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 .
Response to Amendment
The objections to claims 11, 12, 15, 31 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of O’Toole (US 20170203857) with Sullivan et al (US 20180009549) does not disclose the claims limitations. In particular the combination does not disclose “an erectable wind-porous structure for reducing wind speed across the landing area, wherein the wind-porous structure is a panel, and wherein the panel is solid and delimits a plurality of apertures distributed across the panel.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While O’Toole discloses a wind screen, ref. 74 “wind block” Fig. 4A, which is considered a solid wind screen, Sullivan is looked to for the apertures within the windscreen. The material of Sullivan is not used, but the apertures or openings in the panel of Sullivan is used to modify the wind screen of O’Toole.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The present title “windshield” should include detail indicating the windshield is used for UAV portable housings as well as the panels or netting used for windshields.
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 10, 11, 14, 23, 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole (US 20170203857) in view of Sullivan et al (US 20180009549).
In regards to claim 10, O’Toole discloses a UAV facility, comprising:
a transportable housing for holding a UAV (Fig. 4A ref. 31), the housing defining a landing area for the UAV (seen at least in Fig. 4A, 4D, 5A, landing area above upper surface of ref. 31); and
an erectable wind-porous structure for reducing wind speed across the landing area (Fig. 4A ref. 74 disclosed as wind block, ref. 74 is viewed as erectable as the structure was created/manufactured and at that time ref. 74 was erected, however if this interpretation is found not supported by the reference, the following teaching reference discloses an erectable structure),
O’Toole does not expressly disclose: the erectable structure for reducing wind speed is porous.
Sullivan teaches a porous erectable structure for a UAV facility (Fig. 8B ref. 1690c “The catching member may be in the form of a suitable net or mesh material”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Sullivan, by providing an erectable structure which is wind porous in order allow help prevent the full force or wind from collapsing the structure.
O’Toole as combined further discloses:
wherein the wind-porous structure is a panel (O’Toole as seen in Fig. 4A), and wherein the panel is solid (the mesh material of O’Toole as combined, while being open to airflow, comprises a “solid” material to create the mesh) and delimits a plurality of apertures distributed across the panel (O’Toole as combined, mesh material of Sullivan).
While O’Toole is silent with regards to the UAV facility, comprising a transportable housing, Sullivan teaches a portable UAV housing, Fig. 9 ref. 810 oriented on vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Sullivan, by providing the UAV facility comprises transportable housing in order to move the Facility/housing to areas with better access to open areas or to use the facility/hosing in more than one area.
In regards to claim 11, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 10, wherein the panel has a first end and a second end (O’Toole Fig. 4A ref. 74), and
is connected to the housing via a connector assembly (Sullivan ref. 1690a), wherein the connector assembly is arranged to facilitate movement of the panel with respect to the landing area (Sullivan movement seen in Figs 8A and 8B),
wherein the movement is between at least a first position and a second position (Sullivan movement positions seen in Figs 8A and 8B),
wherein: in the first position, the panel extends away from the landing area in a direction above the landing area, such that the first end of the panel is arranged at a first height (Sullivan positions seen in Fig. 8B); and in the second position the first end of the panel is arranged at a second height, lower than the first height (Sullivan lower height positions seen in Fig. 8A).
In regards to claim 14, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 11, wherein: the housing comprises a side surface (O’Toole as seen in figures); and in the second position, the panel is arranged substantially adjacent to, and substantially parallel with, at least a portion of the side surface (as best understood, O’Toole as combined, the panel, as seen in the Sullivan reference when in the second position (Fig. 8A), is translated downward, the panel is then parallel with a side of the housing).
In regards to claim 23, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 10, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the erectable wind-porous structure comprises a wind-porous element which has a porosity between 0.1-0.7. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the erectable wind-porous structure comprises a wind-porous element which has a porosity between 0.1-0.7 in order to reduce dust and object debris entering the enclosure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 34, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 11, wherein the housing delimits an aperture through which to receive at least part of the UAV (O’Toole at least ref. 62 to receive part of UAV).
Claim 12, 13, 15, 21, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole, Sullivan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wankewycz (US 11168487).
In regards to claim 12, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 11, but does not expressly disclose: wherein: in the first position, an obtuse angle is subtended between the erectable wind-porous structure and the landing area.
Wankewycz teaches a surround for a UAV housing in which the surround is at an obtuse angle, Fig. 47, ref. 911 with regards to angle of ref. 911 relative to platform ref. 925-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Wankewycz by providing the wind- reducing netting is arranged such that an obtuse angle is subtended between the wind-reducing netting and the landing area in order to act to guide the UV into the landing area if the UAV strikes the netting.
In regards to claim 13, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 11, but does not expressly disclose as taught by Wankewycz: wherein the connector assembly comprises a hinge to hingedly connect the panel to the housing, thereby facilitating rotational movement between the first position and second position; and in the second position, the panel is arranged substantially on top of the landing area (Wankewycz teaches a hinge attachment for a panel to rotate the panel from an open to closed position substantially on top of a housing, C11:36 “The moveable cover can be adapted for rotating about a hinge”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Wankewycz by providing the connector assembly comprises a hinge to hingedly connect the panel to the housing facilitating rotational movement between the first position and second position with the second position, the panel is arranged substantially on top of the landing area in order to stow the panel in a down position, or to add extra protection for contents within the housing.
In regards to claim 15, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the panel is a first panel and the erectable wind-porous structure further comprises a second panel.
Wankewycz teaches a first and a second panel for a UAV housing, (as seen in Figs. 20, 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Wankewycz by providing the device comprises a second panel in order to block wind or ambient elements from multiple angles and sides.
O’Toole further discloses: wherein: the housing comprises a side surface, and in the second position, the first panel is arranged substantially adjacent to, and substantially parallel with, at least a portion of the side surface (O’Toole as combined, the panel, as seen in the Sullivan reference when in the second position (Fig. 8A), is translated downward, the panel is then parallel with a side of the housing); and in the second position, the second panel is arranged substantially on top of the landing area (O’Toole Fig. 4A, Sullivan Fig. 8B).
In regards to claim 21, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 11, but does not expressly disclose as taught by Wankewycz: one or more sensors configured to monitor weather conditions (Wankewycz C15:48 discloses weather sensor ref. 14); and a controller (Wankewycz C16:39 discloses making a decision accordingly comprising a controller), configured to: receive sensor data from the one or more sensors (Wankewycz C16:39 discloses making a decision based on senor accordingly receiving data from sensor); and cause the panel to move between at least the first position and the second position, based on the sensor data (Wankewycz C16:39 “Before take-off, the weather sensor 14 makes a decision whether to open or close the sliding covers 11 and 12 based on environmental conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Wankewycz by providing one or more sensors configured to monitor weather conditions and a controller configured to: receive sensor data from the one or more sensors and cause the panel to move between at least the first position and the second position, based on the sensor data in order to have the device in a stowed condition until a UAV is available for docking.
In regards to claim 22, Wankewycz as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 11, while O’Toole discloses a communications system (abstract), O’Toole does not expressly disclose as taught by Wankewycz: the communications system configured to: receive a data signal from a remote computing system (Wankewycz [0253] discloses a remote UAV management center, [0284]); and cause the panel to move between at least the first position and the second position, based on the data signal (Wankewycz C16:39 “Before take-off, the weather sensor 14 makes a decision whether to open or close the sliding covers 11 and 12 based on environmental conditions’ remote computing system capable to control device to position panels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Wankewycz by providing the communications system receives a data signal from a remote computing system to cause the panel to move between at least the first position and the second position, based on the data signal in order to have the device ready to receive the UAV to reduce time the UAV must wait before landing.
Claim 31, 32, 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole, Sullivan as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tremblay et al (US 10377507).
In regards to claim 31, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of claim 10, but does not expressly disclose: a plurality of panels for reducing wind speed across the landing area.
Tremblay teaches a plurality of panel for a UAV housing, (as seen in Figs. 1, 2 ref. 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole with Tremblay by providing a plurality of panels in order to block wind or ambient elements from multiple angles and sides.
In regards to claim 32, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 31, wherein the plurality of panels are arranged to substantially surround the landing area (O’Toole as combined, the erectable panels are arranged around the sides of the housing as seen in Trembly).
In regards to claim 33, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 32, wherein the landing area defines a shape having four sides (O’Toole Fig. 4A suggest rectangular shape), and the plurality of panels comprise four panels for reducing wind speed across the landing area, wherein the four panels are arranged substantially along the four sides (Tremblay as seen in Figs. 1, 2 ref. 110 arranged along the four sides).
Claim 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole, Sullivan as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Fisher et al (US 20170144776).
In regards to claim 35, O’Toole as combined discloses the UAV facility of Claim 34, but does not expressly disclose: comprising a moveable platform, wherein the moveable platform defines at least part of the landing area and is arranged to move the UAV through the aperture.
Fisher teaches platform ref. 702, moves/lifts UAV ref. 800, through aperture of UAV pod ref. 600, as seen in Figs. 6-9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, O’Toole as combined with Fisher by providing the movable platform is arranged to move the UAV through the aperture in order to ensure the UAV is clear of an does not strike the housing during lift off.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642