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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Interpretation
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 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.
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:
“retaining elements and constraining elements” in the claims; 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Drawings Objections
MATERIAL NOT SHOWN
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, a transmission, pre launcher, rotor, a vertical bar, the elastic element is located in the tie rod or the rocker arms, 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 above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire drawings and correct all such informalities.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “being” are not positive limitations inasmuch as the terms including the word "being" are passive and thus do not serve to clearly limit the structure in an active sense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: (characterized). Appropriate correction is required to conform to the US practice.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the claim recites "can be" is indirect, suggests optionally, and passive which renders any recitation claimed after not being patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required. Claims should be amended to recite "is" or "will be".
Re claim 1 the phrase "rotor" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what is the "rotor" recited in the claim refers to.+
Re claim 1 the phrase "a vertical bar" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what is "a vertical bar" recited in the claim refers to.
Re claim 1 the phrases "the other end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also It is unclear what is the "the other end” refers to.
Re claim 1 the phrase "a high angle of attack” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "a high angle of attack” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re claims 1-7 the term “rotor” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether it is the same “Gyroplane take-off rotor” recited in claim 1 or different.
Re claim 3 the phrases "the rotor head”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also It is unclear what is the "the rotor head” refers to.
Re claim 7 the term “A gyroplane” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether it is the same “a gyroplane” recited in claim 1 or different.
Reference of prior art
Foote. (GB 1258505, ROTARY WING SYSTEM).
Briggi. (US 20240375771, COMPLIANT HELICOPTER ROTOR PITCH LINK).
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote and further in view of Briggi.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Foote discloses:
Gyroplane (10) take-off rotor for shortening the take-off run of a gyroplane (fig. 1, figs. 1-5), wherein the gyroplane comprises two blades (96, 97), two blade holders (102), for coupling the blades (96, 97) to the rotor, and a pre launcher device linked to the rotor via a transmission (38); and
wherein the rotor comprises a mechanism which can be coupled to the transmission with the pre launcher and is operable by said pre launcher (130, 38);
the rotor being characterized in that the mechanism comprises:
a linear actuator (166), linked to and operable by the pre launcher (166 via the structural components);
a vertical bar (132), linked at one lower end to the other end of the tie rod (via cable 166);
a rocker arm (146-148) hinged at an upper end of the vertical bar (1132);
two rods (158, 159) hingedly linked to the respective ends of the rocker arm (146-148) and extending downwards; and
a elastic element (136) for holding the blade holders (102) and the blades (96, 97) in a flying position with a high angle of attack (by adjusting the blade angles of attack);
wherein the rotor allows a temporary reduction of the angle of attack of the blades (1) to shorten the take-off stroke (by adjusting the blade angles of attack).
However Foote fails to teach as disclosed by Briggi: a tie rod (4), linked at one end to the linear actuator (3) (¶ 0027, 0028, items 40 and to plunger 42 that is construed as a linear actuator, and to connect items 40 to Foote the linear actuator item 166 instead);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Briggi teachings of a tie rod (4), linked at one end to the linear actuator into the Foote, to enable smooth movement and provide flexibility.
Re claim Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Foote, as modified above, fails to teach: the linear actuator (3) is a pneumatic cylinder.
The Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art that the linear actuator (3) is a pneumatic cylinder.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Gronstedt, as modified above, to comprise of the linear actuator (3) is a pneumatic cylinder as it is old and well known and it would have achieved the predictable result of using a faster change of the angle of attack of the blades.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Foote, as modified above, discloses: Rotor according to claim 1 wherein the vertical bar (5) passes through the rotor head (see figs. 5, item 132).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Foote, as modified above, discloses: Rotor according to claim 1 wherein the elastic element (8) is a spring coaxial to the upper end of the vertical bar (5) (see figs. 5, item 136).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Foote, as modified above, discloses: Rotor according to claim 1 wherein the elastic element (8) is located in the tie rod (4).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Foote, as modified above, discloses: Rotor according to claim 1 wherein the elastic element (8) is located in the rocker arms (6) (item 136 is located between items 146-148).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Foote, as modified above, discloses: A gyroplane comprising the rotor according claim 1 (see figs. 1-3, item 10).
Conclusion
The following prior art are pertinent to the claims or the disclosure of the instant application: US 11851172 discloses a structural components close to the instant application with a tie rod; US 12049305 discloses a torque-activated mechanism within the rotor hub, coupled to the set of rotor blades, configured to adjust the collective angle of incidence; US 2163893 discloses Autogiro Rotor Hub; US 20170341733 discloses rotor head is provided and includes a non-rotating frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights