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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 does not have a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahlstrom (US 10,011,352).
Referring to Claim 1: Dahlstrom discloses a drone tether cable, comprising:
power input connectors configured to be electrically coupled to a power source (Col. 38, lines 24-31);
at least two power conductors (1516) electrically coupling the power input connectors to each of a plurality of docking points (1537) distributed along the tether cable (Figs. 15A and 15B);
each docking point (1537) comprising docking point coupling elements configured to engage with corresponding drone coupling elements (1549) (Col. 38, lines 57-61);
each docking point comprising power connection elements configured to electrically cooperate with corresponding power connection elements of a drone (1514) (Col. 38, lines 54-56), the orientation of the power connection elements being established by the orientation of the coupling elements (Col. 39, lines 12-15) (Figs. 15A and 15B).
Referring to Claim 2: Dahlstrom discloses the drone tether cable of claim 1, wherein the docking point coupling elements (1537) and drone coupling elements (1549) comprise magnetic coupling elements (Col. 38, lines 57-61) (Fig. 15A).
Referring to Claim 5: Dahlstrom discloses the drone tether cable of claim 2, wherein the drone tether connector is pivotally connected to the drone (Col. 28, lines 9-15) (Fig. 10C).
Referring to Claim 6: Dahlstrom discloses the drone tether cable of claim 2, each docking point further comprising data connection elements configured to electrically cooperate with corresponding data connection elements of the drone (Col. 39, lines 38-45), the orientation of the data connection elements being established by the orientation of the magnetic coupling elements (Col. 38, lines 57-61) (Col. 39, lines 12-15) (Fig. 15A).
Referring to Claim 16: Dahlstrom discloses a drone tether connector, comprising:
magnetic coupling elements and power connection elements (1537) (Col. 38, lines 57-61);
the magnetic connection elements configured to magnetically engage with corresponding magnetic coupling elements (1549) of a docking point of a drone tether (1516) (Fig. 15A), the drone tether docking point comprising power connection elements configured to electrically cooperate with corresponding power connection elements of a drone (1514) (Col. 38, lines 24-31), the orientation of the power connection elements being established by the orientation of the magnetic coupling elements (Col. 39, lines 12-15) (Fig. 15A).
Referring to Claim 17: Dahlstrom discloses the drone tether connector of claim 16, comprising data connection elements configured to electrically cooperate with corresponding data connection elements of the drone tether docking point (Col. 39, lines 38-45), the orientation of the data connection elements being established by the orientation of the magnetic coupling elements (Col. 38, lines 57-61) (Col. 39, lines 12-15) (Fig. 15A).
Referring to Claim 19: Dahlstrom discloses the drone tether connector of claim 16, wherein the drone tether connector is pivotally connected to the drone (Col. 28, lines 9-15) (Fig. 10C).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlstrom in view of Fagiano (US 2022/0236745 A1).
Referring to Claim 8: Dahlstrom does not specifically teach that a proximate end of the drone tether cable is coupled to the power source via a winch configured to controllably extend and retract the tether cable. However, Fagiano teaches a drone and method for controlling, wherein a proximate end of the drone tether cable (4) is coupled to the power source (1) via a winch (2) configured to controllably (via 3) extend and retract the tether cable (Para. [0022]) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dahlstrom to use a controlled winch to extend and retract the tether cable, as taught by Fagiano, in order to control the amount of tether payed out and thereby increase/decrease the range of the drone with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Dahlstrom teaches a tethered drone system, comprising:
a drone tether cable (1516), comprising:
power input connectors at a proximate end of the drone tether cable and configured to be electrically coupled to a power source and a least two power conductors electrically coupling the power input connectors to each of a plurality of docking points (1537) distributed along the tether cable (Col. 38, lines 24-31) (Figs. 15A and 15B);
each docking point (1537) comprising docking point coupling elements configured to engage with corresponding drone coupling elements (1549) (Col. 38, lines 57-61);
each docking point comprising power connection elements configured to electrically cooperate with corresponding power connection elements of a drone (1514), the orientation of the power connection elements being established by the orientation of the coupling elements (Col. 39, lines 12-15) (Figs. 15A and 15B); and
As noted by strikethrough above, Dahlstrom does not specifically teach a winch coupled to the proximate end of the drone tether cable and configured to present the power connectors to the power source, and to controllably extend and retract the tether cable. However, Fagiano teaches a drone and method for controlling, wherein a proximate end of the drone tether cable (4) is coupled to the power source (1) via a winch (2) configured to controllably (via 3) extend and retract the tether cable (Para. [0022]) (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Dahlstrom to use a controlled winch to extend and retract the tether cable, as taught by Fagiano, in order to control the amount of tether payed out and thereby increase/decrease the range of the drone with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Dahlstrom further teaches the tethered drone system of claim 9, wherein the docking point coupling elements (1537) and drone coupling elements (1549) comprise magnetic coupling elements (Col. 38, lines 57-61) (Fig. 15A).
Referring to Claim 13: Dahlstrom further teaches the tethered drone system of claim 10, wherein the drone tether connector is pivotally connected to the drone (Col. 28, lines 9-15) (Fig. 10C).
Referring to Claim 14: Dahlstrom further teaches the tethered drone system of claim 10, each docking point further comprising data connection elements configured to electrically cooperate with corresponding data connection elements of the drone (Col. 39, lines 38-45), the orientation of the data connection elements being established by the orientation of the magnetic coupling elements (Col. 38, lines 57-61) (Col. 39, lines 12-15) (Fig. 15A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 15 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Referring to claims 3, 11 and 18, Dahlstrom does not teach that the magnetic coupling elements and power connection elements of the drone are mounted to a drone tether connector slideably cooperating with the tether cable. While Dahlstrom teaches magnetic coupling elements (Fig. 15A) (Col. 38, lines 57-61), or alternatively, hook and loop coupling elements (Fig. 15B), these two coupling embodiments appear to be mutually exclusive (Col. 39, lines 34-51). The magnetic coupling (Fig. 15A) of Dahlstrom is not “slideably cooperating with the tether cable,” as claimed. Examiner finds no obvious reason to combine the slideable hook and loop embodiment of Fig. 15B with the magnetic embodiment of Fig. 15A such that the coupling is both magnetic and slidable. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Referring to claims 4 and 12, Dahlstrom does not teach that the drone tether connector is configured to slidably cooperate with the tether cable via a ring mechanism. While Dahlstrom teaches magnetic coupling elements (Fig. 15A) (Col. 38, lines 57-61), or alternatively, hook and loop coupling elements (Fig. 15B), these two coupling embodiments appear to be mutually exclusive (Col. 39, lines 34-51). The magnetic coupling (Fig. 15A) of Dahlstrom is not “configured to slidably cooperate with the tether cable via a ring mechanism,” as claimed. Examiner finds no obvious reason to combine the slideable hook and loop embodiment of Fig. 15B with the magnetic embodiment of Fig. 15A such that the coupling is both magnetic and slidable. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Referring to claims 7 and 15, Dahlstrom does not teach that the magnetic coupling elements, power connection elements, and data connection elements of the drone are mounted to a drone tether connector slideably cooperating with the tether cable. While Dahlstrom teaches magnetic coupling elements (Fig. 15A) (Col. 38, lines 57-61), or alternatively, hook and loop coupling elements (Fig. 15B), these two coupling embodiments appear to be mutually exclusive (Col. 39, lines 34-51). The magnetic coupling (Fig. 15A) of Dahlstrom is not “slideably cooperating with the tether cable,” as claimed. Examiner finds no obvious reason to combine the slideable hook and loop embodiment of Fig. 15B with the magnetic embodiment of Fig. 15A such that the coupling is both magnetic and slidable. Such a modification would require an improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references relate to tethered drone systems:
US-12358643-B2, US-12202635-B1, US-11040773-B2, US-20210316858-A1, US-20220258861-A1, US-20220023685-A1, US-20150274294-A1 and US-20190106212-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617