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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication No. CN114408200 to Tan, citing to the enclosed machine translation (“Tan”). Tan discloses a battery charging station for an unmanned drone. The charging station includes a charging battery compartment in which the battery of the drone is located. The charging station itself is mobile, having various means to control valves when the charging station is moving and when it is stopped. Thus, the battery can be considered to be either a battery of the drone or of the charging station. The charging battery compartment is connected to a water recirculation path that includes a tank in which water is stored, a pump for circulating water, a path for supplying water from the tank to a water cooler and from the water cooler to the charging battery compartment, and a path for returning the cooling water to the water tank. The charging station includes a controller for controlling the various parameters of the water circulation system, including ensuring that the temperature of the water remains relatively cold. Although Tan doesn’t explicitly say that these parameters are controlled to ensure the water is delivered at a predetermined temperature, the Office finds that the most obvious way to ensure water delivered to the charging battery compartment is “relatively cold” is by ensuring it is delivered at a predetermined temperature.
Further regarding claim 2, the circulation system includes various connections between the tank, cooler, battery, and returning from the battery to the tank, each connector being a part of (and thus connected to) the mobile charging station.
Further regarding claims 6 and 8, although Tan is silent regarding the recited filter, the Office finds that providing a filter in a water circulation system including a circulation pump to remove possible solid impurities introduced into the system in order to prevent damage to the pump and/or clogging of the circulation lines are ubiquitous and inclusion in the system of Tan is considered to be nothing more than the obvious use of a commonly known auxiliary structure for its intended purpose to achieve a predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9-14 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.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 9-12, and 14 Tan is silent regarding a reservoir that is filled when either of its mobile bodies (drone or charging station) stop at the bottom of the reservoir.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 13 Tan discloses the use of water with no teaching of a concentration, much less an adjustment of a concentration of any solute in the water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
