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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Drawings Objections
MATERIAL NOT SHOWN
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, angular orientation and the invention was made to the at least one cylinder is in a vertical orientation/ horizontal orientation, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire drawings and correct all such informalities.
Reference of prior art
Ehasoo et al. (US 20230031028, DRONE ROUTING COMBINING AUTONOMOUS FLIGHT AND ASSIST VEHICLE TRAVEL).
Michaeli et al. (US 20210291935, MODULAR CARGO BAY CANOPY).
Rensong et al. (US CN 106476672, Semitrailer with elevating platform).
Harkins. (US 6460294, Window And Door Opening And Closing Mechanism).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ehasoo.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo discloses:
A drone deployment system comprising: an enclosed cargo bay including at least one wall having at least one section moveable between a closed position and an opened position (figs. 9-13, items 13, 10 and 34); and
a launch platform adapted for use with one or more drones (item 36), the launch platform housed by the enclosed cargo bay and located opposite the at least one section, the launch platform moveable between a stowed and a deployed elevation, angular orientation, or elevation and angular orientation (figs. 9-13, items 36 and 34).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo discloses:
The drone deployment system of claim 1, wherein the at least one wall is a top wall including a fixed section adjacent to the at least one section (figs. 9-13, items 30 and 34), the at least one section is slidable in a longitudinal direction of the enclosed cargo space between the closed and opened positions, the fixed section and the at least one section overlapping one another at least partially when the at least one section is in the opened position (figs. 9-13, items 30 and 34).
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo discloses:
The drone deployment system of claim 1, wherein the at least one wall includes a fixed section adjacent to the at least one section (fig. 10. Items 30, 34)
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo discloses:
The drone deployment system of claim 1, wherein the launch platform comprises one or more launch tables (fig. 9. Items 36).
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo discloses:
The drone deployment system of claim 1, further comprising an operator control room connected to the enclosed cargo bay, the operator control room including controls in communication with the at least one section and the launch platform (Ehasoo ¶ 0081, … Elements of the system control hardware and software may be located, as appropriate and depending on various factors, at the drone, at an AV).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo discloses:
The drone deployment system of claim 1, wherein the enclosed cargo bay is adapted for connection at least one of a vehicle frame and a trailer (Ehasoo fig. 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.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehasoo in view of Michaeli.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo fails to teach as disclosed by Michaeli: The drone deployment system of claim 1, wherein the at least one section is pivotable, about an axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the enclosed cargo space, between the closed and opened positions (item 408).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Michaeli teachings of the at least one section is pivotable, about an axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the enclosed cargo space, between the closed and opened positions into the Ehasoo, to have a wider opening.
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 3, further comprising the at least one wall including a hinge, the at least one section connected to the hinge (Michaeli items 418, 420).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 4, wherein the at least one wall is a side wall, the hinge located toward a lower end of the side wall (Michaeli items 418, 420).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 4, the at least one section having a seal at an end opposite that connected to the hinge (Michaeli items 430).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 4, further comprising: at least one cylinder including a rod end connected to the at least one section, the at least one cylinder chosen from a hydraulic, pneumatic, or electric cylinder (Michaeli items 414 and ¶ 0032).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 7, wherein the at least one cylinder is oriented at an oblique angle to the at least one wall (Michaeli items 414).
Re claims 13 and 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one cylinder is in a vertical orientation/ horizontal orientation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the at least one cylinder is in a vertical orientation/ horizontal orientation to fit in the available space for better performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehasoo in view of Michaeli and further in view of Rensong.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Rensong: The drone deployment system of claim 3, wherein the at least one section further includes a portion of another wall arranged orthogonal to the at least one wall (fig. 2 items 8, 9, 16 and 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Rensong teachings of a portion of another wall arranged orthogonal to the at least one wall into the Ehasoo, as modified above, to have a wider opening.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 8, wherein the at least one wall is a side wall and the another wall is a top wall (Rensong fig. 2 items 8, 9, 16 and 17).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehasoo in view of Michaeli and further in view of Rensong and further in view of Harkins.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Harkins: The drone deployment system of claim 9, further comprising at least one three-bar hinge connected to the side wall and the top wall (col. 13, l 33-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Harkins teachings of at least one three-bar hinge connected to the side wall and the top wall into the Ehasoo, as modified above, to have Increased weight capacity and Improved durability and Enhanced security
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, as modified above, discloses: The drone deployment system of claim 7, further comprising a curved arm having one end connected to the rod end of the at least one cylinder and another end connected to the at least one section (Ehasoo items 422, 424 via the item 400 structure).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehasoo in view of Rensong.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Ehasoo, fails to teach as disclosed by Rensong: The drone deployment system of claim 1, wherein the launch platform is extendable in a horizontal direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Rensong teachings of the launch platform is extendable in a horizontal direction into the Ehasoo, to increase the platform surface area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642