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
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedel et al., US20190161204 (hereinafter referred to as Riedel), in view of Wabnegger et al., CA2988156 (hereinafter referred to as Wabnegger), and in further view of Kornatowski et al., NPL U (hereinafter referred to as Kornatowski).
In regards to claim 1, Riedel teaches a flight vehicle (drone 10; [Fig. 1]) including a propeller (rotors 25; [Fig. 1]), the flight vehicle comprising: conductor (Faraday cage of housing 42; [0139]) configured to expose the propeller to an outside (implicit, the housing box is within the circumference of the rotors 25; [Fig. 1]) and surround a control unit of the flight vehicle (implicit; [Fig. 1]); a lightning rod (lightning antennae; [Fig. 1]) disposed on the conductor (implicit; [Fig. 1]) and configured to avoid a direct lightning stroke on the propeller (implicit purpose of a discharge electrode); and a conducting line (cable 13; [Fig. 1]) configured to connect (implicit; [Fig. 1]) the conductor and a ground contact point (ground station 11; [Fig. 1]).
Riedel does not teach of the conductor being lattice-shaped; and an insulating attachment portion configured to attach the conductor to the flight vehicle.
Wabnegger teaches of the conductor (cage; [Pg. 6, Ln. 15-26]) being lattice-shaped (electrically conductive matrix; [Pg. 6, Ln. 15-26]).
Wabnegger does not teach an insulating attachment portion configured to attach the conductor to the flight vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Riedel in order to modify the conductor to be lattice-shaped. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known technique of the Faraday cage to Riedel’s Faraday cage for protecting the drone.
Kornatowski teaches an insulating attachment portion (soft joints, NinjaFlex Flexible 3D Printing Filament; [Pg. 3, Col. 1, Para. 4]) configured to attach the conductor to the flight vehicle (implicit, image A; [Fig. 4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Riedel in order to incorporate an insulating attachment portion configured to attach the conductor to the flight vehicle as taught by Kornatowski. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known technique for attaching a cage to a drone body while maintain the protection of a Faraday cage.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedel et al., US20190161204 (hereinafter referred to as Riedel), in view of Wabnegger et al., CA2988156 (hereinafter referred to as Wabnegger), and in further view of Kornatowski et al., NPL U (hereinafter referred to as Kornatowski) and in further view of O’Reilly et al., US20240213753 (hereinafter referred to as O’Reilly).
In regards to claim 2, Riedel, Wabnegger, and Kornatowski do not teach wherein the lightning rod is extendable and retractable.
O’Reilly teaches wherein the lightning rod is extendable and retractable (telescoping; [Abstract]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Riedel, Wabnegger, and Kornatowski in order to incorporate wherein the lightning rod is extendable and retractable. The motivation for doing so would be make the drone smaller for transport.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedel et al., US20190161204 (hereinafter referred to as Riedel), in view of Wabnegger et al., CA2988156 (hereinafter referred to as Wabnegger), and in further view of Kornatowski et al., NPL U (hereinafter referred to as Kornatowski), and in further view of Guangrun et al., US5159521 (hereinafter referred to as Guangrun).
In regards to claim 3, Riedel, Wabnegger, and Kornatowski do not teach wherein the lightning rod is disposed on a top portion and a horizontal portion of the conductor.
Guangrun teaches wherein the lightning rod is disposed on a top portion and a horizontal portion of the conductor (three of the four rods pictured in Fig. 1 are placed on a top and horizontal portion of the conductor, semiconductor rod 2; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Riedel, Wabnegger, and Kornatowski in order to incorporate wherein the lightning rod is disposed on a top portion and a horizontal portion of the conductor as taught by Guangrun. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a taught placement of lightning rods for lightning protection coverage for the “one or more lightning antennae 26” as taught by Riedel ([0100]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedel et al., US20190161204 (hereinafter referred to as Riedel), in view of Wabnegger et al., CA2988156 (hereinafter referred to as Wabnegger), and in further view of Kornatowski et al., NPL U (hereinafter referred to as Kornatowski), and in further view of O’Reilly et al., US20240213753 (hereinafter referred to as O’Reilly), and in further view of Guangrun et al., US5159521 (hereinafter referred to as Guangrun).
In regards to claim 4, Riedel, Wabnegger, Kornatowski, and O’Reilly do not teach wherein the lightning rod is disposed on a top portion and a horizontal portion of the conductor.
Guangrun teaches wherein the lightning rod is disposed on a top portion and a horizontal portion of the conductor (three of the four rods pictured in Fig. 1 are placed on a top and horizontal portion of the conductor, semiconductor rod 2; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Riedel, Wabnegger, and Kornatowski in order to incorporate wherein the lightning rod is disposed on a top portion and a horizontal portion of the conductor as taught by Guangrun. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a taught placement of lightning rods for lightning protection coverage for the “one or more lightning antennae 26” as taught by Riedel ([0100]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights