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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-4 are pending
Drawings
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 thrusters 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
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 1-4 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.
The term “stably” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a flexible bag stably housed in the internal space” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “stably” as it is unclear what constitutes the bag being “stable” housed versus “unstably” housed.
Claim 1 line 12 discloses the limitation “around respective axes H transverse to the axis H” it is unclear how axis H can be transverse to itself about. Furthermore, is the axis H then a part of the axes H?
Claim 1 line 13 discloses “pairs of direction wings are spaced with respect to each other along directions parallel to the axis H” is unclear what axis then the wings lie on, as axes H, in line 12, made it appear that it was where the wings were located.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the annular type" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “a plurality of electric motors provided with propellers or turbines” in line 3, this appears to be double inclusion of the thrusters being claimed in claim 1. It is unclear what exactly the thrusters are if they are not the motors and propellers/turbines.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbright (U.S. 2020/0140087) in view of Welsh (U.S. 9,868,524).
With respect to claim 1, Fulbright discloses a fire fighting drone configured to be released from an aircraft (paragraph 0071, station being an aircraft) comprising:
an exoskeleton (figure 2, inner structural rib, see figures 11-12, with the cargo spine and container) defining an internal space (figure 22, container) extending along an axis H (the central vertical axis of the housing that the drone is centered about) provided with a release valve (paragraph 0132, where the louver motor 148 allows for opening and closing of the water container) and configured to contain a fire fighting liquid (water); the release valve (148) configured to be set between a closed position and an open position following a release command (paragraph 0132);
a support structure (figures 1c/1b, the outer structural rib 30) provided with a plurality of thrusters (taking 2 of the shown rotor nacelle 22, see figures 8a-8d) adapted to perform a thrust (paragraph 0081) that enables the support structure (30) to be supported in flight (as the rotor nacelle connected to the outer rib flies the drones structure attached thereto); the support structure (30) is connected to a first end portion (2-a) of the exoskeleton (2); characterized by comprising:
a plurality of directional wings (figures 9a-10c, 70/72, the supports 54 within the rotor can be taken as wings, and taking other elements 22 to be “wings”) carried by the exoskeleton (shows in figures 1c/1b and 9a-10c); pairs of directional wings (10a, 10b) are spaced with respect to each other along directions parallel to the axis H (see figures 8a-8c and 9a-10c, where the wings (wings and support members within the nacelle) are centered and spaced, taking the center of the wings as vertical lines parallel to the center axis H of the drone);
an electronic control unit (paragraph 0035, control module) adapted to control said thrusters (paragraph 0035), generate said release signal and adapted to control the actuators that perform the rotation of said directional wings (paragraphs 0035-0037);
said electronic unit (control module, paragraphs 0035-0037) being configured to control said wings (as it controls all aspect of the flight)
said electronic unit being configured to generate said release signal upon reaching the launch zone and enable the discharge of said liquid from said bag;
said electronic unit being adapted to perform the activation of said thrusters (as the control module controls the operation of the drone, including the plurality of modular rotor nacelle) following said discharge of said liquid to enable the flight of the support structure and of said exoskeleton containing the empty container/tank a landing zone (the landing zone being back to the location to recharge, paragraph 0071). Fulbright fails to disclose, and a flexible bag (showing a container/tank) stably housed in the internal space (3), extending outwards from the exoskeleton itself and angularly movable relative to the exoskeleton around respective axes H transverse to the axis H, and to allow the rotation of the wings during a free-fall phase of said drone which is released from an aircraft and thereby performs a certain trajectory of said drone from the aircraft to a launch zone. Fulbright does disclose the wings extending outwards of the exoskeleton itself, and further discloses unpowered flight and gliding (paragraph 0095).
Welsh discloses, column 4 rows 59-column 5 rows 11, discloses utilizing flaps to control the pitch, yaw, and roll of the UAV to control the direction of flight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize flaps on the wings (and thus wings that are movable relative to the exoskeleton) as shown by Welsh into the system of Fulbright to further improve the control over the direction of flight (Fulbright is believed to show the flaps on their wings, but never mentions them in their specification). Such a combination would then allow the wings (which extend outwards from the exoskeleton itself in Fulbright) to be movable angularly relative to the central axis H, as they move on a plane transverse to that central axis. Such wings would allows allow for the drone (in a free fall) to have controlled flight (this limitation being a functional limitation).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a material that was flexible for the water tank/container of Fulbright, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07. Please note in the instant application, applicant has failed to disclose criticality for the claimed flexible bag material, oy why the flexibility is critical. One would understand using such flexible material would be a lightweight material, and thus be suitable and ideal for an aircraft by decreasing the weight of said craft while flying.
With respect to claim 4, Fulbright discloses the support structure (figure 2) is of the annular type (see figure 2) and is provided along its outer perimeter with a plurality of electric motors (motors of 22) provided with propellers or turbines (paragraph 0081, the propellers of the rotor) with rotation axes parallel to the axis H (as the propellers are aligned with a center vertical axis, parallel to the center vertical axis of the drone itself).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbright and Welsh as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoisington (U.S. 2014/0239123).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Fulbright discloses, the electronic unit, a release signal (which opens the motor controlling the opening of the water container, Fulbright as modified fails to disclose generating the release signal upon reaching a predetermined altitude optimal relative to the ground of a pre-set type and based on signals coming from sensors adapted to detect a fire, for example, optical sensors or thermal sensors, wherein said electronic unit is configured to generate the release signal at an altitude greater than the optimal predetermined altitude if said thermal sensors detect a temperature greater than a pre-set threshold in order to prevent damage to the electronic unit.
Hoisington, paragraphs 0005-0006, discloses releasing the load at a release altitude, allowing for the desired ejection of fire suppressant over a fire with a desired spread (paragraph 0057). Disclosing the altitude is measured (paragraph 0021) as well as fire detection sensor (248, being a smoke or heat sensor, paragraph 0095), where the temperature is noted being as a parameter to control the flight (paragraph 0073), where the system can drop the agent at an abort altitude if the system indicated conditions that are non-optimal to drop the agent at the target location.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the altitude and sensors of Hoisington in the control of dropping the extinguishing agent from an aircraft onto a fire into that of Fulbright, allowing the agent to be dropped don the fire at the desired altitude for the desired spread to occur, or to abort the agent at a higher altitude if conditions are non-optimal. It would have been obvious that temperature be a factor in the altitude, as larger temperature sensed at higher elevations (such as a brush fire at ground level versus a large tree on fire hundreds of feet in the air) would require different heights to drop the fluid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752