NON-FINAL 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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 June 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable.
The title of the invention is acceptable.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 11 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “down to -20°C”. Does the claim require the internal temperature to be exactly at -20°C, at least -20°C, or no warmer than -20°C? It is unclear if -20°C is an upper limit or a lower limit. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for the same reason due to their dependency upon said claim.
Regarding claim 11, the term “maximized” is indefinite, because it is unclear to what is the surface area maximized, as there is no baseline or reference defined.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gentry (U.S. Patent No. 10,207,804).
Regarding claim 1, Gentry discloses a system for transporting a temperature-sensitive payload (Abstract), comprising a drone (UAV 112, Fig. 1) comprising a drone body and one or more propellers (see annotated partial Fig. 2 below); and a freezer (cold compartment 108 of temperature-controlled payload container 106, Fig. 1) connected to the drone body and configured to contain a payload (items 104, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Gentry discloses one or more thermoelectric devices disposed on at least one side of the freezer (Pelter junction, col. 2 lines 13-39).
Regarding claim 7, Gentry discloses wherein the thermoelectric device is a thermoelectric cooling fan (col. 7 lines 21-23).
Regarding claim 9, Gentry further discloses an active cooling mechanism (Peltier junction, col. 2 lines 13-29).
Regarding claim 10, Gentry further discloses a passive cooling mechanism (ice or dry ice, col. 5 lines 52-54).
Regarding claim 12, Gentry discloses wherein the passive cooling mechanism comprises one or more ice packs (ice or dry ice, col. 5 lines 52-54).
Regarding claim 13, Gentry discloses a battery (col. 2 line 67 – col. 3 line 2).
Regarding claim 15, Gentry discloses a method for transporting a temperature-sensitive payload using a system of claim 1 (Abstract, Fig. 1).
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 2-4, 11, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry.
Regarding claim 2, Gentry discloses wherein the freezer is configured to maintain the temperature of items like ice cream (col. 2 lines 8-12). While Gentry does not expressly recite an internal temperature of -20°C, this temperature is a conventional freezer temperature. Selecting a particular freezing temperature within the operating capability of the disclosed cooling system would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.20 454, 456, 105 USPO 233, 238 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained the internal temperature of down to -20°C for the purpose of having cold items arrive in a desired condition without spoilage or degradation in quality (col. 3 lines 30-59, Gentry).
Regarding claim 3, Gentry discloses wherein the freezer is configured to maintain the internal temperature through active temperature control (Peltier junction, col. 5 lines 36-45).
Regarding claim 4, Gentry discloses further comprising a temperature measurement device configured to provide active temperature feedback of the freezer (the controller may determine a current item or payload temperature, col. 8 lines 53-54).
Regarding claim 11, Gentry discloses a freezer (cold compartment 108 of temperature-controlled payload container 106, Fig. 1) thermally coupled to the UAV via fluid ducts and airflow paths such that heat is transferred between the UAV, the container, and the surrounding environment (col. 2 lines 30-47), but does not expressly disclose wherein the surface area of one or more sides of the freezer is maximized. However, maximizing the surface area of one or more sides of the freezer to improve heat exchange would have been an obvious design choice, since increasing surface area is a known technique for enhancing heat transfer in fluid/air cooled thermal systems. Thus, selecting container surfaces to maximize heat exchange efficiency constitutes routine optimization. In re Aller, 220 F.20 454, 456, 105 USPO 233, 238 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Gentry discloses wherein the battery supplies power to both the flight components and the temperature-control components of the payload container (col. 2 line 67 – col. 3 line 2, col. 6 lines 10-11), the temperature controller determines an ideal temperature of an item of payload, a current temperature of the item of payload, and a time until delivery (col. 2 lines 48-58), and that size, weight, and energy consumption by a payload container impacts the energy consumption of a UAV and therefore are part of design considerations (col. 1 lines 12-19), but does not expressly disclose wherein the battery is selected based on at least one of desired temperature, flight duration, and weight carrying capacity. However, given the teachings of Gentry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate battery based on operational requirements such as desired internal temperature, required flight duration, and payload weight, since these are result-effective variables directly affecting battery capacity and power output. Selecting a battery based on such known parameters constitutes routine optimization and design choice. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.20 454, 456, 105 USPO 233, 238 (CCPA 1955); In re Swain et al., 70 USPQ 412; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 38 USPQ 213; Allen et al. v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136; MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry in view of Abramov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0155251, hereinafter Abramov).
Regarding claim 6, Gentry does not explicitly teach a thermoelectric heatsink.
Abramov discloses analogous art related to a Peltier effect cooling device, wherein the thermoelectric device is a thermoelectric heatsink (“heat distribution and transfer to a heat sink”, Abstract). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Gentry with a heatsink as taught by Abramov for the purpose of pulling heat form a heat generating source and distributing at a peripheral region (Abstract, Abramov).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry in view of Parish et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2013/0213449, hereinafter Parish).
Regarding claim 8, Gentry does not explicitly teach wherein the thermoelectric device is a thermally conductive wire.
Parish discloses analogous art related to a thermoelectric device for cooling/heating, wherein the thermoelectric device is a thermally conductive wire (“thermally conductive wire cloth, woven wire or wire mesh or screen”, Abstract). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Gentry with the thermally conductive wire as taught by Parish for the purpose of generating fluid turbulence and increasing thermal efficiency (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM EST.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/Shuyi S. Liu/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774