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 § 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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trotter, US 2022/0024587 A1.
As per Claim 11, Trotter teaches a method for replenishing an aerial application aircraft with application materials (¶¶ 22-23), comprising:
engaging an advanced control system (¶ 32) when application materials are to be added to a hopper of the aerial application aircraft (¶¶ 22-23; bulk product 14 of Figures 3, 4 and 5); activating, using the advanced control system, an electric actuator coupled to a hopper cover to open the hopper cover (¶¶ 32-33; linear actuator 22 of Figures 6 and 7); and
activating, using the advanced control system, an electric actuator coupled to an auger to rotate the auger in a direction and disperse application materials within the hopper (¶¶ 32-33; linear actuator 22 of Figures 6 and 7); and
activating, using the advanced control system, the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to close the hopper cover (¶ 25; “Moving lever 38 between a forward position 44 and a back position 46 respectively opens and closes gate 18”).
As per Claim 12, Trotter teaches that activating, using the advanced control system, the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to open the hopper cover, further comprises activating, using the advanced control system, the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to open the hopper cover to a position roughly perpendicular to a closed position of the hopper cover (¶ 26; as gate 18 is shown in Figures 5 and 9).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotter in view of Puryk, et al., US 2021/0195840 A1.
As per Claim 1, Trotter teaches a system for an aerial application aircraft (¶ 24; aircraft 12 of Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a hopper coupled to the aerial application aircraft and operable to hold application materials (¶ 24; bulk container 16 of Figures 2, 3 and 4), wherein the hopper comprises:
a hopper cover to retain the application materials within the hopper (¶¶ 25-26; gate 18 of Figures 2, 3 and 4); and
an electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover operable to open and close the hopper cover (¶¶ 32-33; linear actuator 22 of Figures 6 and 7).
Trotter does not expressly teach: an auger operable to rotate and disperse the application materials within the hopper; and an electric actuator coupled to the auger and operable to automatically rotate the auger upon actuation in a direction; and an advanced control system comprising a safety indicator and is communicatively coupled to the hopper and operable to control the electric actuators from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft, wherein the advanced control system when actuated causes the electric actuator to engage the hopper cover and causes the electric actuator to engage the auger. Puryk teaches:
an auger operable to rotate and disperse the application materials within the hopper (¶¶ 52, 67, 70); and
an electric actuator coupled to the auger and operable to automatically rotate the auger upon actuation in a direction (¶ 110); and
an advanced control system comprising a safety indicator and is communicatively coupled to the hopper and operable to control the electric actuators from a cockpit of the aerial application aircraft (¶ 123; after measuring “tolerance clearance”), wherein the advanced control system when actuated causes the electric actuator to engage the hopper cover and causes the electric actuator to engage the auger (¶ 122; through “auger rotation system 16 of Figure 12).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to incorporate the auger of Puryk into the aircraft hopper of Trotter, in order to keep feed material from forming clumps inside the hopper before dispersal.
As per Claim 2, Trotter teaches that when the advanced control system is actuated, the hopper cover opens to a position roughly perpendicular to a closed position of the hopper cover (¶ 26; as gate 18 is shown in Figures 5 and 9).
As per Claim 3, Trotter does not expressly teach that when the advanced control system is actuated, the hopper cover opens and the electric actuator automatically causes the auger to rotate. Puryk teaches that when the advanced control system is actuated (¶ 110; through auger driver 47 of Figure 12), the hopper cover opens and the electric actuator automatically causes the auger to rotate (¶ 118; “the container opening 83 of the container 85” of Figure 15A). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 4, Trotter does not expressly teach that the auger comprises auger blades having a concave curvature. However, in light of the profile of the grain exiting the chute in the “grain fill model” that Puryk teaches (¶ 71; Figure 8A), it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art that the auger comprises auger blades having a concave curvature. See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 6, Trotter does not expressly teach that the safety indicator indicates a moisture level within the hopper and the safety indicator indicates when the moisture level exceeds a predefined threshold. Puryk teaches that the safety indicator indicates a moisture level within the hopper and the safety indicator indicates when the moisture level exceeds a predefined threshold (¶ 50; based on acceptable ranges of moisture values). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 7, Trotter teaches that the safety indicator indicates an electrical surge, and wherein the advanced control system is operable to control a flow of electrical current in response to the electrical surge (¶ 52; “if an electrical failure occurs”).
As per Claim 9, Trotter does not expressly teach that when the advanced control system is actuated, the hopper cover closes and the electric actuator automatically disables the auger from rotating. Furyk teaches that when the advanced control system is actuated, the hopper cover closes and the electric actuator automatically disables the auger from rotating (¶ 112; if auger drive 47 is “inactive” as per Figure 12). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 10, Trotter teaches that the hopper cover comprises a first latch pin (¶ 29; hinge pin 84 of Figure 4) and a second latch pin (¶¶ 28-29; connecting gate 18 to gate link 62 of Figure 4).
As per Claim 13, Trotter does not expressly teach: automatically activating the electric actuator coupled to the auger to rotate the auger in a direction and disperse application materials within the hopper when the advanced control system activates the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to open the hopper cover. Puryk teaches: automatically activating the electric actuator coupled to the auger to rotate the auger in a direction and disperse application materials within the hopper (¶ 110; through auger driver 47 of Figure 12) when the advanced control system activates the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to open the hopper cover (¶ 118; “the container opening 83 of the container 85” of Figure 15A). (¶ 118; “the container opening 83 of the container 85” of Figure 15A)
As per Claim 14, Trotter does not expressly teach automatically activating the electric actuator coupled to the auger to disable the auger from being able to rotate when the advanced control system activates the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to close the hopper cover. Puryk teaches automatically activating the electric actuator coupled to the auger to disable the auger from being able to rotate when the advanced control system activates the electric actuator coupled to the hopper cover to close the hopper cover (¶ 112; if auger drive 47 is “inactive” as per Figure 12). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 15, Trotter does not expressly teach monitoring, using the advanced control system, a safety indicator. Puryk teaches monitoring, using the advanced control system, a safety indicator (¶ 123; after measuring “tolerance clearance”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 16, Trotter does not expressly teach: setting, using the advanced control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator; and detecting, using the advanced control system, whether a measurement exceeds the predefined threshold. Puryk teaches:
setting, using the advanced control system, a predefined threshold for the safety indicator (¶ 163; based on “a target tolerance”); and
detecting, using the advanced control system, whether a measurement exceeds the predefined threshold (¶ 123; after measuring “tolerance clearance”).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 17, Trotter teaches activating, using the advanced control system, the safety indicator to alert a pilot of the aerial application aircraft when the advanced control system detects the predefined threshold has been exceeded (¶ 46; through “a touchscreen message”).
As per Claim 18, Trotter teaches that the predefined threshold is an electrical surge threshold and the method further comprises automatically controlling, using the advanced control system, a flow of electrical current upon detecting the electrical surge threshold has been exceeded (¶¶ 44, 52; “if an electrical failure occurs”).
As per Claim 19, Trotter does not expressly teach that the predefined threshold is one or more of a temperature or moisture threshold. Puryk teaches that the predefined threshold is one or more of a temperature or moisture threshold (¶ 50). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 20, Trotter does not expressly teach automatically controlling, using the advanced control system, the hopper of the aerial application aircraft to jettison the application materials upon detecting the one or more predefined thresholds have been exceeded. Puryk teaches automatically controlling, using the advanced control system, the hopper of the aerial application aircraft to jettison the application materials upon detecting the one or more predefined thresholds have been exceeded (¶¶ 63-64; through “automated unloading system 200” of Figure 1). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotter in view of Puryk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winsor, CA 2,668,447 A1.
As per Claim 5, Trotter and Puryk do not expressly teach that the safety indicator indicates a temperature within the hopper and the safety indicator indicates when the temperature exceeds a predefined threshold. Winsor teaches that the safety indicator indicates a temperature within the hopper and the safety indicator indicates when the temperature exceeds a predefined threshold (¶¶ 5-6; toi avoid “freezing between the granules of the bulk material”). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the auger of Puryk with the aircraft hopper of Trotter and the safety indicator of Winsor, in order to make sure that material does not get stuck in the exit hole of the hopper after the door opens.
As per Claim 8, Trotter and Puryk do not expressly teach that the auger comprises a first set of auger blades, a second set of auger blades, and a gap between the first set of auger blades and second set of auger blades. Winsor teaches that the auger comprises a first set of auger blades, a second set of auger blades, and a gap between the first set of auger blades and second set of auger blades (¶ 109; coils 1107 of Figures 11, 12 and 14). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the auger of Puryk with the aircraft hopper of Trotter and the blade configuration of Winsor, in order to give the feed material space in which to flow through the hopper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661