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 .
Examiner’s Note
2. The examiner attempted to reach the attorney of record Stephen Tu by telephone in the interest of expedited prosecution. In particular, the examiner intended to propose examiner’s amendments in order to address the new matter found in claim 5 for the purpose of allowability. However, the examiner was unable to reach the applicant’s representative to discuss the matters below.
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 “mantle tube suppressor” in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “Suppression of the deformation of the mantle tube can be achieved by any type of mechanism that locks the spacing between the ends of the mantle tube (FIG. 1) in response to the detection value of the internal pressure sensor device 12 reaching the upper limit.” (para. [0024]) as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
7. Claim 5 indicates “a mantle tube suppressor for adjusting a height of the flying object” and the “the mantle tube suppressor… includes a pressure sensor”, however, this is not supported by the original disclosure. While para. [0024] of the applicant’s disclosure recites “Suppression of the deformation of the mantle tube can be achieved by any type of mechanism that locks the spacing between the ends of the mantle tube (FIG. 1) in response to the detection value of the internal pressure sensor device 12 reaching the upper limit”, however, the specification as well as the drawings do not support the limitation “a mantle tube suppressor for adjusting a height of the flying object” and the “the mantle tube suppressor… includes a pressure sensor”. Accordingly, the aforementioned limitation is new matter.
8. 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.
9. Claim 5 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.
10. Claim 5 recites the limitation a “a mantle tube suppressor” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to exactly what is considered to be a mantle tube suppressor. As indicated above, the limitation is new matter and is not supported by the applicant’s disclosure. Furthermore, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed, including wherein the pump is further configured such that changing a position of the inflatable structure changes the deformation force that is applied to the storage chamber from the expansion and contraction structure.
By contrast, Ross et al. (US 6607368 B1) and Allen (US 2003/026615 A1) individually disclose a pump that is configured to deliver fluid in one direction, the pump comprising: a storage chamber that has a bag shape and that is made of an expandable and contractible flexible material for storing fluid; an expansion and contraction structure for expanding and contracting the storage chamber; an intake check valve that communicates with an interior of the storage chamber to only allow flow of fluid from an outside of the storage chamber to an inside of the storage chamber; and a discharge check valve that communicates with the interior of the storage chamber to only allow flow of fluid from the inside of the storage chamber to the outside of the storage chamber, wherein: the expansion and contraction structure is configured to apply a deformation force to the storage chamber, the expansion and contraction structure being linked to an inflatable structure the pump is configured such that: when the deformation force from the expansion and contraction structure is eased, the storage chamber is relaxed and a volume inside the storage chamber increases, when the storage chamber is expanded by the expansion and contraction structure, fluid flows into the storage chamber through the intake check valve, when the deformation force from the expansion and contraction structure is applied, the storage chamber is deformed and volume inside the storage chamber decreases, and when the storage chamber is contracted by the expansion and contraction structure, fluid flows out from inside the storage chamber through the discharge check valve, whereby the fluid is fed into a bag-shaped structure body. However, Ross et al. and Allen each fail to mention wherein the pump is further configured such that changing a position of the inflatable structure changes the deformation force that is applied to the storage chamber from the expansion and contraction structure.
Therefore, alone or in combination with the prior art of record, it would have not been obvious to incorporate prior art which disclose pumps having expanding and contracting storage chambers in the manner as described above without impermissible hindsight.
Claim 5 may be allowable by overcome the drawing objections and rejections under 112(a) and 112(b).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the invention as claimed, including a pump for pumping air into a bag-shaped structure body of the inflatable structure; wherein: the pump includes: a storage chamber that has a bag shape and that is made of an expandable and contractible flexible material for storing fluid, an expansion and contraction structure for expanding and contracting the storage chamber, an intake check valve that communicates with an interior of the storage chamber to only allow flow of fluid from an outside of the storage chamber to an inside of the storage chamber, and a discharge check valve that communicates with the interior of the storage chamber to only allow flow of fluid from the inside of the storage chamber to the outside of the storage chamber, the pump is configured such that: when the storage chamber is expanded by the expansion and contraction structure, fluid flows into the storage chamber through the intake check valve, and when the storage chamber is contracted by the expansion and contraction structure, fluid flows out from inside the storage chamber through the discharge check valve, the expansion and contraction structure is linked to the main rope, the expansion and contraction structure being configured to apply a deformation force to the storage chamber that varies with change in position of the flying object, the pump is configured such that: when the deformation force from the expansion and contraction structure is applied, the storage chamber is deformed and a volume of the storage chamber decreases, and when the deformation force from the expansion and contraction structure is eased, the storage chamber is relaxed and the volume of the storage chamber increases, the pump is configured such that expanding and contracting of the storage chamber feeds fluid into the bag-shaped structure body, and the flying object raising system is configured such that, when the internal pressure of the bag-shaped structure body falls below a predetermined value, the flying object is moved up or down.
By contrast, Ludwig (US 2161739 A) discloses a flying object raising system, comprising: a flying object, of which a structure is an inflatable structure, and that is moored by a main rope from a ground surface and raised overhead; a pump for pumping water into a bag-shaped structure body of the inflatable structure; and the flying object raising system is configured such that fluid is accordingly fed into the bag-shaped structure body by the pump. However, Ludwig fails to mention a pump for pumping air into a bag-shaped structure body of the inflatable structure; wherein: the pump includes: a storage chamber that has a bag shape and that is made of an expandable and contractible flexible material for storing fluid, an expansion and contraction structure for expanding and contracting the storage chamber, an intake check valve that communicates with an interior of the storage chamber to only allow flow of fluid from an outside of the storage chamber to an inside of the storage chamber, and a discharge check valve that communicates with the interior of the storage chamber to only allow flow of fluid from the inside of the storage chamber to the outside of the storage chamber, the pump is configured such that: when the storage chamber is expanded by the expansion and contraction structure, fluid flows into the storage chamber through the intake check valve, and when the storage chamber is contracted by the expansion and contraction structure, fluid flows out from inside the storage chamber through the discharge check valve, the expansion and contraction structure is linked to the main rope, the expansion and contraction structure being configured to apply a deformation force to the storage chamber that varies with change in position of the flying object, the pump is configured such that: when the deformation force from the expansion and contraction structure is applied, the storage chamber is deformed and a volume of the storage chamber decreases, and when the deformation force from the expansion and contraction structure is eased, the storage chamber is relaxed and the volume of the storage chamber increases, the pump is configured such that expanding and contracting of the storage chamber feeds fluid into the bag-shaped structure body, and the flying object raising system is configured such that, when the internal pressure of the bag-shaped structure body falls below a predetermined value, the flying object is moved up or down.
Therefore, alone or in combination with the prior art of record, it would have not been obvious to incorporate prior art which disclose flying object raising systems, in particular raising systems including a flying object and a pump in the manner as described above without impermissible hindsight.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance of all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP § 1302.14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to arguments pertaining to claim 5, the applicant asserts that amendments to claim 5 overcome the 112(b) rejection on p. 9 of the remarks. These arguments are not considered to be persuasive as the amendments to the claims must be supported by the original disclosure. In this case, claim 5 does not have support from the original disclosure as discussed above, regarding claim 5.
The examiner suggests that prior to filling amendments to the claims, the examiner should be first contacted to discuss any amendments made to the claims in the interest of expedited prosecution. As indicated above, the examiner was unable to the applicant’s representative.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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