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 .
Examiner's Note
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",
"designed for" 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", "designed for" 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 Objections
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 17-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 line 2, “…a desired…” should read “…the desired…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 5 lines 6-7, “…a desired…” should read “…the desired…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 9 lines 1-2, “…wherein the rigidity of the shell is less than the rigidity of the spine.” should read “…wherein a rigidity of the shell is less than a rigidity of the spine.” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 11 line 2, “…wherein the releasable closure mechanism…” should read “…wherein a releasable closure mechanism…”.
In claim 13 line 2, “…of the shell…” should read “…of a shell…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 13 line 3, “…rear potion…” should read “…rear portion…”.
In claim 17 line 1, “The system of claim 16, wherein adjusting the positions…” should read “The method of claim 16, wherein the adjusting positions…”.
In claim 18 line 1, “The system of claim 17, wherein adjusting positions…” should read “The method of claim 17, wherein the adjusting positions…”.
In claim 18 line 3, “…wherein adjusting positions…” should read “…wherein the adjusting positions…”.
In claim 20 line 1, “...wherein closing the shell…” should read “…wherein the closing the shell…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 sliding mechanism and an interlocking mechanism in claim 7.
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
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 recites “The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more spines spanning from the tail portion to the nose portion of the aircraft, wherein the two or more spines are configured to be located at both sides of the aircraft.” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1, on which claim 2 depends, recite “a spine”, thus the scope of “one or more spines” and “two or more spices” are unclear. For the examination purpose claim 2 is interpreted as “The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more additional spines spanning from the tail portion to the nose portion of the aircraft, wherein the spine and the one or more additional spines are configured to be located on sides of the aircraft.”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernabei (WO 2022/263327).
Regarding claim 1, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) a system comprising:
a spine/rail (7) spanning from a tail portion to a nose portion of an aircraft/cargo drone, wherein the spine/rail (7) is configured to provide rigidity to the aircraft (Pg. 4 Lines 8-9); and
a module/hold (C) configured to be detachably attached to the spine/rail (7), wherein the module/hold (C) is configured to be movable on the spine/rail (7) to obtain a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone (Pg. 5 Lines 25-30, Pg. 6 Lines 1-3; aligning center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone obtains a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system further comprising one or more additional spines/rail (7) spanning from the tail portion to the nose portion of the aircraft, wherein the spine and the one or more additional spines are configured to be located on sides of the aircraft (clearly seen in figure 5; aircraft/cargo drone comprises two rails/spines).
Regarding claim 3, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein a position of the module/hold (C) is configured to be movable on the spine/rail (7) to obtain the desired center of gravity for the aircraft (Pg. 5 Lines 25-30, Pg. 6 Lines 1-3; aligning center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone obtains a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone).
Regarding claim 4, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system further comprising an active slid/actuator (8, 9),
wherein the active slid/actuator (8, 9) is configured to receive a module arrangement instruction,
wherein the active slid/actuator (8, 9) is configured to automatically move the module along the spine/rail (7) based on the received module arrangement instruction (Pg. 5 Lines 2-6; Pg. 6 Line 4-10; actuators are actuated based on signal/module arrangement instruction from controller/processor).
Regarding claim 7, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the module/ hold (C) is configured to be detachably attached to the spine/rail using an interlocking mechanism/interface plate (B) (Pg. 6 Line 7).
Regarding claim 13, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the nose portion of the aircraft is configured to receive a first end of the shell/ outer cover of the hold (C) (clearly seen in figure 2);
wherein a rear portion of the aircraft is configured to receive a second end of the shell/ outer cover of the hold (C), wherein the first end is distal from the second end (clearly seen in figure 2; module/hold (C) has two ends).
Regarding claim 14, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein positions of the module/hold (C) is configured to be adjusted based on different desired flight mission for the aircraft (different flight missions have different cargo inside the module/hold and the module/hold is adjusted based on the mass of the module/hold).
Regarding claim 15, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the module/hold (C) include a payload/cargo module (module/hold carries cargo/payload).
Regarding claim 16, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) a method comprising:
determining module/hold (C) with load needed for a flight plan of an aircraft (Pg. 5 Lines 22-24; flight plan has a specific module; module has mass based on which position of module is adjusted);
detachably attaching the module/hold (C) with load to a spine/rail (7) of the aircraft (Pg 6 Line 8); and
adjusting position of the module/ hold (C) with load to obtain a desired center of gravity of the aircraft (Pg. 5 Lines 25-30, Pg. 6 Lines 1-3; aligning center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone obtains a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone).
Regarding claim 17, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the method wherein the adjusting positions of the module comprises:
receiving, by a processor/flight controller in communication with the module/ hold (C) with load and an active slid/ actuator (8, 9), weight/mass information of the module (Pg. 5 Lines 2-6, 25-30; Pg. 6 Lines 1-12; flight controller controls all aspect of the flight; aligning center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone obtains a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone, thus weight/mass information of the module is received by the flight controller;
generating, by the processor/flight controller, a module arrangement instruction by calculating positions of the module to have the desired center of gravity based on the weight information (Pg. 5 Lines 2-6, 25-30; Pg. 6 Lines 1-10; module/ hold (C) is translated based on the mass and position of the module/ hold (C) with load; active slid/ actuator (8, 9) are actuated based on signal/module arrangement instruction from the flight controller controller/processor);
receiving, by the active slid/ actuator (8, 9), the modular arrangement instruction from the processor/flight controller (flight controller controls all aspect of the flight; active slid/ actuator (8, 9) aligns the center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone); and
automatically moving, by the active slid/ actuator (8, 9), the module along the spine/rail (7) based on the received modular arrangement instruction (active slid/ actuator (8, 9) aligns the center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone to obtain a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone).
Regarding claim 18, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the method wherein the adjusting positions of the module/hold (C) is configured to be performed for flight conditions, and
wherein the adjusting positions of the module/hold (C) is configured to be performed while the aircraft is in operation (center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone are aligned for the flight).
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.
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernabei (WO 2022/263327) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Seaman et al. (US 2018/0178797).
Regarding claim 5, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the module arrangement instruction is calculated based on a position of the module to have the desired center of gravity for the aircraft based on the weight/mass information (Pg. 5 Lines 25-30; Pg. 6 Lines 1-3; module/ hold (C) is translated based on the mass and position of the module/hold (C)).
but it is silent about the system further comprising:
a computing device including a processor,
wherein the processor is configured to receive weight information of the module; and
wherein the processor is configured to generate the module arrangement instruction.
Seaman et al. ‘797 teaches (figures 1-5) a cargo transportation unit (CTU) (100) mounted on an aircraft wherein the weight of the cargo of the CTU (100) is based on a weight measured by a weight sensor (110) of the CTU (100) which in inputted to the controller/computing device/processor (108) that is part of CTU (100) and wherein the controller/computing device/processor (108) provides a control indication/ module arrangement instruction to an adjuster (112) which perform adjustment of the adjustable mechanical element (102) in response to the control indication (110) (Para 0009, 0019, 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bernabei ‘327 to incorporate the teachings of Seaman et al. ‘797 to configure the system further comprising:
a computing device including a processor,
wherein the processor is configured to receive weight information of the module; and
wherein the processor is configured to generate the module arrangement instruction.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would directly control the actuator to achieve the desired center of gravity.
Regarding claim 6, modified Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the module/hold (C) include the computing device (as modified by Seaman et al. ‘797).
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernabei (WO 2022/263327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (CN 206336437).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system further comprising shell/outer cover of the hold (C) configured to cover the module/ hold (C),
but it is silent about the system wherein the shell is configured to provide access to the module disposed within the shell,
wherein the shell comprises a releasable closure mechanism, the releasable closure mechanism comprising:
an opening configured to be formed in a line shape along at least a portion of the shell; and
a closure configured to be formed along the opening, the closure configured to close the opening; and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism is configured to provide access to the one or more modules disposed within the shell.
He ‘437 teaches (figure 1) a backpack type vehicle comprising unmanned rotary wing structure (1) and backpack/shell (2) wherein a control system and a battery is mounted in the backpack/shell (2) and a zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) extending along a longitudinal direction of the backpack/shell (2) wherein zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) is controlled for opening and closing to take and place articles conveniently (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 16; Pg. 4 Para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bernabei ‘3287 to incorporate the teachings of He. ‘437 to configure the system wherein the shell is configured to provide access to the module disposed within the shell,
wherein the shell comprises a releasable closure mechanism, the releasable closure mechanism comprising:
an opening configured to be formed in a line shape along at least a portion of the shell (zipper has an opening formed in a line shape); and
a closure configured to be formed along the opening, the closure configured to close the opening (zipper has a closure); and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism is configured to provide access to the module disposed within the shell .
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access to a module.
Regarding claim 9, modified Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein a rigidity of the shell is less than a rigidity of the spine (as modified by He ‘437; spine/rail is rigid as the spine/rail supports the module whereas shell is flexible as a zipper on the shell provides access inside the shell).
Regarding claim 11, modified Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein a releasable closure mechanism comprises a zipper (as modified by He ‘437).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the zipper is configured to be formed along a longitudinal direction of the shell (as modified by He ‘437).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernabei (WO 2022/263327) further in view of He (CN 206336437).
Regarding claims 19-20, Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) a method comprising:
securing a payload/good to a spine/rail (7) of an aircraft (Pg. 5 line 24; Pg. 6 Lines 4-12);
positioning a shell/outer cover of the hold (C) over the payload/good; and
securing the shell/outer cover of hold (C) between a nose portion and a rear portion of the aircraft (clearly seen in figure 2).
but it is silent about the method comprising:
closing the shell,
wherein the closing the shell is configured to be performed by closing a releasable closure mechanism, and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism comprises at least one of: a zipper and a hook and loop fastener.
He ‘437 teaches (figure 1) a backpack type vehicle comprising unmanned rotary wing structure (1) and backpack/shell (2) wherein a control system and a battery is mounted in the backpack/shell (2) and a zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) extending along a longitudinal direction of the backpack/shell (2) wherein zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) is controlled for opening and closing to take and place articles conveniently (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 16; Pg. 4 Para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bernabei ‘3287 to incorporate the teachings of He. ‘437 to configure the method comprising:
closing the shell,
wherein the closing the shell is configured to be performed by closing a releasable closure mechanism, and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism comprises a zipper.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access to a module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights