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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 12/19/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 12/19/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,387 in view of Son Hyuk Chan et al. (Korean Patent Document KR 20190124871 A). Claim 1 of the conflicting patent teaches each and every limitation in claim 1 of the instant application except “that an output voltage from the DC buck converter is a fixed ratio of an input voltage into the DC buck converter”. However, Son Hyuk Chan et al (henceforth referred to as Son Hyuk Chan) teaches utilizing a buck converter with the ratio of the input and output voltages remaining constant as per the preset ratio (DC-DC converter, item 123) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a fixed or constant ratio between the input and output voltages for the converter of the instant application in view of Son Hyuk Chan, to allow for output of the device.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,987,387 in view of Son Hyuk Chan et al. (Korean Patent Document KR 20190124871 A). Claim 6 of the conflicting patent teaches each and every limitation in claims 6 and 7 of the instant application except “that an output voltage from the DC buck converter is a fixed ratio of an input voltage into the DC buck converter”. However, Son Hyuk Chan et al (henceforth referred to as Son Hyuk Chan) teaches utilizing a buck converter with the ratio of the input and output voltages remaining constant as per the preset ratio (DC-DC converter, item 123) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a fixed or constant ratio between the input and output voltages for the converter of the instant application in view of Son Hyuk Chan, to allow for output of the device.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0369408) in view of Dahlstrom et al. (U.S. Patent 11,235,890) and in view Kennedy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0287833) and further in view of Son Hyuk Chan et al. (Korean Patent Document KR 20190124871 A).
In regards to claim 6, Dolata discloses an aerial vehicle electrical power system comprising:
an aerial vehicle (item 12);
Dolata teaches a surveillance drone carrying various electrical components including sensing equipment and a camera, but fails to explicitly teach a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs). However, Dahlstrom teaches a UAV system with attached rows of light-emitting diodes carried by the UAV (see items 219 of figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide various electrical components in/on the UAV of Dolata including LEDs as taught by Dahlstrom, to allow for illumination of a target area;
Dolata teaches at least one electrical circuit carried by the aerial vehicle, but fails to teach that the at least one electrical circuit has a DC buck converter electrically in parallel with an amperage boost regulator. However, Kennedy teaches a drone system with a tethered drone carrying a buck voltage converter and amperage boost regulator in series or parallel with electrical onboard components (par. 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a DC voltage converting means including a Buck type converter and/or amperage boost regulator as taught by Kennedy, to step down the voltage prior to reaching onboard electrical components;
Dahlstrom fails to teach that the output voltage from the DC buck converter is a fixed ratio of an input voltage into the DC buck converter. However, Son Hyuk Chan teaches utilizing a buck converter with the ratio of the input and output voltages remaining constant as per the preset ratio (DC-DC converter, item 123) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a fixed or constant ratio between the input and output voltages for the converter of Dahlstrom in view of Son Hyuk Chan, to allow for output of the device;
wherein the amperage boost regulator regulates voltage variances across the parallel circuit formed between the amperage boost regulator and the DC buck converter. As modified, Dolata teaches regulation of amperage across the circuit via the resistance device.
a tether connected between the aerial vehicle and a power source positioned remote from the aerial vehicle, wherein electrical power is transmitted to the aerial vehicle and at least a portion of the plurality of LEDs through the tether. Dolata teaches tether attaching the drone to a power source and powering the components onboard via the tether (item 16).
In regard to claim 8, Dolata as modified teaches that the amperage boost regulator comprises at least one diode. The Dolata device as modified includes a boost regulator with a diode allowing current flow in one direction.
In regards to claim 10, Dolata as modified teaches at least one device in series with the DC buck converter electrically in parallel with the amperage boost regulator and the device receives decreased amperage variances. Dolata as modified includes LEDs in the circuit which are in series with the boost regulator.
In regards to claim 11, Dolata as modified teaches that the at least one electronic device further comprises at least one LED. Dolata teaches that LEDs receive the current in the circuit.
In regards to claim 12, Dolata as modified teaches that the amperage boost regulator initiates regulation of amperage variances across the at least one electrical circuit when a forward voltage of the at least one diode is exceeded. Note that he device of Dolata regulates amperage variances and is capable of regulating in the circumstance as claimed.
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0369408) in view of Dahlstrom et al. (U.S. Patent 11,235,890) and Kennedy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0287833) and in further view of Mubaslat et al. (WIPO Document WO 2007022409) and in still further view of Son Hyuk Chan et al. (Korean Patent Document KR 20190124871 A).
In regards to claim 13, Dolata discloses a method for powering an aerial vehicle carrying lights, but fails to explicitly disclose providing an aerial vehicle having a plurality of light-emitting diodes {LEDs} mounted thereto. However, Dahlstrom teaches a UAV system with attached rows of light-emitting diodes carried by the UAV (see items 219 of figure 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide various electrical components in/on the UAV of Dolata including LEDs as taught by Dahlstrom, to allow for illumination of a target area;
connecting a tether between the aerial vehicle and a power source located remote from the aerial vehicle surface. Note that the UAV system of Dolata incorporates electrical circuit including power source, tether and various components in/on UAV;
Dolata teaches providing at least one electrical circuit carried by the aerial vehicle, but fails to teach that the at least one electrical circuit has a DC buck converter electrically in series with at least a portion of the plurality of LEDs. However, Kennedy teaches a drone system with a tethered drone carrying a buck voltage converter in series with electrical onboard components (par. 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a DC voltage converting means including a Buck type converter as taught by Kennedy, to step down the voltage prior to reaching onboard electrical components;
Dahlstrom fails to teach that the output voltage from the DC buck converter is a fixed ratio of an input voltage into the DC buck converter. However, Son Hyuk Chan teaches utilizing a buck converter with the ratio of the input and output voltages remaining constant as per the preset ratio (DC-DC converter, item 123) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a fixed or constant ratio between the input and output voltages for the converter of Dahlstrom in view of Son Hyuk Chan, to allow for output of the device;
Dolata fails to teach electrically connecting at least one resistance device in parallel to the DC buck converter. However, Mubaslat teaches the notion of constructing circuit with components in either series or parallel electrical orientation and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to provide the resistance element (LED lights) of Dolata in parallel with the converter as taught by Mubaslat, to provide the most efficient electrical circuit;
and transmitting a quantity of electrical power through the tether. Dolata teaches transmission of power through the tether,
wherein the quantity of electrical power is transmitted through the at least one electrical circuit carried by the aerial vehicle. The configuration of the Dolata system as modified discloses that power is transmitted through tether and electrical circuit,
wherein the at least one resistance device regulates amperage variances across the at least one electrical circuit. As modified, Dolata teaches regulation of amperage across the circuit via the resistance device.
In regards to claim 14, Dolata fails to disclose that the at least one resistance device further comprise an amperage boost regulator. However, Kennedy teaches a drone system incorporating a buck voltage converter and amperage boost regulator (par. 86). The modification of the Dolata device to include components of the Kennedy system includes embodiments incorporating a boost converter as a resistor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a DC voltage converting means including a Buck type converter and/or amperage boost regulator as taught by Kennedy, to step down the voltage prior to reaching onboard electrical components.
In regard to claim 16, Dolata as modified by Kennedy teaches that the amperage boost regulator comprises at least one diode. The Dolata device as modified includes a boost regulator with a diode allowing current flow in one direction.
In regards to claim 20, Dolata as modified by Kennedy teaches that the amperage boost regulator initiates regulation of amperage variances across the at least one electrical circuit when a forward voltage of the at least one diode is exceeded. The Dolata device as modified functions in this manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 would be allowable pending an approved Terminal Disclaimer.
Claims 7, 9, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and an approved Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 7 and 15, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including the limitations of claims 7 and 15, the base claim and any intervening claims, drawing less amperage when the DC buck converter draws greater amperage, thereby decreasing variances across the tether and drawing greater amperage when the DC buck converter draws less amperage, thereby decreasing amperage variances across the tether. With respect to claim 9, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including the limitations of claim 9, the base claim and any intervening claims, that when the DC buck converter draws greater amperage and the amperage boost regulator draws less amperage thereby decreasing amperage variances across the tether. With respect to claim 17, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including the limitations of claim 17, decreasing or eliminating flickering of the plurality of LEDs when the DC buck converter draws greater amperage and the amperage boost regulator draws less amperage. With respect to claim 18, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including the limitations of claim 18, the base claim and any intervening claims, at least one electronic device in series with the DC buck converter electrically in parallel with the amperage boost regulator and the at least one electronic device receives decreased amperage variances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. 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).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights