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 § 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, 2, 4-8, 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosma (US Pat No 11,702,221 B2).
Re claim 1, Bosma shows an aerial vehicle (Figs. 33A-34) comprising:
a first propulsion system (3300), the aerial vehicle configured to travel to a location associated with a fire, wherein the location is a threshold distance (col. 23, line 63) from a fire location;
a tether assembly (3301) configured to extend a retractable tether based at least in part on the aerial vehicle travelling to the location; and
a fire extinguishing device (3400) coupled to the tether assembly and comprising a second propulsion system (3402), the fire extinguishing device configured to (i) expel (3409) a fire suppressant towards the fire and (ii) perform one or more stabilization operations using the second propulsion system based at least in part on expelling the fire suppressant (col. 24, lines 50-53).
Re claims 2 & 12, Bosma discloses one or more processors (col. 24, line 52 – “computerized sensing”) configured to determine one or more propulsion parameters for the second propulsion system based at least in part on one or more fire suppressant parameters, wherein the one or more stabilization operations are based at least in part on the one or more propulsion parameters (col. 24, lines 50-53).
Re claims 4 & 14, Bosma shows the fire extinguishing device comprises one or more sensors (3408) configured to detect the fire location.
Re claims 5 & 15, Bosma shows the tether assembly (3301) is configured to lower the fire extinguishing device to a fire extinguishing device approach location, the fire extinguishing device approach location based at least in part on the fire location (col. 29, lines 31-34).
Re claims 6 & 16, Bosma discloses one or more processors (col. 24, line 52 – “computerized sensing”) configured to determine the fire extinguishing device approach location based at least in part on sensor data from one or more sensors of the fire extinguishing device (col. 24, lines 50-53).
Re claims 7 & 17, Bosma discloses one or more second vehicles configured to determine the fire location and communicate the fire location to the aerial vehicle (col. 16, lines 39-53).
Re claims 8 & 18, Bosma shows the aerial vehicle is configured to determine the fire location (3408).
Re claim 10, Bosma shows one or more wedge structure (3406) configured to displace one or more obstacles.
Re claim 11, Bosma shows a method comprising:
causing, by one or more processors (col. 8, lines 46-47), an aerial vehicle (3300) to a location associated with a fire, wherein (A) the location is a threshold distance from a fire location (col. 8, lines 48-52 and col. 23, line 63) and (b) the aerial vehicle comprises a first propulsion system (3300) to travel;
causing, by the one or more processors (col. 18, lines 29-32), a tether assembly (3301) to extend a retractable tether based at least in part on the aerial vehicle travelling to the location; and
causing, by the one or more processors, a fire extinguishing device (3400) coupled to the tether assembly (3301) and comprising a second propulsion system (3402) to (i) expel (3409) a fire suppressant towards the fire and (ii) perform one or more stabilization operations using the second propulsion system based at least in part on expelling the fire suppressant (col. 24, lines 50-53).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosma (US Pat No 11,702,221 B2) in view of Detweiler et al. (US Pub No 2018/0296865 A1).
Re claims 3 & 13, Bosma discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach one or more processors configured to determine the threshold distance based at least in part on one or more downdraft values.
However, Detweiler et al. teach one or more processors configured to determine a threshold distance based at least in part on one or more downdraft values (paragraphs 0010 & 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the system of Bosma determine the threshold distance based on downdraft values as taught by Detweiler et al. to increase precision (Detweiler – paragraph 0036).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosma (US Pat No 11,702,221 B2) in view of Stephen et al. (WO 2021/174291 A1).
Re claim 9 & 19, Bosma discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach one or more processors configured to determine the fire location based at least in part on lightning strike data and moisture-based fire risk data.
However, Stephen et al. teach one or more processors configured to determine the fire location based at least in part on lightning strike data and moisture-based fire risk data (paragraph 00418).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to have the system of Bosma determine the fire location based at least in part on lightning strike data and moisture-based fire risk data as taught by Stephen et al. to provide a broad area initial detection of potential fire ignitions and a layered detection system utilized to identify potential ignition points (Stephen et al. – paragraph 00418).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights