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 Objections
Claims 6, 8, 10, 13-14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6 lines 1-2, “… claim 1, which comprises four rotor arms…” should read “…claim 1, wherein the plurality of rotor arms comprises four rotor arms…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 8 lines 2-3, “…end of the rotor arm…” should read “…end of each rotor arm…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 10 line 2, “…and pump…” should read “…and the pump…”.
In claim 13 line 3, “…liquid from a ballast chamber…” should read “…liquid from the main ballast chamber…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 14 line 4, “…said ballast chamber…” should read “…said rotor arm ballast chamber…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 16 lines 1-2, “..claim 1, which includes landing gear…” should read “…claim 1, wherein the drone includes landing gear…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2022/0315218) in view of Clark et al. (US 2021/0261248) and Rigsby et al. (US 3,251,328).
Regarding claim 1, Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches a hybrid aerial hydro drone comprising:
an ovoid shaped streamlined fluid tight body which facilitates aerodynamic and hydrodynamic traversal and defining an internal cargo space/cabin accessible via a sealable hatch/hemispherical shells (2-1, 2-2) (Para 0046; upper and lower hemispherical shells (2-1, 2-2) form a ovoid shaped body) ;
four hydraulic thrusters/marine propellers (10s) circumferentially spaced about an outer surface of the ovoid-shaped body and configured to propel the body in a marine environment, each hydraulic thruster/marine propeller (10) arranged on a quadrant of said ovoid-shaped body to facilitate controlled marine propulsion (clearly seen in figure 1) (0047);
a plurality of rotors arms/cantilever arms arranged on the body, each rotor arm/cantilever arm comprising a rotor system/motor (4) and rotor (3) configured to propel said body in an aerial environment (Para 0045-0046);
wherein the body includes a controller/core control, and an energy source/lithium battery pack (13) (Para 0045, 0049),
but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone
wherein each arm is deployably configured between a deployed position in which the rotor systems are extended from the body for aerial transversal, and a folded position in which the arms are hydrodynamically folded behind the body for submerged marine transversal;
wherein the body includes main ballast chamber,
said controller configured to:
for aerial traversal, actuate the rotor arms into the deployed position, discharge liquid from the main ballast chamber and control the rotor systems as required for controlled flight; and
for marine traversal, actuate the rotor arms into the folded position, charge the main ballast chamber with liquid and control the hydraulic thrusters as required for submerged marine traversal.
Clark et al. ‘248 (figures 1-4) a vehicle/hybrid aerial hydro drone (100) adapted for both air and underwater travel wherein the vehicle/ hybrid aerial hydro drone (100) comprises an air propulsion system (130) comprising two or more sets of propelling blades (131) and the electrical motor (132), a liquid propulsion system (140) comprising two or more sets of propelling blades (141) and the electrical motor (142), submergence system (150) comprising one or more submergence propulsion system and ballast system/tanks in the submerging body (110) and control system (160) governing the operation of the vehicle/hybrid aerial hydro drone (100) during all phases of travel of the vehicle/hybrid aerial hydro drone,
wherein the ballast tank is deployed upon transition from air operation mode to submerged operation mode and recovered upon transition from submerged operation mode back to air operation mode and the submergence level of the ballast tank is controlled by loading and discharging liquid into the ballast tank,
wherein during air travel mode air propulsion system (130) is deployed to generate propulsive forces to allow the vehicle (100) to make vertical and horizontal movements in the air and during submerged travel mode the air propulsion system (130) is retracted/folded into a submerging body (110) (Para 0038, 0067, 0069, 0075, 0077, 0082, 0084).
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 Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Clark et al. ‘248 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone
wherein each arm is deployably configured between a deployed position in which the rotor systems are extended from the body for aerial transversal, and a folded position in which the arms are hydrodynamically folded behind the body for submerged marine transversal;
wherein the body includes main ballast chamber,
said controller configured to:
for aerial traversal, actuate the rotor arms into the deployed position, discharge liquid from the main ballast chamber and control the rotor systems as required for controlled flight; and
for marine traversal, actuate the rotor arms into the folded position, charge the main ballast chamber with liquid and control the hydraulic thrusters as required for submerged marine traversal.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance efficiency of aerial and marine traversals.
Modified Ji et al. ‘218 is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the body includes a pump and controller configured to operate the pump to charge and discharge liquid from the main ballast chamber.
Rigsby et al. ‘328 (figures 1-4) teaches a ballast system for small submarines comprising a ballast tank (10), a pump (12) operatively connected to the ballast (10) to pump water, an exhaust conduit (14), an intake conduit (16) , a bilge conduit (18), and a vent pipe/snorkel (20) wherein the vent pipe/snorkel (20) provides communication between the surface air and the interior of the hull mounted in a submarine hull (22) wherein in operation submergence begin by opening the main ballast valve (76) and the snorkel valve (88) simultaneously thereby permitting water to flow through pipes (16, 60, 58) into the ballast tank (Col. 3 Lines 48-54; Col. 5 Lines 24-35, 45-56)
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Rigsby et al. ‘328 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone comprising:
a pump and controller configured to operate the pump to charge and discharge liquid from the main ballast chamber (controller controls the pump).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to actively control the water inside the main ballast chamber.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 1 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the body comprises a double-hulled structure.
Rigsby et al. ‘328 (figures 1-4) teaches double submarine hull having an inner hull which resists the water pressure and an outer hull which defines a ballast tank. (Col. 1 Lines 50-54).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Rigsby et al. ‘328 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the body comprises a double-hulled structure.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance safety of the hybrid aerial hydro drone.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the controller/core control is configured to monitor pressure of the internal cargo space/cabin (Para 0050).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the plurality of arm comprises four arms arranged in a quadcopter configuration on the body (clearly seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor system comprises a propeller/rotor (3) and electric motor (4) arranged on an end of each rotor arm (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0042).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the pump is configured to charge the main ballast chamber with liquid/water from the marine environment, as required , to regulate and control ballast for marine traversal (as modified by Clark et al. ‘248 and Rigsby et al. ‘328).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the pump comprises a snorkel/vent pipe (20) to facilitate charging and discharging of fluid/air from the main ballast chamber (as modified by Rigsby et al. ‘328; air is drawn or expelled by pump via vent pipe/snorkel (20) during discharge or charge, respectively, of water from the main ballast chamber).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the pump is configured to draw or expel atmospheric air in order to discharge or charge, respectively, liquid/water from the main ballast chamber (as modified by Rigsby et al. ‘328; atmospheric air is drawn or expelled by pump via vent pipe/snorkel (20) during discharge or charge, respectively, of water from the main ballast chamber).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the drone includes landing gear/undercarriage (5) to support the drone during take-off and landing (Para 0042).
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2022/0315218), Clark et al. (US 2021/0261248) and Rigsby et al. (US 3,251,328) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernhardt (US 2018/0257772).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 1 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor arm comprises a ballast chamber, the controller configured to:
for aerial traversal, discharge liquid from said rotor arm ballast chambers; and
for marine traversal, regulate and control liquid ballast within the respective rotor arm ballast chambers to facilitate controlled submerged marine propulsion.
Bernhardt ‘772 (figures 1A-9) teaches a robust amphibious air vehicle (10) comprising ducted fans/rotor system (22a, 22b) incorporating supplemental buoyancy elements (26) mounted on a centerline (28) of the propulsion fans/rotors (24a, 24b) wherein the supplemental buoyance elements (26) includes ballast tanks (52) which is filled with water when water valves (62) are opened by a microprocessor (Para 0031, 0034, 0039).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Bernhardt ‘772 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor arm comprises a ballast chamber (rotor arm carries rotor system), the controller configured to:
for aerial traversal, discharge liquid from said rotor arm ballast chambers; and
for marine traversal, regulate and control liquid ballast within the respective rotor arm ballast chambers to facilitate controlled submerged marine propulsion.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance marine traversal by providing extra ballast chamber.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 1 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the hydraulic thrusters are swivelably arranged on the body and controllable by the controller to allow steering in a marine environment.
Bernhardt ‘772 (figures 1A-9) teaches a robust amphibious air vehicle (10) comprising ducted fans (22a, 22b) which can be rotated to optimize the vertical alignment of the overall air vehicle in the pogo position (Para 0039).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Bernhardt ‘772 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the hydraulic thrusters are swivelably arranged on the body and controllable by the controller to allow steering in a marine environment.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide enhanced control of the hybrid aerial hydro drone in maritime environment.
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 2 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the controller and the pump are configured to charge or discharge each rotor arm ballast chamber with fluid to regulate and control ballast for marine traversal, and
wherein the pump is selectively arranged in fluid contact with each rotor arm ballast chamber by means of suitable valves and fluid conduits.
Rigsby et al. ‘328 (figures 1-4) teaches a ballast system for small submarines comprising a ballast tank (10), a pump (12) operatively connected to the ballast (10) to pump water, an exhaust conduit (14), an intake conduit (16) , a bilge conduit (18), and a vent pipe/fluid conduit (20) wherein the vent pipe/conduit (20) provides communication between the surface air/fluid and the interior of the hull mounted in a submarine hull (22) wherein in operation submergence begin by opening the main ballast valve (76) and the snorkel valve (88) simultaneously thereby permitting water to flow through pipes (16, 60, 58) into the ballast tank (Col. 3 Lines 48-54; Col. 5 Lines 24-35, 45-56)
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Rigsby et al. ‘328 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the controller and the pump are configured to charge or discharge each rotor arm ballast chamber with fluid/air to regulate and control ballast for marine traversal (air is drawn or expelled by pump via vent pipe/snorkel (20) during discharge or charge, respectively, of water from the rotor arm ballast chamber), and
wherein the pump is selectively arranged in fluid/air contact with each rotor arm ballast chamber by means of suitable valves and fluid conduits.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to actively control the liquid inside the rotor arm ballast chamber.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2022/0315218), Clark et al. (US 2021/0261248), and Rigsby et al. (US 3,251,328) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bietenhader (US 6,176,679).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 1 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor arms comprises an electromechanical actuator under control of the controller and configured to actuate the arms between the deployed and folded positions, as required.
Bietenhader ‘679 teaches rotor with folding blades for the rotary wings of an aircraft wherein the blades are folded by electromechanical actuators mounted on the rotors (Col. 1 Lines 15-17, 58-67).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Bietenhader ‘679 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor arms comprises an electromechanical actuator under control of the controller and configured to actuate the arms between the deployed and folded positions, as required.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would automate the deployment and retraction of the rotor arms.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2022/0315218), Clark et al. (US 2021/0261248), Rigsby et al. (US 3,251,328) and Bernhardt (US 2018/0257772) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Newton (GB 112893).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 2 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor arm ballast chamber comprises a piston and cylinder arrangement configured to pneumatically syringe liquid, such as water from the marine environment, into or out of said ballast chamber under control of the controller to regulate ballast of said rotor arm.
Newton ‘893 teaches (figures 1-2) a piston (14) drawing into the cylinders (11) the water which enters through the Kingston valves (10) or delivering it outside the hull of the submarine, controls the variations of the buoyancy rendered necessary for the maintenance of equilibrium of the submarine when at rest at the desired depth below the surface (Pg. 2 Lines 8-12).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Newton ‘893 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein each rotor arm ballast chamber comprises a piston and cylinder arrangement configured to pneumatically syringe liquid, such as water from the marine environment, into or out of said rotor arm ballast chamber under control of the controller to regulate ballast of said rotor arm.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to actively control the liquid inside the rotor arm ballast chamber.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2022/0315218), Clark et al. (US 2021/0261248), and Rigsby et al. (US 3,251,328) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 2019/0310658).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 1 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the controller comprises at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) to allow said controller to calculate altitude, velocity and/or position of the drone.
Zhu ‘658 (figure 1) teaches the UAV (100) including an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Para 0023).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘218 to incorporate the teachings of Zhu ‘658 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the controller comprises at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) to allow said controller to calculate altitude, velocity and/or position of the drone.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would effectively track the drone.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2022/0315218), Clark et al. (US 2021/0261248), and Rigsby et al. (US 3,251,328) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2022/0078389).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ji et al. ‘218 (figures 1-11) teaches the hybrid aerial hydro drone of claim 16 but it is silent about the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the landing gear is configured to be stowed within the body or hydrodynamically folded behind the body for marine traversal.
Jiang et al. ‘389 (figure 1)teaches a UAV (100) comprising landing gear (50) wherein the driving apparatus controls the landing gear (50) to fold to prevent the landing gear (50) from affecting the flight of the UAV (Para 0093).
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 further modified Ji et al. ‘389 to incorporate the teachings of Jiang et al. ‘389 to configure the hybrid aerial hydro drone wherein the landing gear is configured to be hydrodynamically folded behind the body for marine traversal.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce drag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642