DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 09/08/2025 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. 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 “free axis” in claim 1 , the “surface being rounded convex” in claim 8, and the “device according to claim 1, comprising a control linear actuator” in claim 15 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.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Aeronautical conveying and dropping device with deformable parallelogram mechanism.
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The examiner suggests amending the specification such that it is clear as to exactly which axis or axes is considered to be the free axis as recited in claim 1, since para. [0057] recites axes 22-24 are movable relative to the frame and other paragraphs referencing the free axis omit any reference numbers such that it is sufficiently clear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to exactly which axis or axes is considered to be such a free axis. In doing so, the drawing objection to claim 1 would be overcome.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, line 6: the term “two axis” appears to be a typographical error and should be rewritten as --two axes-- for the purpose of grammatical comprehension
b. Claim 1, line 6: the term comma prior to the term “arranged in the frame” should be removed for the purpose of grammatical comprehension and clarity.
c. Claim 1, line 8: the term “a position for locking” should be rewritten as --a locking position configured to lock-- for the purpose of clarity given the claimed unlocking and locking positions recited in the claims.
d. Claims 2, 10 and 15: the term “comprising” should be rewritten as --further comprising-- such that the claims conform with current U.S. practice.
e. Claim 2, line 3: the term “the electric actuator” should be entered prior to the term “the second cam” for the purpose of clarity.
f. Claim 2, line 4 a comma should be entered prior to the term “an active position” for the purpose of grammatical comprehension.
g. Claim 3, line 2: the term “two rotary motors” should be replaced with “two rotatory motors which includes the at least one rotary motor” such that it is clear that the at least one motor is encompassed by the rotary motors per the applicant’s disclosure.
h. Claim 5, line 2: the term “4” appears to be a typographical error and should be deleted per the remarks filed on 09/08/2025 which includes deleting multiple dependencies.
i. Claim 9, line 3: the term “the unlocked position” should be rewritten as --the unlocking position-- for the purpose of clarity.
j. Claim 10, lines 2-3: the term “locked position” should be rewritten as --the locking position-- for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not 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:
a. Claim 1: the “member for preloading”.
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 § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-15 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.
11. Claim 1, lines 4-6, recites the limitation “a hook capable of holding the aeronautical vehicle to be released, a deformable parallelogram mechanism having an axis secured to the frame, two axis secured to the hook and a free axis, arranged in the frame” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly how the hook and the deformable parallelogram mechanism are being recited as distinct components. Per the applicant’s disclosure, “the deformable parallelogram mechanism 21 comprises four articulation axis and four arms. One of the arms is formed by the hook 10” (see para. [0057]). Accordingly, the hook 15 is a component of the deformable parallelogram mechanism. Deformable parallelogram mechanisms fundamentally include 4 linkages with four pivoting joint, where opposing linkages are capable of being parallel at all times. The applicant’s parallelogram mechanism as disclosed is in line with the definition of such mechanisms, however, the manner in which the hook and the mechanism are being claimed is inconsistent with the applicant’s specification. See MPEP 2173.03. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the deformable mechanism includes the hook as recited in the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claim in a manner with the applicant’s disclosure and the examiner’s interpretation.
12. Claim 3, line 2, recites the limitation “wherein the connecting rod couples two rotary motors” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the
13. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the axis of rotation” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
14. Claim 7, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “a preloading member acting on the first and second cams by exerting a force towards the locking position” which renders the claim uncertain, since it appears that the “member for preloading the first cam” is being claimed in a duplicate manner. Per the applicant’s disclosure, “an elastic member 44 for preloading the first cam 40 in the locking position. The elastic member 44 is, here, a helical spring. The release unit 1 advantageously comprises a single spring. The elastic member 44 is, here, in tension. The elastic member 44 is fixed at one end to a pin secured to the frame 6. The elastic member 44 is fixed to another end to a finger 45 secured to the first and second cams 40, 43. The finger 45 may be one-piece with the first and second cams 40, 43. The elastic member 44 exerts a force towards the locking position and tending to the stability of the unlocking position” (see para. [0077]). Therefore, the examiner suggests amending the claim in accordance with claim 1 and the applicant’s disclosure.
15. Claim 8, line 2, recites the limitation “the first cam has an active surface for blocking the parallelogram mechanism” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly how the first cam has an active surface for blocking the parallelogram mechanism. Per the applicant’s disclosure, it appears that the second cam has an active surface for blocking the mechanism in contrast to the first cam that includes an active area that includes a rounded concave area (see paras. [0070], and [0073], [0077] and claim 9). Therefore, the claimed subject matter is inconsistent with the applicant’s specification. See MPEP 2173.03.
16. Claim 12, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “the deformable parallelogram mechanism has two axis secured to the frame (6), one of which is secured to the hook” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the claimed axes include at least one or more than one of the axis as recited in claim. The claim should specify as to exactly which of the recited axes are being referenced in claim 1 Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “two axis” and “one of which” in the claim.
17. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the preloading member” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similarly for claim 14.
18. Claim 14, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “the rotary motor(s)” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the applicant intends to claim the rotary motor or the rotary motors. Generally parenthesis are utilized for denoting reference characters/symbols and acronyms to be referenced. The examiner suggests removing the “(s)” from the claim. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
19. Claim 15, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “a controlled linear actuator between an arm secured to the first cam and a member secured to frame” which renders the claim uncertain, since it is unclear as to exactly how the device as recited in claim 1 includes the controller linear actuator as claimed. Per the applicant’s disclosure, in the embodiment of the device shown in the FIG. 10, the “The member 44 for preloading the first cam 40 in the locking position is replaced by the electric linear actuator 50” (see para. [0102]). Further stated, claim 1 as currently recited is non-generic claim and does encompass the distinct embodiments in the applicant’s disclosure.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well as overcoming the drawing objections and claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as well as overcoming the drawing objections and claim objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitations in claim 1. In particular, a deformable parallelogram mechanism having a free axis arranged in the frame, a first cam mounted so as to rotate about an axis fixed in the frame and having a position for locking the deformable parallelogram mechanism by contact with a bearing (29) mounted on the free axis of the deformable parallelogram mechanism, and an unlocking position, and a member for preloading the first cam in the locking position.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Hasquenoph et al. (US 4202576 A) discloses an aeronautic conveying and dropping device for an aeronautical vehicle to be release, comprising: a frame, a deformable parallelogram including a hook, an axis secured to the frame, two axis secured to the hook and an axis arranged in the frame, a first arm mounted so as to rotate about an axis fixed in the frame and having a position for locking the deformable parallelogram mechanism by contact with the parallelogram mechanism mounted on an axis and unlocking position, and a member for preloading.
Adams (US 4606517 A) discloses an aeronautic conveying and dropping device for an aeronautical vehicle to be release, comprising: a frame, a hook and a deformable parallelogram mechanism including a free axis secured to the frame.
Li et al. (CN 119190355 A) discloses an aeronautic conveying and dropping device for an aeronautical vehicle to be release, comprising: a frame and a deformable parallelogram mechanism including a free axis secured to the frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm 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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights