Upon further review and consideration this is a NEW Non-Final action. The previous action has been Vacated. The period for reply has been reset by this action and applicants are given a new 3 month shortened statutory period
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 contains the phrase “the empennage includes a right wing portion located at the right side of the body and a left wing portion located at the left side of the body” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain if the empennage includes the previously claimed right and left wing portions or if the phrase is referring to a new set of wing portions. As best understood, the phrase refers to a new set of wing portions and is analogous to left and right empennage portions cited in claim 8.
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) 1, 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim, Korean Patent KR102202014).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an unmanned aircraft (Figures 1 and 2 element 1) comprising :a body extending in a front-rear direction of the unmanned aircraft (Figure 2 element 11); a fixed wing connected to the body and including a right wing portion and a left wing portion (Figure 2 elements 12 and 13); and a rotation support that supports the fixed wing with respect to the body such that the fixed wing is angularly displaced between a flying state and an accommodated state (Figure 2, unlabeled rotation point of element 12).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the above unmanned aircraft wherein: the fixed wing includes a main wing (Figure 2 element 12) and an empennage (Figure 2 element 13); the main wing includes a right wing portion located at a right side of the body and a left wing portion located at a left side of the body (Figure 2 unlabeled left and right portions of element 12); the empennage includes a right wing portion located at the right side of the body and a left wing portion located at the left side of the body (Figure 2 unlabeled left and right portions of element 13); and the rotation support includes a main wing rotation support that connects the main wing to the body such that the main wing is angularly displaceable relative to the body (Figure 2 unlabeled rotation point of element 12) and an empennage rotation support that connects the empennage to the body such that the empennage is angularly displaceable relative to the body (Figure 3 element 133).
Regarding claim 8, see figure 2 element 13 and figure 3 element 133.
Regarding claim 9, see figure 3 element 133.
Regarding claim 11, see figure 2 left, right and central portions of element 12 and unlabeled rotation point of element 12.
Regarding claim 12, see figures 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Groutage et al. (hereinafter Groutage, US Patent Number 4842218).
Regarding claim 1, Groutage discloses an unmanned aircraft (Figure 1 elements 20, 22, 24 and Figure 2) comprising :a body extending in a front-rear direction of the unmanned aircraft (Figures 2 and 3 element 26); a fixed wing connected to the body and including a right wing portion and a left wing portion (Figures 2 and 3 element 40); and a rotation support that supports the fixed wing with respect to the body such that the fixed wing is angularly displaced between a flying state and an accommodated state (Figures 5 and 6 element 81).
Regarding claim 3, Groutage discloses the above unmanned aircraft further comprising a fixture that is located away from the rotation support and fixes the fixed wing to the body (Figures 2 and 3 element 44).
Regarding claim 4, Groutage discloses the above unmanned aircraft wherein in the flying state, the rotation support is located closer to a front-rear center of the body than the fixture is (Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, see figure left, right and central portions of element 40 and figure 6.
Regarding claim 12, see figures 2, 3 and 6 element 40 and figure 2 element 42.
Regarding claim 17, see figure 4 element 44.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (hereinafter Tao, US Patent Number 10583910).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the above unmanned aircraft wherein the empennage includes the left and right empennage portions (Figure 2 element 13) and the empennage rotation support coupling the portions (Figure 3 element 133), but fails to teach of the empennage rotation support penetrating the body.
However, Tao discloses a similar UAV (Figure 13a-d element 1301) comprising an empennage with left and right portions (Figure 13d elements 1345 and 1346) and a rotation support (Figure 13d element 1349) as claimed that penetrates the body.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unmanned aircraft of Kim with the rotation support of Tao for the predictable result of ensuring proper rotation by protecting the rotation support from dirt and debris.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 13-16 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4.
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 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.
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights