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 amendment dated April 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 16 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 Hamm, U.S. Patent 11,939,057 B2 (2024).
As to claim 1, Du et al. discloses a deployable device system comprising:
a deployable device (Figure 1, aerial drone 30) including:
at least one of (i) a plurality of tractive elements or (ii) one or more rotors coupled to the deployable device (0026, Figure 1, rotors 22);
a motor coupled to the deployable device and the at least one of (i) the plurality of tractive elements or (ii) the one or more rotors and configured to drive the at least one of (i) the plurality of tractive elements or (ii) the one or more rotors 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
control the indicator to provide an indication (0028, 0036).
Du et al. does not disclose a position along a perimeter established proximate the scene, as claimed.
Hamm discloses a position along a perimeter established proximate the scene (Column 6, Lines 25-58)
and where control is based on a schedule associated with the scene (Column 20, Lines 36-45).
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 perimeter proximate the scene and a schedule associated with the scene, as claimed, as disclosed by Hamm, with a reasonable expectation of success, providing warning to oncoming vehicles, by establishing a safe distance of warning away from the scene and establishing a time for the warning based on limitations.
As to claim 2, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and Du et al. 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 3, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. does not describe an indicator on the vehicle, as claimed.
Hamm discloses wherein the indicator is a first indicator, and wherein the vehicle includes a second indicator configured to provide one or more indications to the operator of the approaching vehicle (Column 5, Line 65 – Column 6, Line 6).
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., as modified by Hamm, with the use of a second indicator, as claimed, as disclosed by Hamm, with a reasonable expectation of success, providing warning to oncoming vehicles, using lights, reflectors, sound, or other indications to the approaching vehicle, which are standard indicator systems.
Mere duplication of parts by adding a second indicator, would be obvious by legal precedent. See MPEP 2144.04.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
As to claim 4, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, 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., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 4 and Du et al. 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., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and Du et al. 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., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 7, and Du et al. 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 9, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1. Du et al. further 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.
Hamm further discloses wherein the vehicle includes an area configured to store the deployable device during transportation of the vehicle and a charger configured to charge the deployable device (Column 13, Lines 16-50, Figures 18-20).
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., as modified by Hamm, with the use of storage and charging, as claimed, as disclosed by Hamm, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the deployable device to arrive at the deployment safely and charged for usage, allowing for the operation.
As to claim 10, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and Du et al. 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., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and Du et al. 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., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and Du et al. 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., as modified by Hamm, discloses the deployable device system of claim 1, and Du et al. further discloses wherein the deployable device is an aerial vehicle, and wherein the deployable device element includes the one or more rotors configured to lift the deployable device (Figure 1, aerial drone 20, rotors 22).
Claims 5, 13, 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 Hamm, U.S. Patent 11,939,057 B2 (2024) and further in view of Baker et al., U.S. Patent 12,062,281 B1 (2024).
As to claim 5, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, 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., as modified by Hamm, 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., as modified by Hamm, 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., as modified by Hamm, 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 20, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, 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., as modified by Hamm, 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 Hamm, U.S. Patent 11,939,057 B2 (2024) and further in view of Madden et al., U.S. Patent 11,995,999 B2 (2024).
As to claim 14, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, 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., as modified by Hamm, 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 Hamm, U.S. Patent 11,939,057 B2 (2024), and further in view of Boyle, U.S. Patent 11,541,809 B2 (2023).
As to claim 15, Du et al., as modified by Hamm, 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 deployable device includes the 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., as modified by Hamm, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued the amendments were not disclosed in the references cited. Newly cited reference Hamm discloses the amendments to claim 1.
Claim 17 includes limitations relating to the body separating from the chassis to redirect or stop the approaching vehicle. This is not shown in the Hamm reference or the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art cited discloses similar systems.
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 3667
Prosecution Insights