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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 28, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 appears to be missing the word “wherein” in “The deployable device of claim 17, wherein a vehicle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “propulsive element” in claim 1, claim 15, and claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197890 A1.
As to claim 1, Du et al. discloses a deployable device system comprising:
a deployable device (Figure 1, aerial drone 30) including:
a propulsive element coupled to the deployable device (0026, Figure 1, rotors 22);
a motor coupled to the deployable device and the propulsive element and configured to drive the propulsive element to propel the deployable device (Figure 1, aerial drone 30); and
an indicator configured to provide one or more indications to an operator of an approaching vehicle (0028, Figure 1, display unit 28, 0052);
a vehicle configured to transport the deployable device to a scene and deploy the deployable device (Figure 1, primary road vehicle 12); and
a control system configured to: control the motor to position the deployable device at a position along a perimeter established proximate the scene; and control the indicator to provide an indication (0028, 0036).
As to claim 2, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the control system includes one or more processing circuits including at least one of (i) a first processing circuit located on the deployable device, (ii) a second processing circuit located on the vehicle, or (iii) a third processing circuit located remote from the deployable device and the vehicle (022, 0025, 0028).
As to claim 4, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. further discloses further comprising a plurality of deployable devices, wherein the vehicle is configured to transport the plurality of deployable devices (0028, 0059).
As to claim 6, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the control system is configured to coordinate control of the indicator of each deployable device of the plurality of deployable devices 0023, 0028, 0059).
As to claim 7, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the indication includes at least one of an audible sound or a visual alert (0028, Figure 1, visual display unit 28).
As to claim 8, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the indication includes the visual alert, and wherein the indicator includes at least one of a display or a light (0028, Figure 1, visual display unit 28).
As to claim 10, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein, when the deployable device is deployed, the control system is configured to maintain a position of the deployable device relative to the vehicle as the vehicle travels (0036).
As to claim 11, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the perimeter at least one of (i) entirely surrounds the scene or (ii) partially surrounds the scene (0028, 0036).
As to claim 12, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the scene includes at least one of an emergency scene or a construction site (0040).
As to claim 16, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the deployable device is an aerial vehicle, and wherein the propulsive element includes one or more rotors configured to lift the deployable device (Figure 1, aerial drone 20, rotors 22).
As to claim 17, Du et al. discloses a deployable device comprising:
a chassis (Figure 1, aerial drone 30);
a propulsive element coupled to the chassis (0026, Figure 1, rotors 22);
a motor coupled to the chassis and the propulsive element and configured to drive the propulsive element to propel the deployable device (Figure 1, aerial drone 30);
an indicator configured to provide one or more indications to an operator of an approaching vehicle (0028, Figure 1, display unit 28, 0052); and
a control system configured to: control the motor to position the deployable device at a position along a perimeter established proximate a scene; and
control the indicator to provide an indication of the scene (0028, 0036).
As to claim 18, Du et al. discloses the deployable device of claim 17, and further discloses a vehicle is configured to transport the deployable device to the scene and deploy the deployable device (0028, 0032).
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197890 A1 in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 3, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. does not describe an indicator on the vehicle, as claimed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to utilize an indicator with a vehicle to provide indications to approaching vehicles. These indicators may be hazard lights, police lights, police sirens, flares, signs, cones, or other devices to provide indication to the oncoming traffic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device system of claim 1, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of indicators, as claimed, as well known in the relevant art, with a reasonable expectation of success, providing warning to oncoming vehicles, just as all police vehicles would utilize in a dangerous situation, independently of the deployable device.
As to claim 9, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. discloses the vehicle deploying the deployable device (0025, 0028, 0059), but is silent on where the deployable device may be stored and how it could be charged.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to have the vehicle include an area configured to store the deployable device during transportation of the vehicle and a charger configured to charge the deployable device. It is necessary to store and charge the deployable device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device system of claim 1, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of storage and charging, as claimed, as well known in the relevant art, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the deployable device to arrive at the deployment safely and charged for usage, allowing for the operation. The deployable device could be stored in the cabin of the vehicle, or a trunk or storage area, and charging could be provided with standard charging systems in vehicles.
Claims 5, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197890 A1 in view of Baker et al., U.S. Patent 12,062,281 B1 (2024).
As to claim 5, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 4. Du et al. does not disclose spacing along the perimeter, as claimed.
Baker et al. discloses wherein the control system is configured to control operation of the plurality of deployable devices to space the plurality of deployable devices along the perimeter (Figure 14, Figure 15, Column 9, Lines 13-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device system of claim 4, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of spacing on the perimeter, as claimed, as disclosed by Baker et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, providing a spaced presentation of the vehicles to oncoming vehicles, allowing coverage of greater area, additional visibility, and presentation of additional signs, providing a safer indication, utilizing mere duplication of the devices.
As to claim 13, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. does not disclose specific instructions, as claimed.
Baker et al. discloses wherein the indication is indicative of at least one of an instruction for the approaching vehicle to slow down, merge lanes, or stop (Column 6, Line 37 – Column 7, Line 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device system of claim 1, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of specific instructions, as claimed, as disclosed by Baker et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, providing notice to the approaching vehicle with greater information on the required actions, allowing easier communication and instruction for the driver, providing a safer indication.
As to claim 19, Du et al. discloses the deployable device of claim 17. Du et al. does not disclose specific instructions, as claimed.
Baker et al. discloses wherein the indication includes a visual alert, and wherein the indication is indicative of at least one of an instruction for the approaching vehicle to slow down, merge lanes, or stop (Column 6, Line 37 – Column 7, Line 25).
As to claim 20, Du et al. discloses a deployable device system for controlling operation of a plurality of deployable devices, the deployable device system comprising: one or more processing circuits comprising one or more memory devices coupled to one or more processors, the one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
control a motor of each deployable device of the plurality of deployable devices to space the plurality of deployable devices along a perimeter established proximate a scene (Figure 1, aerial drone 30).
Du et al. does not disclose specific instructions, as claimed.
Baker et al. discloses to control an indicator of each deployable device of the plurality of deployable devices to provide an indication, wherein the indication includes at least one of an audible sound or a visual alert, and wherein the indication is indicative of at least one of an instruction for the approaching vehicle to slow down, merge lanes, or stop (Column 6, Line 37 – Column 7, Line 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of specific instructions, as claimed, as disclosed by Baker et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, providing notice to the approaching vehicle with greater information on the required actions, allowing easier communication and instruction for the driver, providing a safer indication.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197890 A1 in view of Madden et al., U.S. Patent 11,995,999 B2 (2024).
As to claim 14, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. does not disclose a zone, as claimed.
Boyle discloses wherein the control system is configured to:
receive information acquired about the approaching vehicle (Column 11, Lines 24-42);
determine, based on the information about the approaching vehicle, whether the approaching vehicle has entered a zone (Column 11, Lines 24-42); and
transmit, responsive to a determination that the approaching vehicle has entered the zone, a signal to the approaching vehicle indicative of the scene, wherein the zone is an area including the deployable device, the vehicle, and the scene (Column 11, lines 24-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device system of claim 1, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of zones, as claimed, as disclosed by Madden et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, providing notice of a vehicle entering the scene, allowing a safer operation to focus on the work and not the vehicles.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197890 A1 in view of Boyle, U.S. Patent 11,541,809 B2 (2023).
As to claim 15, Du et al. discloses the deployable device system of claim 1.
Du et al. does not disclose a ground vehicle, as claimed.
Boyle discloses wherein the deployable device is a ground vehicle, and wherein the propulsive element includes a plurality of tractive elements configured to engage a ground surface to propel the deployable device (Figure 13, Column 7, Lines 2-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deployable device system of claim 1, as disclosed by Du et al., with the use of a ground vehicle, as claimed, as disclosed by Boyle, with a reasonable expectation of success, providing a mobile platform for driving along the ground to position for the best visibility to allow a safer operation to alert vehicles approaching.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited discloses similar systems. The present application is cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666