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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-9, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites in preceding claim 1, “at least one solar panel assembly”, then recites in claim 8, “each solar panel assembly”. Its unclear if claim 8 requires more than one solar panel assembly. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites in preceding claim 1, “at least one solar panel assembly”, then recites in claim 8, “each solar panel assembly”. Its unclear if claim 8 requires more than one solar panel assembly. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant recites, in preceding claim 1, “a plurality of cabins”, then recites in claim 14, “wherein the central cabin, first cabin, and second cabin”. Its unclear if the central cabin, first cabin and second cabin are referencing back to the plurality of cabins or if these are new distinct cabins being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant recites, “the cabins”. Its unclear if this reference to “the cabins” is referencing, “the plurality of cabins” recited in claim 1, or “the central cabin, first cabin, and second cabin” of claim 14. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant recites, in preceding claim 1, “a plurality of cabins”, then recites in claim 14, “wherein the central cabin, first cabin, and second cabin”. Its unclear if the central cabin, first cabin and second cabin are referencing back to the plurality of cabins or if these are new distinct cabins being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant recites, “the cabins”. Its unclear if this reference to “the cabins” is referencing, “the plurality of cabins” recited in claim 1, or different distinct cabins. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the mounting assembly”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as preceding claim 1 makes no reference of a mounting assembly. Appropriate action is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (US 2024/0278946 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Roberts discloses a drone system (Figs. 4-15 & Abstract) including:
a trailer including a chassis and a draw bar extending from the chassis (Fig. 4, #2005 & #2015 – Paragraph 0455);
the chassis being supported on a surface by one or more wheels (Fig. 4, #2010 & Paragraph 0455);
a plurality of cabins mounted to the chassis (Fig. 4, #2410 on either side of cabin #2020), each cabin has an upper surface (Fig. 4, #2410 has solar panels on the upper surface – Fig. 13 shows cabin #2020 has an upper surface to which drone #3000 docks);
at least one solar panel assembly mounted to an upper surface of one of the cabins (Fig. 9, #2500 & Paragraph 0476); and
a drone landing dock provided on an upper surface of another one of the cabins (Fig. 13 shows cabin #2020 has an upper surface to which drone #3000 lands – Paragraph 0476).
In view of Claim 4, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts discloses the plurality of cabins includes a central cabin flanked by a first cabin and a second cabin (Fig. 9, #2020 is the center position and is flanked by first and second cabins #2410), wherein the drone landing dock is provided on an upper surface of the central cabin (Fig. 13 shows cabin #2020 has an upper surface to which drone #3000 docks), and the at least one solar panel assemblies are provided on upper surfaces of the first and second cabin (Fig. 9, #2500).
In view of Claim 5, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Roberts teaches that the first of the two solar panels assemblies is mounted on an upper surface of the first cabin and the second of the two solar panel assemblies is mounted on an upper surface of the second cabin (Fig. 9, #2500 mounted on either cabin #2410).
In view of Claim 6, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Roberts teaches that each solar panel assembly includes a plurality of solar panels that are moveable between a retracted configuration towards the central portion of the trailer chassis in a stowed arrangement (Fig. 4, #2500 retracts inward from outward sides of the system) and an expanded configuration whereby the solar panels are in a outwardly extended arrangement (Fig. 9, #2500).
In view of Claim 8, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts teaches that each solar panel assembly is operatively associated with a charger located in one of the cabins (Paragraph 0065, 0309).
In view of Claim 14, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts teaches the central cabin, the first cabin, and the second cabin are integrally formed to have a common internal cavity (when the cabins are sealed (See Fig. 8), the internal cavity is shared among the first, second, and central cabin).
In view of Claim 16, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts teaches that the central cabin, first cabin, and second cabin are separately formed (Fig. 13, #2410 on either side is separate from center cabin #2020).
In view of Claim 17, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts teaches the cabins include a generator/alternative power source (Paragraph 0083-0084).
In view of Claim 18, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts teaches a drone assembly operatively associated with the mounting assembly (Fig. 10, #3000 & Paragraph 0410).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2024/0278946 A1) in view of Straus et al. (US 2019/0002127 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts does not disclose an air conditioning system housed in one of the cabins that is operable to manage the cooling in the cabins.
Straus et al. discloses that cabins holding drones can be fitting with an air conditioning system to make sure condensation of humidity does not accumulate in the station such that the drone is allowed to leave for a mission whenever needed and thus the configuration can be designed to protect the drone in the cabin all year round and from various weather conditions (Paragraph 0040). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that one of the cabins managing the drone in Roberts system would be designed to protect the drone all year round from various weather conditions by ensuring condensation does not accumulate by usage of an air conditioning system.
Claims 3, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2024/0278946 A1) in view of Sharp (US 2024/0006903 A1).
In view of Claim 3, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts does not teach one or more support members are height-adjustable to allow for leveling of the drone system on uneven terrain.
Sharp discloses one or more support members (Figs. 1-3, #15) are height-adjustable (Fig. 3, #115 – see crank handle on top of the stay) to allow for leveling of a trailer system on uneven terrain for the advantage of securing the trailer into position when it reaches its required location (Paragraph 0090). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate one or more support members are height-adjustable to allow for leveling of the drone system on uneven terrain in Roberts drone system for the advantage of being able to secure the drone system into position when it reaches its required location.
In view of Claim 10, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts does not disclose a plurality of batteries located in any one or more of the cabins wherein power from the solar panel assembly is stored across the batteries.
Sharp discloses a plurality of batteries located in the main cabin supported by a trailer chassis wherein power from a solar panel assembly is stored across the batteries that advantageously provide over temperature protection, over charge protection and any other circuit protection known in the battery arts while also allowing individual batteries to be safely swapped out with no interruption to power (Fig. 6, #62 & Paragraph 0052-0053). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the configuration of Sharp in Roberts drone system such that a plurality of batteries are supported in the main cabin of Roberts to store the power from the solar panel assembly for the advantage of having a power storing configuration that provides over temperature protection, over charge protection and any other circuit protection known in the battery arts while also allowing individual batteries to be safely swapped out with no interruption to power
In view of Claim 11, Roberts and Sharp are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Sharp discloses that each battery is provided with over-temperature protection and overcharge protection and any other circuit protection as known in the battery arts (Paragraph 0052). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when an individual battery over temperature or overcharge protection goes over the intended temperature or protection temperature that the battery would be shutoff or cutoff from the other batteries in the circuit.
In view of Claim 12, Roberts and Sharp are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Sharp was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious that the batteries are housed in the central cabin of Roberts. Sharp discloses the batteries take the form of a modular frame structure (Fig. 6, #62 & Paragraph 0052-0053).
In view of Claim 13, Roberts and Sharp are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Sharp discloses that the batteries are positionable within the modular frame structure (Fig. 6, #62 & Paragraph 0053). In regards to the limitation, “to allow for weight distribution of the batteries across the trailer”, it’s the Examiner’s position that the batteries are substantially smaller than the trailer chassis to which they are supported from and would be capable of having their weight properly distributed and accounted for along the trailer chassis.
It is noted that “to allow for weight distribution of the batteries across the trailer” is considered to be a functional limitation, where the modular frame structure of Sharp is capable of the claimed function. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (see MPEP 2112.01, I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2024/0278946 A1) in view of Srnec (US 2025/0007451 A1).
In view of Claim 9, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts does not disclose each solar panel assembly is operatively associated with a solar panel isolator located in one of the cabins.
Srnec discloses that electrical isolation devices can be used to isolate components such as solar panel photovoltaic cells to advantageously reduce or prevent the exposed of electrical power to under a predetermined threshold voltage (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a solar panel isolator in one of the cabins of Roberts for the advantage of being able to isolate at least one of the solar panel assemblies in the scenario where they are over a predetermined threshold voltage.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2024/0278946 A1) in view of Cannon Sales “Access Doors and Panels” in view of International Electrotechnical Commission “IP ratings”.
In view of Claim 15, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Roberts does not disclose that each of the three cabins has a door providing access that includes waterproof seals having an IP67 rating.
Cannon Sales discloses that a quality-built access door or access panel can be the different between a simple repair and an expensive one that requires removing part of a wall, floor, or ceiling and that access doors are used to let us into electrical systems and that doors come in a variety of sizes and materials for use in different application (Page 1, 1st Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that each cabin of Roberts is provided with an access door so that in the event a portion of the drone system needs to be repaired that the access doors provide the necessary access without requiring a more expensive repair.
The International Electrotechnical Commission discloses that if an element is rated 6 in the 1st numeral of the IP rating that it is considered dust tight, which is the highest level of protection for solid foreign objects and if an element is rated 7 that it is protected against the effects of temporary water immersion (3rd Page – Table). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the access doors be an IP67 rating for the advantage of having access doors that are dust tight and protected against the effects of temporary water immersion.
Claims 7 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (US 2024/0278946 A1) in view of Poage (US 2018/0320835 A1).
In view of Claim 7, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Roberts discloses that each solar panel assembly comprises three solar panels but does not disclose that in the retracted configuration the three solar panels are stacked in relation to each other and in the expanded configuration two of the solar panels extend outwardly from the third, central solar panel.
Poage discloses three solar panels that when retracted are in a stacked configuration in relation to each other (Fig. 1, #122, #124 & #126) and in an expanded configuration two of the solar panels extend outwardly from a third central solar panel (Fig. 3, #146 & #126 extend outward from central solar panel #122 – Paragraph 0013). Poage discloses that this configuration can extend the time and overall energy collection obtained by a system during a given day (Paragraph 0041) and that the invention aims to improve the manner in which solar power can be used (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt on the outer cabins of Roberts a configuration in which each said has three solar panels that when retracted are in a stacked configuration in relation to each other and in an expanded configuration the two of the solar panels extend outwardly from a third central solar panel for the advantages of extending the time and overall energy collection obtained by a system during a given day while improving the manner in which solar power is used.
In view of Claim 19, Roberts is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Roberts discloses a watchtower assembly (Fig. 4, #2210) having a mast disposed over the draw bar of the trailer (Fig. 4, #2210 has a mast going down and connects to draw bar portion of trailer chassis), and a bracket assembly adapted for mounting the bast to the draw bar (See Annotated Roberts Fig. 5, below). Roberts discloses one or more IoT devices mounted to the mast and configured to provide real-time operational data associated with the system, with the one or more IoT devices being operatively associated with power and data components located within the cabins (Paragraph 0505-0506). Roberts does not explicitly teach that the mast is moveable between a retracted configuration and an extended configuration.
Poage discloses a mast that for communications that allows a user via a winch to move the mast between a retracted and extended configuration while also allowing lights or security cameras to provide nighttime illumination (Figs. 1 & 3, #130 – Paragraph 0036). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the mast be moveable between a retracted configuration and extended configuration as disclosed by Poage in Roberts mast for the advantages of allowing a user to manually raise and lower the mast, while additionally allowing the mast to provide nighttime illumination or security monitoring features to the drone system of Roberts.
Annotated Roberts Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
908
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726