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 .
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 41 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.
Regarding claim 41: there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the limitations, “the anchor members”, “the stabilization members,” and “the cladding segments.” Claim 41 depends from claim 39, which recites a kit of parts for the lift structure of claim 22; neither of claims 22 or 39 introduce anchor members, stabilization members or cladding segments. Claim 28 does introduce these elements, and these elements are part of the aerodrome structure of claim 28.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 22, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski.
Regarding claim 22: Pawluski teaches a lift structure (elevator 90) for an aerodrome structure, comprising:
an upstanding tubular frame (fig. 3: structure 30) comprising an upper ring (42) located over a base ring (40) and supported thereon by columns (34);
a platform (panel 70) located within the tubular frame (shown in fig. 1; see also figs. 16A-16H); and
a lift mechanism (drive mechanism 100) arranged to raise and lower the platform between the base ring and the upper ring (¶ 0071, 0073),
wherein:
the columns are spaced apart from each other to provide a side opening (52) for loading an aircraft onto the platform and unloading an aircraft therefrom when the platform is in a lowered position (¶ 0045: “no structure outer columns (34) are positioned in the fixed sector (24) so as to permit free passage of airplanes (1) into and out of the fixed sector (24)” see also ¶ 0089, fig. 16E); and
the platform provides a take-off and landing pad for an aircraft when the platform is in a raised position (the platform could provide a take-off and landing pad for Micro Aerial Vehicles or smaller UAVs and drones; no structural modification would be necessary for a quadrotor to take-off from or land on the platform, such as front sector 62 in fig. 1 or region 62A in fig. 16H; even in fig. 15, where “apparatus (10) may be installed inside a hangar,” ¶ 0042, a quadrotor within region 62A on the upper floor 60 could land on or take off from the platform).
Regarding claim 23: Pawluski teaches a lift structure according to claim 22, comprising base support cross-members located within the base ring and connected thereto (fig. 13: two beams 98 cross between columns 96; figs. 6, 9: one beam 98 is shown fully within the base ring, and the middle portion of the other beam 98 is within the base ring; ¶ 0075: when latched, connected to the base ring as part of structure 30),
the lift mechanism being located beneath the platform (as can be seen in figs. 16E, 16F, noting the position of drive mechanisms 100, unlabeled here but shown in fig. 13) and supported by the base support cross-members (¶ 0075: the platform of the lift mechanism is supported by beams 98).
Regarding claim 27: Pawluski teaches a lift structure according to claim 22, comprising guide rails (columns 96) extending between the base ring and the upper ring (shown in fig. 3; labeled in fig. 13), the platform being movably connected to the guide rails (¶ 0074), the lift mechanism being arranged to raise and lower the platform along the guide rails between the base ring and the upper ring (¶ 0072).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski in view of US 5,478,182 to Hildebrand et al.
Regarding claim 24: Pawluski teaches a lift structure according to claim 22. Pawluski does not specifically teach that the lift mechanism is arranged to raise and lower first and second discrete platform parts of the platform independently of each other in one mode of operation.
Hildebrand teaches a lift structure for a vehicle parking structure (abstract), wherein the platform comprises discrete first and second platform parts which are moveable independently of each other, allowing for “a more flexible process for parking and removal” (c. 3, ℓ. 21-25; c. 6, ℓ. 60–c. 7, ℓ. 5). Advantageously, this allows for an increase in vehicle turnover since “it is possible to park or remove vehicles from different parking levels 20 at the same time” (c. 7, ℓ. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Pawluski such that the platform comprises discrete first and second platform parts and the lift mechanism is arranged to raise and lower the first and second platform parts independently, as taught by Hildebrand, for the purpose of allowing for a more flexible parking process and to increase turnover.
Regarding claim 25: Pawluski, as modified, provides a lift structure according to claim 24, wherein the lift mechanism is arranged to raise and lower the first and second platform parts together in another mode of operation (no further modification is necessary to operate the individual lifts simultaneously).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski in view of 3,587,878 to Strandberg et al.
Regarding claim 26: Pawluski teaches a lift structure according to claim 22, wherein the lift mechanism may comprise various suitable lifting mechanisms, including a chain and sprocket mechanism (¶ 0076), but Pawluski does not specifically teach a chain link lift.
Strandberg teaches a lift mechanism for a vehicle parking structure (abstract), wherein the lift mechanism comprises at least one chain link lift located beneath the platform (c. 4, ℓ. 18-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a chain link lift, such as taught by Strandberg, with the lift structure of Pawluski for the purpose of precluding an excessive drop in the event a link breaks (Strandberg c. 4, ℓ. 18-22).
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski.
Regarding claim 39: Pawluski teaches the lift structure of claim 22, comprising:
a set of ring segments (structure first outer beams 40) configured to be connected together to form the base ring (¶ 0044: the first outer ring is made from a plurality of beams, shown connected in fig. 3);
a set of ring segments (structure second outer beams 42) configured to be connected together to form the upper ring (¶ 0044: the second outer ring is made from a plurality of beams, shown connected in fig. 3);
a set of platform segments (panel upper layer 72, panel support frame 74, panel support rolling elements 76, panel upper layer removable portion 78) configured to be connected together to form the platform (70);
and a lift mechanism (100) configured to be connected to the platform (see figs. 1, 14).
Pawluski additionally teaches a plurality of columns (structure outer columns 34) configured to be connected to the base ring and to the upper ring, but does not specifically teach a plurality of sets of column segments. However, Pawluski does teach that the base and upper ring are each formed from a plurality of beams (Pawluski ¶ 0044, 0047). Further, in one embodiment the columns have a height of about 6 meters to support the second floor at that height above ground level (¶ 0045), but in another embodiment the columns extend past the height of the second floor (fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Pawluski such that the columns were each formed from a plurality of beams or segments, using the teachings of Pawluski, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location and for purposes of modularity, in the event that the embodiment with the open second floor is preferred.
It would further have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the lift structure of Pawluski as a kit of parts, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location as compared with moving the assembled building.
Regarding claim 40: Pawluski, as modified, provides a kit of parts according to claim 39, wherein the lift structure comprises guide rails (96) extending between the base ring and the upper ring (shown in fig. 3),
the platform being movably connected to the guide rails (¶ 0074), the lift mechanism being arranged to raise and lower the platform along the guide rails between the base ring and the upper ring (¶ 0072).
Pawluski teaches a plurality of guide rails (Pawluski columns 96) configured to be connected to the base ring and to the upper ring, but does not specifically teach a plurality of sets of guide rail segments. However, Pawluski does teach that the base and upper ring are each formed from a plurality of beams (Pawluski ¶ 0044, 0047).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Pawluski such that the guide rails were each formed from a plurality of beams, or guide rail segments, using the teachings of Pawluski, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location and for purposes of modularity, in the event that it is desired to build a structure having additional floors.
Claim(s) 28, 30-33 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski in view of 3,543,455 to Walsh.
Regarding claims 28 and 41: Pawluski teaches an aerodrome structure, comprising:
a lift structure according to claim 22 (as discussed regarding claim 22 above).
Pawluski does not specifically teach a plurality of anchor members, a plurality of radially-extending stabilization members or a plurality of cladding segments supported by the stabilization members and spanning the gaps between adjacent stabilization members.
Walsh teaches an aerodrome structure, comprising:
a plurality of anchor members (27) located on the ground around a common central area (figs. 3-4: the foundations 27 at end points 29 are relied upon; central area 26a visible in fig. 3);
a plurality of radially-extending stabilization members (28) each comprising a first end connected to an upper support ring of the common central area and a second end connected to a respective one of the anchor members (figs. 3-4: an upper ring of girders 28 interconnect the columns along dashed circle 26a and support the roof; the girders 28 extending radially from the innermost columns to the columns at end points 29 are relied upon for the radially-extending stabilization members; the outer ends of the radial girders are connected to foundations 27 through the end-point columns); and
a plurality of cladding segments (panels 22) supported by the stabilization members (c. 2, ℓ. 35-45), each cladding segment spanning a gap between an adjacent pair of the stabilization members and extending between the upper ring and the second ends of said adjacent pair of the stabilization members, thereby to define a covered interior volume of the aerodrome structure (as can be seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have constructed the aerodrome of Pawluski with anchor members, as taught by Walsh, for the purpose of providing a secure foundation;
and with a plurality of radially-extending stabilization members connected to the upper support ring and to an anchor member, with a plurality of cladding segments supported by the stabilization members, each cladding segment spanning a gap between an adjacent pair of the stabilization members and extending between the upper ring and the second ends of said adjacent pair of the stabilization members, thereby to define a covered interior volume of the aerodrome structure, as taught by Walsh, for the purpose of providing and supporting a roof.
With respect to claim 41, it would further have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the lift structure of Pawluski, as modified, as a kit of parts, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location as compared with moving the assembled building.
Regarding claim 30: Pawluski, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 28, wherein one or more of: the base ring; the platform; the guide rails; the upper ring; the columns; and the stabilization members, comprises aluminum alloy or steel (Pawluski ¶ 0044: the base and upper rings, or first and second outer rings 40, 42, and columns 36 comprise beams made of structural grade steel; ¶ 0060-0061: upper layer 72 and support frame 74 of the platform or panel 70 are made of steel).
Regarding claim 31: Pawluski, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 28, comprising a hanger structure for accommodating at least one aircraft and located adjacent to the side opening, for loading an aircraft onto the platform and unloading an aircraft from the platform when the platform is in the lowered position (Pawluski fig. 2: either of the two airplane parking regions 54 adjacent to region 24 is shown accommodating an aircraft and located adjacent to the side opening, and is able to load an aircraft onto the platform, as described in ¶ 0075).
Regarding claim 32: Pawluski, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 31, wherein the hanger structure comprises hanger structure roof members connected to the upper ring and upstanding hanger structure columns connected to the hanger structure roof members and to respective ones of the anchor members (as modified; the radial girders from Walsh bordering one of the cabins may be considered as hangar structure roof members, with respective end-point columns 26 of Walsh considered as hangar structure columns).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski in view of 3,543,455 to Walsh, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of GB 2 414 490 A to Musgrave.
Regarding claim 29: Pawluski, as modified, provides the aerodrome structure of claim 28.
Walsh is silent to the materials used in the cladding segments and accordingly does not specifically teach each of the cladding segments comprising a fabric material, wherein optionally the fabric material comprises PVC-coated polyester.
Musgrave teaches an aerodrome structure comprising:
a plurality of stabilization members (frame assemblies 11, comprising frame elements 21) connected to anchor members (ground beams 17; see fig. 1); and
a plurality of cladding segments (cover panels 15/41) supported by the stabilization members (p. 4, ¶ 1), each cladding segment spanning a gap between an adjacent pair of the stabilization members (p. 4, ¶ 3: the edges of panels 41 coupling with the edges of frame elements 21; p. 5, ¶ 2: the edges of cover panels 72 coupling with the edges of frame elements 21, as shown in fig. 6), thereby to define a covered interior volume of the aerodrome structure (shown in fig. 1);
wherein each of the cladding segments comprises a fabric material (p. 2, ¶ 3: “fabric cover material”), wherein the fabric material “may comprise PVC or other suitable plastics material such as coated polyester, nylon or a butyl rubber material, optionally coated with a polyurethane resin” (p. 2, ¶ 4).
Accordingly, Musgrave teaches that fabric materials are known to be used in aerodrome cladding. Advantageously, the cladding taught by Musgrave prevents water ingress (p. 1, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cladding segments of Walsh, as incorporated into the aerodrome of Pawluski, such that each of the cladding segments comprises a fabric material, such as taught by Musgrave, for the purpose of preventing the ingress of water.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski in view of 3,543,455 to Walsh, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 11,794,922 B1 to Twyford et al.
Regarding claim 33: Pawluski, as modified, provides the aerodrome structure of claim 28.
Walsh teaches anchor members but does not specifically teach that the anchor members are configured to be height adjustable in order to position the second ends of the stabilization members at the same height as each other from a ground datum.
Twyford teaches an aerodrome structure (400) comprising anchor members (420) which are configured to be height adjustable in order to position the second ends of the stabilization members at the same height as each other from a ground datum, advantageously stabilizing and leveling the aerodrome structure on sites with uneven ground (c. 5, ℓ. 43-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aerodrome structure of Wang, as modified, such that the anchor members are configured to be height adjustable in order to position the second ends of the stabilization members at the same height as each other from a ground datum, as taught by Twyford, for the purpose of stabilizing and leveling the aerodrome structure on sites with uneven ground.
Claim(s) 22, 27, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski.
Regarding claim 22: Wang teaches a lift structure for an aerodrome structure, comprising:
an upstanding tubular frame (shown in figs. 1-2) comprising a top floor (2) located over a base ring-shaped floor (see fig. 1) and supported thereon by columns (fig. 1: the radially-extending vertical walls / alternatively, fig. 2: slide rails 4 and screw rods 3);
a platform (8) located within the tubular frame; and
a lift mechanism (driving unit, including motor 17) arranged to raise and lower the platform between the base ring and the upper ring (p. 10, ¶ 4; p. 11, ¶ 3),
wherein:
the columns are spaced apart from each other to provide a side opening (shown in detail A of figs. 6-7) for loading an aircraft onto the platform and unloading an aircraft therefrom when the platform is in a lowered position (p. 11, ¶ 3; shown in figs. 6-7); and
the platform provides a take-off and landing pad for an aircraft when the platform is in a raised position (fig. 10, p. 12, ¶ 1).
Wang teaches a lift structure having a cylindrical shaft with an upstanding tubular frame (shown in at least figs. 1-2), with ring-shaped openings at each floor (figs. 6-7, including detail A), but does not describe many details of the structure of the frame and accordingly does not specifically teach an upstanding tubular frame comprising an upper ring located over a base ring and supported thereon by columns.
Pawluski teaches a lift structure (90) for an aerodrome structure (abstract), comprising:
an upstanding tubular frame (fig. 3) comprising an upper ring (42) located over a base ring (40) and supported thereon by columns (34);
a platform (panel 70) located within the tubular frame (shown in fig. 1; see also figs. 16A-16H); and
a lift mechanism (drive mechanism 100) arranged to raise and lower the platform between the base ring and the upper ring (¶ 0071, 0073),
wherein:
the columns are spaced apart from each other to provide a side opening (52) for loading an aircraft onto the platform and unloading an aircraft therefrom when the platform is in a lowered position (¶ 0045: “no structure outer columns (34) are positioned in the fixed sector (24) so as to permit free passage of airplanes (1) into and out of the fixed sector (24)” see also ¶ 0089, fig. 16E); and
the platform provides a take-off and landing pad for an aircraft when the platform is in a raised position (the platform could provide a take-off and landing pad for Micro Aerial Vehicles or smaller UAVs and drones; no structural modification would be necessary for a quadrotor to take-off from or land on the platform, such as front sector 62 in fig. 1 or region 62A in fig. 16H; even in fig. 15, where “apparatus (10) may be installed inside a hangar,” ¶ 0042, a quadrotor within region 62A on the upper floor 60 could land on or take off from the platform).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Wang to have an upstanding tubular frame comprising an upper ring located over a base ring and supported thereon by columns, using the teachings of Pawluski, for the purpose of increasing strength and rigidity and reinforcing the elevator shaft or upstanding tubular frame.
Regarding claim 27: Wang, as modified, provides a lift structure according to claim 22, comprising guide rails extending between the base ring and the upper ring, the platform being movably connected to the guide rails, the lift mechanism being arranged to raise and lower the platform along the guide rails between the base ring and the upper ring (as modified; Wang p. 10, ¶ 4: sliding connection between slide rail 4 and shell 5, see also fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39: Wang, as modified, provides the lift structure of claim 22.
The lift structure of Pawluski comprises:
a set of ring segments configured to be connected together to form the base ring (Pawluski ¶ 0044: the first outer ring is made from a plurality of structure first outer beams 40, shown connected in fig. 3);
a set of ring segments configured to be connected together to form the upper ring (Pawluski ¶ 0044: the second outer ring is made from a plurality of structure second outer beams 42, shown connected in fig. 3);
a set of platform segments configured to be connected together to form the platform (Pawluski fig. 10: panel 70 formed by panel upper layer 72, panel support frame 74, panel support rolling elements 76, panel upper layer removable portion 78);
and a lift mechanism configured to be connected to the platform (as shown in Wang fig. 1; see also p. 10, ¶ 4; p. 11, ¶ 3).
Pawluski teaches a plurality of columns (Pawluski structure outer columns 34) configured to be connected to the base ring and to the upper ring, but does not specifically teach a plurality of sets of column segments. However, Pawluski does teach that the base and upper ring are each formed from a plurality of beams (Pawluski ¶ 0044, 0047). Further, in one embodiment the columns have a height of about 6 meters to support the second floor at that height above ground level (¶ 0045), but in another embodiment the columns extend past the height of the second floor (fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Wang, as modified, such that the base ring, upper ring and columns were each formed from a plurality of beams or segments and the platform formed from a set of segments, using the teachings of Pawluski, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location and for purposes of modularity, in the event that the embodiment with the open second floor is preferred.
It would further have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the lift structure of Wang, as modified, as a kit of parts, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location as compared with moving the assembled building.
Regarding claim 40: Wang, as modified, provides a kit of parts according to claim 39, wherein the lift structure comprises guide rails extending between the base ring and the upper ring, the platform being movably connected to the guide rails, the lift mechanism being arranged to raise and lower the platform along the guide rails between the base ring and the upper ring (as modified; Wang p. 10, ¶ 4: sliding connection between slide rail 4 and shell 5, see also fig. 3).
Pawluski teaches a plurality of guide rails (Pawluski columns 96) configured to be connected to the base ring and to the upper ring, but does not specifically teach a plurality of sets of guide rail segments. However, Pawluski does teach that the base and upper ring are each formed from a plurality of beams (Pawluski ¶ 0044, 0047).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Wang, as modified, such that the guide rails were each formed from a plurality of beams, or guide rail segments, using the teachings of Pawluski, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location and for purposes of modularity, in the event that it is desired to build a structure having additional floors.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 3,737,057 to Neumann et al.
Regarding claim 23: Wang, as modified, provides a lift structure according to claim 22, the lift mechanism being located beneath the platform (as shown in fig. 1 of Wang). Wang does not specifically teach base support cross-members located within the base ring and connected thereto, the lift mechanism being supported by the base support cross-members.
However, it is known to use support cross-members for structural support.
Neumann teaches a lift structure for an aerodrome structure, comprising base support cross-members located at the lift mechanism (c. 5, ℓ. 22-25: “diagonal beams 78 braced by cross members 80”, location shown in figs. 2, 4), the lift mechanism being located beneath the platform and supported by the base support cross-members (shown in fig. 2). Neumann also teaches support cross-members supporting each floor (fig. 1: cross-members of frames 66), cross members supporting parked aircraft (c. 6, ℓ. 16-22: cross members 144, shown in fig. 11), and cross members in the spider frames which support rotating spiders and aircraft thereon (figs. 3, 5: cross-members between each set of rails 38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Wang, as modified, to have base support cross-members supporting the lift mechanism, as taught by Neumann, for the purpose of supporting the weight of the lift mechanism.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 5,478,182 to Hildebrand et al.
Regarding claim 24: Wang, as modified, provides a lift structure according to claim 22. Wang does not specifically teach a platform comprising discrete first and second platform parts.
Hildebrand teaches a lift structure for a vehicle parking structure (abstract), wherein the platform comprises discrete first and second platform parts which are moveable independently of each other, allowing for “a more flexible process for parking and removal” (c. 3, ℓ. 21-25; c. 6, ℓ. 60–c. 7, ℓ. 5). Advantageously, this allows for an increase in vehicle turnover since “it is possible to park or remove vehicles from different parking levels 20 at the same time” (c. 7, ℓ. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the lift structure of Wang, as modified, such that the platform comprises discrete first and second platform parts and the lift mechanism is arranged to raise and lower the first and second platform parts independently, as taught by Hildebrand, for the purpose of allowing for a more flexible parking process and to increase turnover.
Regarding claim 25: Wang, as modified, provides a lift structure according to claim 24, wherein the lift mechanism is arranged to raise and lower the first and second platform parts together in another mode of operation (no modification is necessary to operate the individual lifts simultaneously).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 3,587,878 to Strandberg et al.
Regarding claim 26: Wang, as modified, provides a lift structure according to claim 22.
Pawluski teaches a lift structure according to claim 22, wherein the lift mechanism may comprise various suitable lifting mechanisms, including a chain and sprocket mechanism (¶ 0076), but Pawluski does not specifically teach a chain link lift.
Strandberg teaches a lift mechanism for a vehicle parking structure (abstract), wherein the lift mechanism comprises at least one chain link lift located beneath the platform (c. 4, ℓ. 18-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a chain link lift, such as taught by Strandberg, with the lift structure of Wang, as modified, for the purpose of precluding an excessive drop in the event a link breaks (Strandberg c. 4, ℓ. 18-22).
Claim(s) 28-33 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 3,543,455 to Walsh.
Regarding claims 28 and 41: Wang, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure, comprising:
a lift structure according to claim 22 (as discussed regarding claim 22 above).
Wang does not specifically teach a plurality of anchor members, a plurality of radially-extending stabilization members or a plurality of cladding segments.
Walsh teaches an aerodrome structure, comprising:
a plurality of anchor members (27) located on the ground around a common central area (figs. 3-4: the foundations 27 at end points 29 are relied upon; central area 26a visible in fig. 3);
a plurality of radially-extending stabilization members (28) each comprising a first end connected to an upper support ring of the common central area and a second end connected to a respective one of the anchor members (figs. 3-4: an upper ring of girders 28 interconnect the columns along dashed circle 26a and support the roof; the girders 28 extending radially from the innermost columns to the columns at end points 29 are relied upon for the radially-extending stabilization members; the outer ends of the radial girders are connected to foundations 27 through the end-point columns); and
a plurality of cladding segments (panels 22) supported by the stabilization members (c. 2, ℓ. 35-45), each cladding segment spanning a gap between an adjacent pair of the stabilization members and extending between the upper ring and the second ends of said adjacent pair of the stabilization members, thereby to define a covered interior volume of the aerodrome structure (as can be seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have constructed the aerodrome of Wang, as modified, with anchor members, as taught by Walsh, for the purpose of providing a secure foundation;
and with a plurality of radially-extending stabilization members connected to the upper support ring and to an anchor member, with a plurality of cladding segments supported by the stabilization members, each cladding segment spanning a gap between an adjacent pair of the stabilization members and extending between the upper ring and the second ends of said adjacent pair of the stabilization members, thereby to define a covered interior volume of the aerodrome structure, as taught by Walsh, for the purpose of providing and supporting a roof.
With respect to claim 41, it would further have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the lift structure of Wang, as modified, as a kit of parts, for the purpose of ease of transport to the location as compared with moving the assembled building.
Regarding claim 30: Wang, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 28. Wang is silent to using aluminum alloy or steel and accordingly does not specifically teach that one or more of: the base ring; the platform; the guide rails; the upper ring; the columns; and the stabilization members, comprises aluminum alloy or steel.
Pawluski teaches an aerodrome structure wherein the base ring; the platform; the guide rails; the upper ring; and the columns; comprise aluminum alloy or steel (Pawluski ¶ 0044: the base and upper rings, or first and second outer rings 40, 42, and columns 36 comprise beams made of structural grade steel; ¶ 0060-0061: upper layer 72 and support frame 74 of the platform or panel 70 are made of steel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aerodrome structure of Wang, as modified, such that the base ring; the platform; the guide rails; the upper ring; and the columns comprise steel, as taught by Pawluski, due to the strength of structural grade steel.
Regarding claim 31: Wang, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 28, comprising a hanger structure for accommodating at least one aircraft and located adjacent to the side opening, for loading an aircraft onto the platform and unloading an aircraft from the platform when the platform is in the lowered position (Wang fig. 1, p. 8, ¶ 3: sub-cabin 14 storing unmanned aerial vehicle 15; p. 8, ¶ 4-5: loading UAV 15 onto platform 8).
Regarding claim 32: Wang, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 31, wherein the hanger structure comprises hanger structure roof members connected to the upper ring and upstanding hanger structure columns connected to the hanger structure roof members and to respective ones of the anchor members (as modified; the radial girders from Walsh bordering one of the cabins may be considered as hangar structure roof members, with respective end-point columns 26 of Walsh considered as hangar structure columns).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski and US 3,543,455 to Walsh, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of GB 2 414 490 A to Musgrave.
Regarding claim 29: Wang, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 28.
Walsh is silent to the materials used in the cladding segments and accordingly does not specifically teach each of the cladding segments comprising a fabric material, wherein optionally the fabric material comprises PVC-coated polyester.
Musgrave teaches an aerodrome structure comprising:
a plurality of stabilization members (frame assemblies 11, comprising frame elements 21) connected to anchor members (ground beams 17; see fig. 1); and
a plurality of cladding segments (cover panels 15/41) supported by the stabilization members (p. 4, ¶ 1), each cladding segment spanning a gap between an adjacent pair of the stabilization members (p. 4, ¶ 3: the edges of panels 41 coupling with the edges of frame elements 21; p. 5, ¶ 2: the edges of cover panels 72 coupling with the edges of frame elements 21, as shown in fig. 6), thereby to define a covered interior volume of the aerodrome structure (shown in fig. 1);
wherein each of the cladding segments comprises a fabric material (p. 2, ¶ 3: “fabric cover material”), wherein the fabric material “may comprise PVC or other suitable plastics material such as coated polyester, nylon or a butyl rubber material, optionally coated with a polyurethane resin” (p. 2, ¶ 4).
Accordingly, Musgrave teaches that fabric materials are known to be used in aerodrome cladding. Advantageously, the cladding taught by Musgrave prevents water ingress (p. 1, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the cladding segments of Walsh, as incorporated into the aerodrome of Wang, such that each of the cladding segments comprises a fabric material, such as taught by Musgrave, for the purpose of preventing the ingress of water.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114809761 A to Wang et al. (references to the text are to the appended machine translation document) in view of US 2020/0023998 A1 to Pawluski and US 3,543,455 to Walsh, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 11,794,922 B1 to Twyford et al.
Regarding claim 33: Wang, as modified, provides an aerodrome structure according to claim 28.
Walsh teaches anchor members but does not specifically teach that the anchor members are configured to be height adjustable in order to position the second ends of the stabilization members at the same height as each other from a ground datum.
Twyford teaches an aerodrome structure (400) comprising anchor members (420) which are configured to be height adjustable in order to position the second ends of the stabilization members at the same height as each other from a ground datum, advantageously stabilizing and leveling the aerodrome structure on sites with uneven ground (c. 5, ℓ. 43-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aerodrome structure of Wang, as modified, such that the anchor members are configured to be height adjustable in order to position the second ends of the stabilization members at the same height as each other from a ground datum, as taught by Twyford, for the purpose of stabilizing and leveling the aerodrome structure on sites with uneven ground.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 87/01754 A1 to Christol, KR 102575265 B1 to Kim, CN 111648635 A to Li et al. and GB 506,737 A to Wasley teach aerodrome structures having lift structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647