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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed November 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-12, 21-22 and 24-30 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 25th, 2025.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11, 21 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et al. (US 2017/0129603) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2018/0246503).
Regarding claim 1, Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) a payload transportation system (100) (Para 0045), comprising:
a ground/UAV station (140s) for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (130s) (Para 0045) comprising:
a landing platform (144s) (Para 0053);
an exchange station (146s) configured to receive payloads from and send payloads to the UAV positioned upon the landing platform (Para 0053); and
a processor (202) configured to:
receive data representing position of an object (752) in an airspace (0062-0063, 0214-0217; object intruding landing platform fence (750) is detected by one or more sensors i.e., position of an object within the landing platform fence (750); sensors provide detection data to landing platform (144) which is communicated to the UAV (130) and the user’s portable electronic device via. a network (110); processor controls the overall operation of the portable electronic device (102); area above the landing platform is an airspace; );
authorize takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on data representing position of the object (752) in the airspace (Para 0062-0063, 0214-0217); and
cancel the takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on the data representing positions of the object (752) in the airspace (Para 0062-0063, 0214; processor is in communication with landing platform and UAV via network (110)),.
Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 further teaches (figure. 1) a payload transportation system (100) using one or more UAVs (130A-C) (Para 0045) but it is silent about the payload transportation system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive data representing positions of one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in an airspace;
authorize takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on data representing positions of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in the airspace; and
cancel the takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on the data representing positions of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in the airspace.
Bauer et al. ‘503 teaches (figure 1) a flight control center/processor (11) monitors the position of the aerial vehicles (10)/positional information and manages orders for the aerial transport of workpieces (4) carried by the aerial vehicle (10) from starting to destination stations/flight route information (Para 0044-0046).
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 Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 to incorporate the teachings of Bauer et al. ‘503 to configure the payload transportation system comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive data representing positions of one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in an airspace;
authorize takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on data representing positions of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in the airspace; and
cancel the takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on the data representing positions of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in the airspace.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance safety.
Regarding claim 9, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the landing platform (144s) defines an opening and the exchange station (146s) is configured to receive the payloads from and send the payloads to the UAV through the opening (Para 0053).
Regarding claim 10, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the exchange station (146s) is further configured to receive a battery from and send a battery to the UAV through the opening (Para 0053).
Regarding claim 11, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) further comprising:
one or more doors/covers configured to open and close to allow the entry of the UAV into an interior of the ground/UAV station (140s), wherein the landing platform (144s) is disposed within the interior of the ground/UAV station (140s) (Para 0057).
Regarding claim 21, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) further comprising a plurality of sensors, wherein a subset of the plurality of sensors are configured to monitor and scan the airspace surrounding the ground station for obstacles (Para 0211-0215; sensors detect intruding objects).
Regarding claim 7, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the obstacles are flying objects/birds within the airspace (Para 0202, 0212).
Regarding claims 29-30, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the data representing positions of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in an airspace includes flight route information of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft, and
wherein the flight route information includes positional information and destination information (as modified by Bauer et al. ‘503).
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 12, 22, 24-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et al. (US 2017/0129603) and Bauer et al. (US 2018/0246503) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of O’Brien et al. (US 2019/0263538).
Regarding claim 12, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) as recited in claim 1 but it is silent about the payload transportation system wherein the processor is housed with the ground station.
O’Brien et al. ‘538 teaches (figure 1) storage system (10) comprising shelf area/station (13A, 13B) with a data transfer and storage system/processor (18A, 18B) (Para 0014).
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 Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 to incorporate the teachings of O’Brien et al. ‘538 to configure the payload transportation system wherein the processor is housed with the ground station.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would put the station and the processor together and ensure effective communication.
Regarding claim 22, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the subset is a first subset, and the payload transportation system (100) comprising a second subset of the plurality of sensors (Para 0211-0214; plurality of sensors are present which can be divided into first and second subsets of plurality of sensors)
but it is silent about the payload transportation system wherein a second subset of the plurality of sensors is configured to capture one or more images of the UAV positioned upon the landing platform.
O’Brien et al. ‘538 teaches (figures 1-2) the storage system (10) with various detection systems including visualization cameras to inspect the structure or components of the UAV (14A-B) (Para 0018).
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 Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 to incorporate the teachings of O’Brien et al. ‘539 to configure the payload transportation system wherein a second subset of the plurality of sensors is configured to capture one or more images of the UAV positioned upon the landing platform (camera captures images).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to visually inspect the UAV after landing and before takeoff.
Regarding claim 4, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein one or more sensors of the second subset of the plurality of sensors comprises a macro lens /visualization cameras (as modified by O’Brien et al. ‘538).
Regarding claim 5, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) as recited in claim 22 but it is silent about the payload transportation system wherein the plurality of sensors comprises an x-ray imaging device configured to capture images of the UAV for detection of stress fractures or micro-cracking.
O’Brien et al. ‘538 teaches (figures 1-2) the storage system (10) with various detection systems including x-ray system to inspect the structure or components of the UAV (14A-B) (Para 0018).
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 Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 to incorporate the teachings of O’Brien et al. ‘539 to configure the plurality of sensors comprises an x-ray imaging device configured to capture images of the UAV for detection of stress fractures or micro-cracking (x-ray system can detect stress fractures or micro-cracking).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to check the overall health of the UAV before the takeoff operation to ensure safe flight.
Regarding claim 6, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the ground station further comprises a centering mechanism configured to position the UAV in a central region of the landing platform such that the UAV is within a field of view of the second subset of the plurality of sensors (Para 0210).
Regarding claim 8, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the second subset of the plurality of sensors is configured to capture images of only a first portion of the UAV (camera captures images of the only portion of the UAV which is directly in view of the camera).
Regarding claim 24, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the processor is further configured to issue an alert based on the data representing positions of the one or more other UAVs and/or aircraft in the airspace (Para 0214; disabling the control switch on the user interface (346) is an alert).
Regarding claim 25, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the alert is responsive to cancelling the takeoff operation (alert disables/cancels the takeoff operation).
Regarding claim 26, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the alert is communicated to a flight director/user (Para 0214).
Regarding claim 28, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) wherein the processor is further configured to issue instructions to cancel the takeoff of the UAV (Para 0214)
but it is silent about the payload transportation system wherein the processor is further configured to issue instructions to cancel the takeoff of the UAV in response to the processor determining that the one or more images captured by the second subset of the plurality of sensors show damage to the UAV.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to not to launch the damaged UAV to avoid accidents.
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 Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 to configure the payload transportation system wherein the processor is further configured to issue instructions to cancel the takeoff of the UAV in response to the processor determining that the one or more images captured by the second subset of the plurality of sensors show damage to the UAV.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would prevent the UAV accident.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et al. (US 2017/0129603), Bauer et al. (US 2018/0246503) and O’Brien et al. (US 2019/0263538) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Marcos (US 2019/0063448).
Regarding claim 27, modified Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches (figures 1-9D) the payload transportation system (100) of claim 24 but it is silent about the payload transportation system (100) wherein the alert includes a request for input from a flight director.
Marcos ‘448 teaches providing an option/request to a pilot/operator to abort/input takeoff of the aircraft or to override/input an alert (Para 0067).
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 Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 to incorporate the teachings of Marcos ‘448 to configure the payload transportation system (100) wherein the alert includes a request for input from a flight director.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable operator to make a decision.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with respect to claim 1, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
As explained in the rejection above, Raptopoulos et al. ‘603 teaches
receiving data representing position of an object in an airspace, authorizing takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on data representing position of the object in the airspace and canceling the takeoff and landing operations of the UAV based on the data representing positions of the object in the airspace but it is silent about the object as a UAV in an airspace which is taught by Bauer et al. ‘503.
Applicant further argues with respect to claims 24-26 that disabling control switch is not equivalent to issuing an alert. However, merriam-webster define alert as “: to make (someone) aware of something” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alert), thus disabling control switch make user aware.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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