a pneumatic actuator, a hydraulic actuator, or any combination thereof (As modified; Examiner notes that the door may also be manually opened).
Regarding claim 20, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the actuating means further comprise locking means configured for locking the foldable nozzle (40a, the members lock the nozzle in the closed position).
Regarding claim 21, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the deflector plate is made of a metallic material or a composite material (Metal, based upon the drawing identifiers).
Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the covering material is made of a textile or a plastic (Borisenko, Line 249, Kapron fabric).
Regarding claim 23, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the outlet of the foldable nozzle, in an extended position of the foldable nozzle, is located in a range with respect to horizontal datum, but fails to disclose this range is -20 or +20 degrees.
Lazes depicts the general condition of the nozzle being extended at an angle. And it appears the device would perform equally well with the claimed structure. Applicant has not disclosed criticality to the range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the angle within the claimed range since it has been held that ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ See MPEP 2144.05, section II.
Regarding claim 24, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the device according to claim 16, wherein the plurality of frames are telescopic frames configured for extending away from the articulation members (As modified, the frames are arranged to form a telescoping member that extends away from the articulation members).
Regarding claim 25, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses a firefighting system comprising: the device for discharging a fluid off an aircraft according to claim 16 (Lazes, abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the firefighting system according to claim 25, further comprising: a tank (21); and a discharge conduct (Figure 4, the conduct connecting the tank and pump 23) having an inlet and an outlet (Figure 4, the connection to the tank is the inlet and the connection to the pump is the outlet), wherein the tank is in fluid communication with the inlet of the discharge conduct and wherein the device is in fluid communication with the outlet of the discharge conduct (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 27, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses an aircraft comprising: the firefighting system according to claim 25 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 28, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the aircraft according to claim 27, further comprising: controlling means configured for controlling the actuating means (The system suggests control for opening of the door).
Regarding claim 29, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses a method for discharging a fluid off an aircraft, the method comprising the following steps: a) providing the firefighting system according to claim 25 (Abstract); b) extending the foldable nozzle by the actuating means until the outlet of the foldable nozzle reaches a predetermined position (Column 5, lines 10-17); and, c) discharging the fluid off the aircraft (Column 5, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 30, Lazes in view of Borisenko discloses the method according to claim 29, wherein the predetermined position of step b) is selected from a first predetermined position, a second predetermined position, or a third predetermined position (Column 5, lines 10-13, open position), but fails to disclose wherein as the first predetermined position, the outlet of the foldable nozzle is oriented at -20 degrees with respect to horizontal datum, wherein at the second predetermined position, the outlet of the foldable nozzle is parallel to horizontal datum, and, wherein at the third predetermined position, the outlet of the foldable nozzle is oriented at +20 degrees with respect to horizontal datum.
Lazes depicts the general condition of the nozzle being extended at an angle. And it appears the device would perform equally well with the claimed structure. Applicant has not disclosed criticality to the range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the angle within the claimed range since it has been held that ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ See MPEP 2144.05, section II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
