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 § 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) 1-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rix et al (US 20190359345 A1).
For claim 1, Rix discloses a cargo transport system, comprising:
an engine powered tractor aircraft Fig. 1: 12;
at least one unmanned autonomous towed aircraft Fig. 17, wherein the towed aircraft includes a body with left and right wings positioned on opposing sides of the body Fig. 17;
at least one towing element 52 connecting the towed aircraft to the tractor aircraft; and
at least one lift generating surface positioned at a distal end of both the left and right wings fins 277B, wherein the at least one lift generating surface is configured to provide positive forward thrust gain for the towed aircraft when the at least one lift generating surface is positioned at a specified attack angle in a portion of a wake turbulence of the tractor aircraft configured to reduce drag (and therefore increase thrust) during flight, and therefore also when in a specific position relative to the wake turbulence.
For claim 2, Rix discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the specified attack angle includes a combination of a vertical angle of the at least one lift generating surface relative to the wing fins 277B rotate about a vertical axis relative to the aircraft body and a lateral angle against airflow across the at least one lift generating surface fins may move laterally against airflow.
For claim 3, Rix discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the at least one lift generating surface includes lower lift generating surfaces attached to lower portions of the left and right wings Fig. 17.
For claim 4, Rix discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the at least one lift generating surface includes lower lift generating surfaces attached to lower portions of the left and right wings and upper lift generating surface attached to upper portions of the left and right wings Fig. 17.
For claim 11, Rix discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the towed aircraft carries cargo, an energy storage element, and/or emergency supplies carries a refueling hose, which is considered an emergency supply.
For claim 12, Rix discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the towing element includes a cable cable 52.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgener et al (US 20190168887 A1).
For claim 1, Burgener discloses a cargo transport system, comprising:
an engine powered tractor aircraft 2;
at least one unmanned autonomous towed aircraft 1, wherein the towed aircraft includes a body with left and right wings positioned on opposing sides of the body Fig. 1;
at least one towing element 3 connecting the towed aircraft to the tractor aircraft; and
at least one lift generating surface positioned at a distal end of both the left and right wings winglets, wherein the at least one lift generating surface is configured to provide positive forward thrust gain for the towed aircraft when the at least one lift generating surface is positioned at a specified attack angle in a portion of a wake turbulence of the tractor aircraft configured to reduce drag (and therefore increase thrust) during flight, and therefore also when in a specific position relative to the wake turbulence.
For claim 2, Burgener discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the specified attack angle includes a combination of a vertical angle of the at least one lift generating surface relative to the wing wingtip control surfaces move vertically and laterally as they are set at an angle and a lateral angle against airflow across the at least one lift generating surface fins may move laterally against airflow.
For claim 11, Burgener discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the towed aircraft carries cargo, an energy storage element, and/or emergency supplies carries fuel as well as other payloads.
For claim 12, Burgener discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, wherein the towing element includes a cable cable 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix in view of Craido et al (US 20150307201 A1).
For claim 5, Rix discloses the cargo transport system of claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one electrical generator coupled to the distal ends of both the left and right wings, wherein the at least one electrical generator is configured to generate electrical power from air flowing across the electrical generator.
Rix does disclose Para 0429: “Optionally, a suitable air-driven generator can be provided in the refueling device 100 to provide electrical power thereto”, “one or more ram air turbines (RAT), affixed internally or externally with respect to the refueling device 100”, but does not state where they will be mounted externally.
However, Craido teaches electrical generators mounted on wing tips Figs. 8-10. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Rix by locating the electrical generators at the wing tips as disclosed by Craido. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to take advantage of unused space in order to generate electricity and since the wing tips may gain additional benefit from wingtip vortices.
For claim 6, Rix as modified discloses the cargo transport system of claim 5, wherein the at least one electrical generator includes a wind turbine configured to rotate when air flows across the electrical generator, the rotation of the wind turbine generating electrical power Para 0429 of Rix, as modified.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgener.
For claim 13, Burgener discloses the cargo transport system of claim 12, further comprising a connection assembly attached to the cable and a cable release system configured to release the cable from the connection assembly Para 0032: “the tow cable and transfer lines must be detachable when required. The attachment and detachment process is not a critical design factor—it will be possible to accomplish this in many ways known to those skilled in the art of connecting and releasing cables and transfer lines”.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Burgener by using an electromechanical mechanism for release of the cable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a reliable, light-weight release mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 14-20 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. Further, the double patenting rejections below must be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Burgener and Rix each disclose the limitations of claim 1 but fails to disclose a sensor system and autopilot system which sense relative locations of the aircraft and autonomously control the towed aircraft as claimed. The prior art of record fails to render obvious such a modification.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 14-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12330799. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12330799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are identical except for additional limitations in the claims of 12330799.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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