DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 15-17, 19-25, 27-33, 35-36 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 should be indicated as Amended, rather than Previously Presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)(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 15-17, 19-25 and 27-33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230039483 to Strobel (“Strobel”).
Regarding claim 15, Strobel discloses a device for automated vertical take-off, vertical landing, or handling of an aerial vehicle with the aid of a robot, the device comprising: a first connection module (upper portion of 200, as shown in FIGS. 18-20); and a second connection module (lower portion of 200, as shown in FIGS. 18-20), and the first connection module and the second connection module defining a longitudinal axis (FIGS. 18-20), the first connection module and the second connection module each including corresponding toothings (202, 208) active in the holding position, the aerial vehicle being lockable via the toothings with regard to a rotation about the longitudinal axis (FIGS. 18-20; ¶¶ [0080], [0083], [0084]), the toothings of each of the first and second connection modules defined by grooves (FIGS. 18-20), the toothings arranged side by side circumferentially (FIGS. 18-20).
Strobel does not explicitly teach that the toothings extend longer in a direction of the longitudinal axis that in a circumferential direction. It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Strobel so that the toothings extend longer in a direction of the longitudinal axis that in a circumferential direction, in order to improve its handling and locking capabilities.
Regarding claim 16, Strobel discloses wherein the first connection module includes an inner cone section (ICS in Annotated FIG. 19 below) defining a first capture or release section and a hollow cylindrical section (HCS in Annotated FIG. 19 below) defining a first guide section of the first connection module, and the second connection module includes a bolt section (BS in Annotated FIG. 19 below) defining a second capture or release section and a second guide section of the second connection module (see also FIGS. 18 and 20; ¶¶ [0080]-[0085]).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Strobel discloses wherein the second connection module includes an outer cone section (OCS in Annotated FIG. 19 above) corresponding to the inner cone section of the first connection module (see also FIGS. 18-20; ¶¶ [0080]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 19, Strobel discloses wherein the second connection module includes an outer cone section (OCS of Annotated 19 below) corresponding to an inner cone section (ICS of Annotated 19 below) of the first connection module and the toothings (202, 208) are active between the inner cone section and the outer cone section (FIGS. 18-20; ¶¶ [0080]-[0085]).1
PNG
media_image2.png
654
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Strobel discloses wherein the toothings have a circular design (FIGS. 18-20).
Regarding claim 21, Strobel discloses a lock or release device (210, 207, 208, 202) active between the first connection module and the second connection module (FIGS. 18-20; ¶¶ [0080]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 22, Strobel discloses wherein the lock or release device is passively locking and actively releasing (FIGS. 18-20; ¶¶ [0080]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 23, Strobel discloses wherein the lock or release device includes at least one lever actuatable by an actuator (FIGS. 18-20; ¶¶ [0080]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 24, Strobel discloses at least one signal interface active between the first connection module and the second connection module (¶ [0055] teaches that fueling of the UAV is achieved without a person, and thus the fueling process described at ¶¶ [0080]-[0085] necessarily includes a signal interface; see also ¶¶ [0086]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 25, Strobel discloses at least one switch (210) active between the first connection module and the second connection module (¶¶ [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 27, Strobel discloses wherein the second connection module is designed as an end effector (¶¶ [0055], [0086]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 28, Strobel discloses an aerial vehicle, the aerial vehicle being capable of automatedly vertically taking off, vertically landing, or being handled with the aid of a robot, the aerial vehicle comprising the first connection module of the device as recited in claim 15 (¶¶ [0055], [0086]-[0088]; see above analysis of claim 15).
Regarding claim 29, Strobel discloses an end effector for a robot for the automated vertical take-off, vertical landing, or handling of an aerial vehicle, the end effector comprising the first connection module or the second connection module of the device as recited in claim 15 (¶¶ [0055], [0086]-[0088]; see above analysis of claim 15).
Regarding claim 30, Strobel discloses wherein the inner cone section of the first connection module includes a large opening on an opening side and a small opening on an inner side in an axial direction, wherein the large opening decreases toward the small opening (FIGS. 18-20).
Regarding claim 31, Strobel teaches each and every element of claim 30, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the inner cone section has at least one opening angle between approximately 30 degrees to approximately 130 degrees.
It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Applicant has not shown patentable significance of making the angle between approximately 30 degrees to approximately 130 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Strobel so that the inner cone section has at least one opening angle between approximately 30 degrees to approximately 130 degrees, in order to facilitate the pairing of the first and second connection modules.
Regarding claim 32, Strobel discloses the lock or release device of the first connection module (202) includes an undercut section that extends circumferentially in the circumferential direction, the undercut section being active in the axial direction (FIGS. 18-20).
Regarding claim 33, Strobel teaches each and every element of claim 30, as discussed above, and it teaches the lock or release device of the second connection module includes one or more lever elements (210), one or more rods (207), one or more guides (208) and one or more actuators (¶¶ [0083]-[0084]).
Strobel does not explicitly teach the one or more lever elements include fork joints, nor does it explicitly teach that the one or more actuators are designed as servomotors.
It is well settled, however, that substituting one equivalent component for another is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular component was significant. MPEP at 2144.06, citing Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980). In this case, applicant has not shown patentable significance of having the one or more lever elements include fork joints, rather than the joints of Strobel. Also, the examiner takes official notice that at the time of the effective filing date, it was well known in the art to use servomotors for carrying out locking mechanisms on aerial vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Strobel so that the one or more lever elements have fork joints, and the actuators are servomotors, in order to provide strong and reliable locking arrangement.
Regarding claim 35, Strobel discloses wherein the corresponding toothings number at least two on both the first and second connection modules (FIGS. 18-20).
Regarding claim 36, Strobel discloses wherein the corresponding toothings are joinable in a direction along the longitudinal axis (FIGS. 18-20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new grounds for rejection. In light of applicant’s amendments, independent claim 15 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Also, it is noted that applicant’s disclosure attributes a broad meaning for the claim term “toothing.” For example, paragraph [0017] reads:
The toothings may be active between the inner cone section and the outer cone section. The toothing of the first connection module may be situated at the inner cone section. The toothing of the second connection module may be situated at the outer cone section. The toothings may have a rhomboidal, diamond-shaped, circular, or ellipsoidal design. (Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0017].)
Especially read in light of applicant’s disclosure, components (202, 208) of Strobel certainly read on toothings, as recited in independent claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Claims 18-19 are not dependent on claims 16-17, so Strobel’s teachings of “inner cone section” and “outer cone section” are being interpreted differently for the respective claims.
Prosecution Insights