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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-2, 4-19 and 21 are pending, claims 3 and 20 are cancelled, claims 4, 6, 8-14, and 16-19 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 4-19 and 21 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 6, 8-14, and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2025. Applicant included claim 16 s being examined, but that claim depends from claim 4 which is drawn towards a withdrawn claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “soft” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “soft material” in claim 1 has been rendered indefinite by use of the term “soft” as it is unclear what is considered a soft material in view of the specification and that plastics are consider a rigid material.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a rigid member” in line 2, this is double includes as the rigid member was already claimed in claim 1 from which this claim depends.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 15 are found in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 15, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN209581900U) in view of Busby (U.S. 2018/0043386)
With respect to claim 1, Zhu discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle configured to be able to discharge a liquid (figure 1), comprising:
a container (80);
a discharge mechanism (nozzle 55) configured to discharge the liquid;
a buffer mechanism (outer tube 533, made of an elastic material, such as rubber or silica gel), an entire of which is positioned between the container and the discharge mechanism (as shown in figure 3), configured to buffer stress generated by contact between the discharge mechanism and an obstacle, through bending or deformation (where such a rubber element would thus be configured to do); and
a rigid member (51 and the elements of 57 that then extending within 533 that it extends from) coupled to the buffer mechanism and configured to have rigidity higher than the buffer mechanism (being made of the rigid material of the drone);
wherein the buffer mechanism is configured to have a larger cross-sectional dimension than the rigid member (as shown in figure 3, where 533 goes about the rigid elements on both ends) and is made of a soft material (such as rubber), so as to buffer the stress through the bending or the deformation (page 3, discloses “The outer tube 533 is an elastic material. The material of the elastic body may be an elastic material such as silica gel, rubber, polyurethane or the like. The shape may be elastic and may be elastically deformed in the event of an impact, such as a thin plastic tube. , or a multi-section of hard material formation”). Zhu fails to disclose specifically spraying a liquid (as the translation appears to claim a medicine but not a liquid or fluid one).
Busby discloses utilizing an aerosol spray can as the supply source in the drone, allowing the drone to be suitable for spraying a smaller structure/object when required to be sprayed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize such fluid liquid spray containers such as busby into the system of Zhu, as the spraying supply being an aerosol would allow for small scale spraying with the further benefit of being pressurized and not requiring further pumping or pressurizing equipment on the drone further adding weight thereto.
With respect to claim 2, Zhu as modified disclose the container is an aerosol container (as disclosed by Busby).
With respect to claim 5, Zhu discloses the buffer mechanism and the rigid member are connected by inserting one of the buffer mechanism and the rigid member into the other of the buffer mechanism and the rigid member (as shown in figure 3, where the buffer member has the rigid member inserted within).
With respect to claim 7, Zhu discloses wherein the buffer mechanism is provided closer to the discharge mechanism than the rigid member (as 533 is closer to 55 relative to 51).
With respect to claim 15, Zhu discloses a rigid member coupled to the buffer mechanism and configured to have rigidity higher than the buffer mechanism (see rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 21, Zhu discloses an internal stream tube (531) configured to distribute the liquid from the container to the discharge mechanism (brining the fluid from the fluid source to that of the nozzle 55), inside the buffer mechanism and the rigid member (531 extends through 51 and the connected of it through that of 531) .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (01/15/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-2, 4-19 and 21 are pending, claims 3 and 20 are cancelled, claims 4, 6, 8-14, and 16-19 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 4-19 and 21 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (08/22/2025).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 15, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752