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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because "a payload" in line 2 should be --the payload--.
Claim 6 is objected to because "the motor" in line 2 should be --a motor--.
Claim 7 is objected to because "the motor" in line 2 should be --a motor--.
Claim 8 is objected to because "the motor" in line 2 should be --a motor--.
Claim 13 is objected to because “”wherein control/navigation unit” in line 1 should be --wherein the control/navigation unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151).
Re claim 1:
Mccann discloses an aerial delivery system (10, powered parafoil cargo delivery device - Para 41), comprising:
a propulsion unit (21, engine powered front rotor - Para 42; 23 engine powered back rotor - Para 42);
a deployable parafoil (12, parafoil - Para 41) attached to the propulsion unit (21, 23)(see Fig. 1A);
a control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) operably connected to the parafoil (12)(Para 48);
a support truss (18, main body - Para 41) connected to the propulsion unit (21, 23)(see Fig. 1A);
wherein, the system (10) is configured to attach to and transport a payload (101, cargo - Para 56)(see Figs. 4-6 and Paras 56-61);
the propulsion unit (21, 23) is configured to provide thrust to the aerial delivery system (10) while the parafoil (12) is deployed (see Figs. 4-6, Paras 45 and 56-61), and
the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to steer the parafoil (12) while deployed (see Figs 4-6, and Paras 62 and 56-61).
Re claim 3:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is operably connected to the parafoil (12) via a plurality of risers (14, cords - Para 41) that attach to different locations on the parafoil (12) and converge to a common point over the propulsion unit (21, 23)(see Figs. 1A-1B).
Re claim 4:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the support truss (18) is configured to hold the system (10) upright when not attached to a payload (101)(see Fig. 6 at 130).
Re claim 7:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to turn on a motor (30, motor - Para 46) after the parafoil (12) is deployed (see Figs. 2, 4-6, Paras 48 and 62).
Re claim 9:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured for autonomous, semi-autonomous, and/or remote control (Paras 62-63).
Re claim 10:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to guide the system (10) to a geographic location (see Fig. 6 at 130 and Para 60) based on GPS (Para 62), electronic homing, or optical guidance.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151) in view of Christof (U.S. 2004/0169111).
Re claim 2:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), further comprising a suspension harness (24, sling - Para 44) configured to hang the payload (101) from the system (10) via a support member (26, hook - Para 44) that attaches on the payload (101) and converge to a common point under the propulsion unit (21, 23)(see Figs. 1A, 1B, and 4-6 at where element 24 meets element 18).
Mccann fails to disclose a plurality of support members.
Christof teaches a suspension harness (30, suspension device - Para 24) plurality of support members (40, suspension device - Para 24 (element 40 is shown in Figs. 1-2 as a plurality)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the suspension harness Mccann after that of Christof (thereby including a plurality of support members in the suspension harness of Mccann in the way taught by Christof) for the advantage of level restraining during flight (Christof; see Figs. 1-2 and Para 25) and further for the advantage of reduced chance of failure (Christof; see Figs. 1-2 (multiple support members which would both need to fail in order for element L to become free to fall)).
Re claim 5:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to adjust a length of risers or a control line (24, sling - Para 44 (a type of control line as described in Para 47)) connected to the parafoil (12)(see Figs. 4-6 and Para 44).
Mccann fails to disclose control lines.
Christof teaches an aerial delivery system (1, load-bearing paraglider system - Para 23) comprising control lines (40, suspension device - Para 24 (element 40 is shown in Figs. 1-2 as a plurality)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the aerial delivery system of Mccann after that of Christof (thereby making the control lines of Mccann a plurality in the way taught by Christof) for the advantage of level restraining during flight (Christof; see Figs. 1-2 and Para 25) and further for the advantage of reduced chance of failure (Christof; see Figs. 1-2 (multiple support members which would both need to fail in order for element L to become free to fall)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151) in view of Riley (U.S. 8,538,605).
Re claim 6:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to turn on a motor (30, motor - Para 46) after the aerial delivery system (10) is deployed (see Figs. 2, 4-6, Paras 48 and 62).
Mccann fails to disclose wherein the aerial delivery system is deployed from an aircraft.
Riley teaches wherein an aerial delivery system (100, steerable container delivery system - Col. 2, Line 67 and Col. 4, Line 51) is deployed from an aircraft (105, aircraft - Col. 4, Line 52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the aerial delivery system of Mccann after that of Riley (thereby deploying the aerial delivery system of Mccann from an aircraft in the way taught by Riley) for the advantage of being able to being able to airdrop at a certain location on a flight path (Riley; Col. 4, Lines 50-59).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151) in view of Kimchi et al. (U.S. 2017/0160750).
Re claim 8:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to control a motor (30, motor - Para 46) prior to landing the aerial delivery system (10)(see Figs. 4-6, and Paras 45-46 ("...Changing of the location of the attachment position of the parafoil cords causes main body to tilt... repositioning of the cord attachment positions 18 can be accomplished, for example, by...motor 30, governed by control 32...")).
Mccann fails to disclose wherein the control/navigation unit is configured to turn off the motor.
Kimchi teaches a control/navigation unit (110, aerial vehicle control system - Para 110) configured to turn off a motor (see Fig. 7 and Para 105 - "...shuts off all motors...").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the control/navigation unit of Mccann after that of Kimchi (thereby turning off the motor of Mccann in the way taught by Kimchi) for the advantage of being able to save energy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151) in view of Kurle, D. "Bagram C-130s Use High-Tech Cargo Delivery System. U.S. Department of Defense."- www.Defense.gov - (2006, Sept. 6). (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=707) Internet Archive. (https://web.archive.org/web/20120714145328/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=707).
PNG
media_image1.png
845
1202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above).
Mccann fails to disclose wherein the payload is attached to a JPADS pallet.
Kurle teaches an aerial delivery system (Image Caption - "... Joint Precision Air Drop System...") wherein a payload (Modified Article Image - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of payload)) is attached to a JPADS pallet (Modified Article Image - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of JPADS pallet (Image Caption recites "... A new GPS-guided “Screamer” bundle from the Joint Precision Air Drop System falls out the back of a C-130 Hercules over Afghanistan Aug. 26..."))).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the aerial delivery system of Mccann after that of Kurle (thereby attaching the payload of Mccann to a JPADS pallet in the way taught by Kurle) for the advantage of a stable platform that can securely stack and transport large quantities of goods to (see Article Image).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151) as evidenced by Robertson et al. (U.S. 10,059,436).
Re claim 12:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1 (as described above) wherein a footprint of the system (see Figs. 1A at 10 and Fig. 6 at 130) is
Mccann fails to disclose wherein the footprint of the system is less than 48" x 48".
Robertson teaches wherein a footprint of an aerial delivery system (see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Line 35 - "...a multicopter...") is a results effective variable that determines space required for transport or parking (Col. 2, Lines 56-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial delivery system of Mccann by making the footprint of the system be less than 48" x 48" as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mccann (U.S. 2012/0104151) in view of Baldwin (U.S. 2002/0100834).
Re claim 13:
Mccann discloses the aerial delivery system (10) of claim 1, wherein control/navigation unit (Fig. 3) is configured to target and/or launch a the sling and hook to snag a cargo, fly with the cargo to a drop Zone, drop the cargo at the drop Zone and fly to a landing site")).
Mccann fails to disclose a munition carried by the system.
Baldwin teaches an aerial delivery system (4100, embodiment - Para 149 (see Title)) wherein a munition (4110, payload unit - Para 149 (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element 149 as a type of munition and as described in Para 149 - "... munitions deployment may be better understood with reference to FIGS. 41-47...")) is carried by the system (4100)(see Figs. 41-46 and Paras 149-150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the aerial delivery system of Mccann after that of Baldwin (thereby carrying a munition by the aerial delivery system of Mccann in the way taught by Baldwin) for the advantage of including fins to assist with directional control and alignment of the centerline of payload unit (Baldwin; Para 149).
Double Patenting
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,552,531. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,552,531 anticipate claims 1-13 of the instant application. Accordingly, application claims 1-13 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-12 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,552,531.
Pat. No. 12,552,531
Application No. 19/540,720
Claim
Claim
1
An aerial delivery system, comprising:
a propulsion unit including a motor;
a deployable parafoil attached to the propulsion unit;
a control/navigation unit operably connected to the parafoil; and
a support truss connected to the propulsion unit,
wherein, the system is configured to attach to and transport a payload,
the propulsion unit is configured to provide thrust to the aerial delivery system while the parafoil is deployed,
the control/navigation unit is configured to steer the parafoil while deployed,
the aerial delivery system is configured to be deployed from an aircraft with, and attached to the payload, and
the control/navigation unit is configured to turn on the motor after the aerial delivery system is deployed from the aircraft
1
An aerial delivery system, comprising:
a propulsion unit;
a deployable parafoil attached to the propulsion unit;
a control/navigation unit operably connected to the parafoil;
a support truss connected to the propulsion unit;
wherein, the system is configured to attach to and transport a payload;
the propulsion unit is configured to provide thrust to the aerial delivery system while the parafoil is deployed, and
the control/navigation unit is configured to steer the parafoil while deployed
2
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, further comprising
a suspension harness configured to hang the payload from the system via a plurality of support members that attach to different locations on the payload and converge to a common point under the propulsion unit.
2
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, further comprising
a suspension harness configured to hang the payload from the system via a plurality of support members that attach to different locations on the payload and converge to a common point under the propulsion unit.
3
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is operably connected to the parafoil via a plurality of risers that attach to different locations on the parafoil and converge to a common point over the propulsion unit.
3
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is operably connected to the parafoil via a plurality of risers that attach to different locations on the parafoil and converge to a common point over the propulsion unit.
4
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the support truss is configured to hold the system upright when not attached to the payload.
4
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the support truss is configured to hold the system upright when not attached to a payload.
5
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to adjust a length of risers or control lines connected to the parafoil.
5
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to adjust a length of risers or control lines connected to the parafoil.
1
… the control/navigation unit is configured to turn on the motor after the aerial delivery system is deployed from the aircraft
6
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to turn on the motor after the aerial delivery system is deployed from an aircraft.
6
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to turn on the motor after the parafoil is deployed.
7
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to turn on the motor after the parafoil is deployed
7
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to turn off the motor prior to landing the aerial delivery system.
8
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to turn off the motor prior to landing the aerial delivery system.
8
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured for autonomous, semi-autonomous, and/or remote control.
9
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured for autonomous, semi-autonomous, and/or remote control.
9
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to guide the system to a geographic location based on GPS, electronic homing, or optical guidance.
10
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to guide the system to a geographic location based on GPS, electronic homing, or optical guidance.
10
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the payload is attached to a JPADS pallet.
11
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the payload is attached to a JPADS pallet.
11
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
a footprint of the system is less than 48″×48″.
12
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
a footprint of the system is less than 48” x 48”.
12
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
the control/navigation unit is configured to target and/or launch a munition carried by the system.
13
The aerial delivery system of claim 1, wherein
control/navigation unit is configured to target and/or launch a munition carried by the system.
Since the application claims 1-13 are anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 12,552,531 claims 1-12, and anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claims 1-13 are obvious over U.S. Pat. No. 12,552,531 claims 1-12.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 10/9/26
