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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 16, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0331403) in view of Giorgi et al. (US 2019/0102730).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Smith et al. discloses a lightbar (200) for mounting to a vehicle, the lightbar comprising: one or more warning lights (240-1, 240-2); a compartment (220) configured to receive a drone (230), the compartment being located within the lightbar (Fig. 2); at least one door configured to move between a closed position in which the compartment is in a closed state, and an open position in which the compartment is in an open state, the movement of the door to the open position enabling a drone received in the compartment to exit the compartment (paragraph [0029]); and a platform located within the compartment, the platform configured to receive the drone (one or more surfaces disclosed in paragraph [0205]).
Smith et al. fails to teach that the platform comprises a visual marking configured to be detected by a drone to aid the drone in landing on the visual marking. However, Giorgi et al. discloses a drone delivery and landing system wherein a landing platform is provided with a visual marking configured to be detected by a drone to aid the drone in landing on the visual marking ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include the visual marking taught by Giorgi et al. in order to provide improved accuracy and dynamic tracking to allow landing while the vehicle is in motion.
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al. discloses one or more sensors, the one or more sensors include a digital camera, video camera, thermal imaging camera, LIDAR, and/ or face recognition camera, wherein the one or more sensors face in one or more of a forward direction, back direction, and side direction (paragraph [0165], Smith et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Smith et al. as modified fails to teach that when the lightbar is mounted on a vehicle, the one or more sensors is located between the one or more warning lights and the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide the sensor on the vehicle as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 16, Smith et al. discloses that the sensors are operably connected to an in-camera Al processing chip to perform some functionality and/or are connected to a computer, wherein the in-camera Al processing chip and/or computer employ machine learning techniques to perform one or more of face recognition, number plate recognition, and Al Deep learning processing (the sensors of Smith et al. are connected to processing circuit 410 that are configured to process data using modules that comprise machine learning model (paragraph [0140]).
Regarding claim 18, Smith et al. discloses, one or more sensors (paragraph [0165], Smith et al.); one or more batteries (460); and wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more cameras (paragraph [0120]), and wherein the drone is configured to autonomously return to and dock on the platform of the lightbar using computer vision based on images captured by the one or cameras of the platform's visual marking to aid the drone in landing (paragraphs [0105] and [0153]).
Regarding claim 22, Smith et al. discloses that the one or more sensors comprises one or more cameras, and wherein the drone is configured to autonomously avoid obstacles during flight (paragraph [0148])
Regarding claim 23, Smith et al. discloses that the one or more sensors are at least one of: a digital camera, a video camera, a thermal camera, a noise sensor, LIDAR or a smell sensor (paragraph [0165], Smith et al.).
Regarding claim 25, Smith et al. discloses that the drone is configured to wirelessly transmit data to a terminal located remotely to the lightbar (paragraph [0176]).
Regarding claim 30, Smith et al. discloses a user terminal (paragraph [0176]) configured to receive data from the drone.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0331403) as modified by Giorgi et al. (US 2019/0102730) and further in view of Smith et al. (WO 2021/076776).
Regarding claim 2, Smith et al. ‘403 as modified by Giorgi et al. fails to teach that the at least one door is configured to slide parallel to the planar surface of the lightbar, and wherein when the at least one door is in the closed position, the compartment is fully enclosed within the lightbar. However, Smith et al. ‘776 discloses a drone pod for receiving, storing, and presenting a drone having a door (310) that is configured to slide parallel to the planar surface of a top structure (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a door on the top surface in order to allow for easier take off and landing of the drone.
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al. ‘403 as modified by Giorgi et al. and Smith et al. ‘776 discloses that the platform for receiving the drone is a moveable platform, and wherein the moveable platform can be moved from a first position in which the drone is fully received in the compartment, and a raised second position when the door is open (paragraph [0053], Smith et al. ‘776).
Regarding claim 5, Smith et al. ‘403 as modified above discloses that the compartment includes charging means (460, Smith et al. ‘403) to charge the drone.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0331403) as modified by Giorgi et al. (US 2019/0102730) and Smith et al. (WO 2021/076776) and further in view of Bokeno et al. (US 2016/0200438).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Smith et al. as modified above fails to teach that the charging means are one of a wireless charging coil or one or more contact pads. However, Bokeno et al. discloses a UAV docking station comprising a charging means that is a contact pad (paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a contact pad charging means as taught by Bokeno et al. in order to easily recharge the drone as needed.
Regarding claim 7, Smith et al. as modified above discloses that charging means are located on the moveable platform (paragraph [0043], Bokeno et al.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0331403) as modified by Giorgi et al. (US 2019/0102730) and further in view of Milan (WO 2020/064577).
Regarding claim 14, Smith et al. as modified by Giorgi et al. fails to teach that the at least one of the sensors is a retractable sensor configured to move between a first and second position and wherein in the first position the retractable sensor is enclosed within the lightbar, and in the second position the retractable sensor is deployed such that a signal may be received by the retractable sensor. However, Milan discloses UAV structure having a retractable sensor (4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to make the sensor retractable in order to protect the sensor from external elements.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0331403) as modified by Giorgi et al. (US 2019/0102730) and further in view of Kratz et al. (EP 3,496,426).
Regarding claim 20, Smith et al. as modified by Giorgi et al. fails to teach that one or more rotors mounted on folding arms such that the rotors and arms can be retracted to fit inside the compartment of the lightbar. However, Kratz et al. discloses a drone having rotors that can be folded to fit inside of a structure (paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a drone that can be folded in order to save space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 11-12, 14, 16, 18-20, 22-23, 25, 27 and 30 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights