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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 30 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2024.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 21, 22 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goines, JR (US-20210229903-A1) in view of Otto (US-5697625-A).
Goines discloses a payload container (10) comprising: an outer wall (18) surrounding a chamber, the outer wall having a closed end (16) and an open end; and a gas vent (30) comprising a first gas vent opening (at 34) located at the closed end and providing fluid access between the chamber and the gas vent, and a second gas vent opening (at 32) located at the open end, the second gas vent opening configured to engage a hose to provide fluid access between the gas vent and the hose (par. 22, intended use), wherein the closed end is rounded (at the corner of 16 and 18) to form a void within the chamber, a retaining member (20) at the open end of the payload container, wherein the outer wall is a cylindrical outer wall (Fig. 1), wherein at least a portion of the gas vent is integrated within the outer wall, wherein the gas vent is positioned internal to the outer wall and within the chamber (Fig. 2), wherein when an item (5) comprising a lip located at a first end of the item is inserted into the chamber, the retaining member is configured to hold the item within the payload container by engaging the lip (par. 19), wherein the lip circumferentially extends around the first end of the item (par. 19), a payload container seal (20) positioned at the open end on an inside surface of the outer wall, and wherein the payload container is configured to be coupled to an unmanned aerial vehicle (the container is a physical structure so it is configured to be coupled to an unmanned aerial vehicle).
Goines fails to teach wherein the closed end is formed as an outward rounded portion of the outer wall to provide a void within the chamber.
Otto teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container with a closed end (21) formed as an outward rounded portion of the outer wall (Fig. 2) to provide a void within the chamber (col. 3, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with a rounded closed end, in order to accumulate material within the closed and since such a modification would have been a change in shape of an existing component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goines and Otto in view of Brennan (US-6554151-B1).
The modified container of Goines fails to teach a bumper positioned within the void of the chamber at the closed end of the payload container.
Brennan teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container with a bumper (24) within the void of the chamber at the closed end of the payload container, wherein the bumper comprises a mechanical feature absorbs force over a distance (col. 3, lines 15-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with a bumper, in order to ensure that the vent functions properly.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goines and Otto in view of Najd (US-20050000967-A1).
The modified container of Goines fails to teach a bumper within the void, wherein the bumper comprises a magnet, the magnet at the closed end of the payload container, wherein the magnet is configured to attract to a magnet associated with an item to secure the item within the payload container, wherein the bumper comprises a mechanical feature that absorbs force over distance.
Najd teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container with a bumper (18) comprising a magnet (20) at the closed end of the payload container (Fig. 1), wherein the magnet is configured to attract to a magnet associated with an item to secure the item within the payload container (any magnetic object), wherein the bumper comprises a mechanical feature absorbs force over a distance (par. 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with a bumper and magnet, in order to prevent the container from tipping.
Claim(s) 5 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goines and Otto in view of Ziegler (US-5799909-A).
The modified container of Goines discloses all the claimed limitations as shown above, but fails to teach wherein the retaining member is biased toward a center of the chamber defined by the outer wall, and a biasing member to exert a force on the retaining member to bias the retaining member toward the center of the chamber defined by the outer wall to engage an item and secure the item within the payload container.
Ziegler teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a container with a retaining member (24) that is biased toward a center of the chamber defined by the outer wall (col. 6, lines 38-53), and a biasing member (46) to exert a force on the retaining member to bias the retaining member toward the center of the chamber defined by the outer wall, to engage an item and secure the item within the payload container (the structure is capable of this).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the container with retaining member and biasing member, in order to secure objects in the container.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goines, Otto and Ziegler in view of Kehl (US-4416197-A).
The modified container of Goines fails to teach a second retaining member located at the open end of the payload container, wherein the second retaining member is biased toward the center of the chamber defined by the outer wall.
Kehl teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a first (30) and second (40) retaining member together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufacture the retaining member as two retaining members, so that the container could be accessed in different ways.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goines and Otto in view of Pettinger (US-7635065-B1).
The modified container of Goines fails to teach wherein the gas vent is positioned external to the outer wall.
Pettinger discloses a payload container (10) comprising: an outer wall (30) surrounding a chamber, the outer wall having a closed end (34) and an open end; and a gas vent (14) comprising a first gas vent opening (26) located at the closed end and providing fluid access between the chamber and the gas vent, and a second gas vent opening (24) located at the open end, the second gas vent opening providing fluid access between the gas vent and an area external from the outer wall (Fig. 3), wherein the gas vent is positioned external to the outer wall (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the gas vent externally, so that the vent could be easily accessed and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed in the he rejection above.
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733