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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 1/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-18, 24-25 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20210224739A1 ("Sweeny2").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, 24-25 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.
Claims 1, 24, 25 recites the limitation "the outdoor location". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-6, 8-18 do not cure this deficiency and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-6, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190197646A1 Prager et al ("Prager") in view of US20210224739A1 Sweeny2.
As per claims 1, 24, 25 Prager teaches the limitations of the method, computing device and non-transitory computer readable media:
computing devices, program instructions, processors to cause the computing devices to perform functions; computer readable media comprising program instructions; (Prager at least [0010])
selecting a UAV from a group of one or more UAVs to pick up the payload from the autoloader device; and providing instructions to cause the selected UAV to navigate to the autoloader device to pick up the payload and transport the payload to a delivery location. (Prager at least [0007]: “assigning, by the transport-provider computing system…transport task to each of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles…instruction to deploy to the loading location…task update”, [0073]: “UAV may navigate to the general area of a target destination where a payload is being delivered”)
Prager does not disclose:
providing instructions to cause physical loading of a payload onto an autoloader device for subsequent unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) transport of the payload;
receiving a communication signal indicating that the autoloader device has been physically loaded with the payload;
providing instructions via a user device to cause transfer of a payload from inside a facility to an autoloader device at a loading station outside the facility
wherein the physical loading of the payload onto the autoloader device occurs at the outdoor location while the autoloader device is stationary;
providing instructions to cause the selected UAV to navigate to the autoloader device to pick up the payload at the loading station
Sweeny2 teaches the aforementioned limitations (Sweeny2 at least [0162]: “a robot 802 that delivers payloads 804 comprising merchandise from a store 808 to the UAV facility 806. In some embodiments, the robot 802 is a ground robot that includes wheels or continuous tracks to allow the robot 802 to move between the store and the UAV facility ”, [0078], [0134]: “Each drone can be programmed to recognize a different landing pattern so that a drone can land on a landing surface corresponding to or assigned to that drone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Sweeny2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve transportation of a payload by UAV (Sweeny2 [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager additionally teaches:
providing the UAV with a delivery mission to the delivery location before the UAV reaches the autoloader device. (Prager at least [0079]) *Examiner’s note: here Prager teaches using wireless devices and/or RFID as scanners for the parcel info. Such wireless data readers can read data within a threshold distance meaning the UAV can actually scan and read the parcel data at least a maximum scanning distance before the UAV makes contact with the autoloader taught by Cooper (before the UAV reaches the autoloader device).
Regarding claim 6, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager additionally teaches:
providing the UAV with a delivery mission to the delivery location via a wireless connection while the UAV is picking up the payload from the autoloader device. (Prager at least [0030]: “ATSP can deploy UAVs to pick up packages at random, in a predetermined order or sequence, or otherwise without specific package assignment…dynamically update the transport task of each UAV based on the package that the UAV picks up”)
Claim(s) 2, 14-15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prager and Sweeny2 in view of US20170316376A1 Cooper ("Cooper").
Regarding claim 2, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager does not disclose:
identifying the autoloader device as an empty autoloader device from a plurality of autoloader devices before providing the instructions to cause the physical loading of the payload.
However, Cooper teaches the aforementioned limitation (Cooper at least [0243-0245]). *Examiner’s note: here the loading/unloading sequence of the robot demonstrates the system can acknowledge an empty state of the robot for subsequent loading to prevent a double loading/double feed scenario.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to more efficiently deliver parcels via UAV (Cooper [0109]).
Regarding claim 14, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
the communication signal is received from the autoloader device when the autoloader device detects that the autoloader device has been physically loaded with the payload.
However, Cooper teaches the aforementioned limitation (Cooper at least [0214]: "robots include a parcel identification unit…scan, read…"). *Examiner’s note: here the robot (autoloader) can scan a parcel when it is placed on the robot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
the group of one or more UAVs is associated with a location of the autoloader device.
However, Cooper teaches the aforementioned limitation (Cooper at least [0018]: "accessing a restricted access area by a UAV"). *Examiner’s note: here Cooper teaches at least a group of UAVs that are associated with a robot in a delivery vehicle by the equivalent of an access badge or ID.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
the autoloader comprises one or more computing devices configured to read an attached identifier on the payload and initiate a shipment that specifies a pickup zone associated with the autoloader and the delivery location which is encoded in the attached identifier.
However, Cooper teaches the aforementioned limitation (Cooper at least [0214]: "parcel identification"). *Examiner’s note: Cooper teaches a few different identifiers, one such identifier being associating a parcel with a particular delivery vehicle which has a particular delivery area it is assigned to, much like a US Postal Service carrier would.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
the autoloader comprises one or more computing devices configured to communicate the delivery location to the UAV.
However, Cooper teaches the aforementioned limitation (Cooper at least [0214]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prager in view of Sweeny2 in further view of US20130262276A1 Wan et al ("Wan").
Regarding claim 3, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
selecting the autoloader device after receiving a user-provided input signal at a user device, the input signal indicating to proceed with autoloader loading.
However, Wan teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wan at least FIG. 7: 701 identify delivery container, 707 open associated storage compartments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references to increase user customer experience when transporting a parcel (Wan abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
the communication signal indicating that the autoloader device has been physically loaded with the payload is received from the user device.
However, Wan teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wan at least FIG. 7: 711 receive closed door notification(s), 713 message customer that order is available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
communication signal is received when a user scans an identifier on the autoloader device while loading the payload onto the autoloader device.
However, Wan teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wan at least FIG. 7: 705 associate order with storage compartment(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Prager does not disclose:
communication signal is received when a user selects a delivery order on a user device for which the user has loaded the payload onto the autoloader device.
However, Wan teaches the aforementioned limitation (Wan at least FIG. 7: 713 order available).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Wan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 3.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prager in view of Sweeny2 in further view of Google Maps, 2020-2021 ("Google Maps", see Google Maps update 2021 and Google Maps Update 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Prager in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Prager does not disclose:
causing a user device to display an indication of a plurality of autoloader devices, wherein the plurality of autoloader devices includes an autoloader device.
However, Google Maps teaches the aforementioned limitation (Google Maps, indicating locations of at least UPS or USPS shipping locations on a map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Google Maps with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references to ensure a user that a package transport location is available and that their package will be picked up before the user takes the time to navigate to the package transport location.
Regarding claim 9, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager does not disclose:
the plurality of autoloader devices is color-coded based on availability of each autoloader device of the plurality of autoloader devices.
However, Google Maps teaches the aforementioned limitation (Google Maps 2020 update, business locations are indicated as closed or open in a color coded fashion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Google Maps with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager does not disclose:
indication of the plurality of autoloader devices is color-coded based on availability of proximate UAVs to each autoloader device of the plurality of autoloader devices.
However, Google Maps teaches the aforementioned limitation (Google Maps 2021 update, busy areas based on user device and vehicle densities are indicated by a geometric shape around the busy area in a color coded fashion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Google Maps with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 8.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prager and Sweeny2 in view of Google Maps and Cooper.
Regarding claim 11, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager teaches: listing of delivery orders available for the UAVs, basing the order listing based on UAV availability and capability (Prager at least [0108]: “central dispatch system may select a specific UAV to dispatch”, [0343]: “delivery order listing…addresses”).
Prager does not disclose:
causing the user device to display the listing of delivery orders
However, Cooper teaches the aforementioned limitation (Cooper at least [0267]: "display").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cooper with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prager in view of Sweeny2 in further view of US20150161564A1 Sweeney et al ("Sweeney").
Regarding claim 16, Prager in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Prager does not disclose:
the group of one or more UAVs is associated with a different location than a location of the autoloader device, wherein the UAV is selected from the group of one or more UAVs when one or more UAVs associated with the location of the autoloader device are occupied.
However, Sweeney teaches the aforementioned limitation (Sweeney at least [0024]: “variations…increasing the pool of drivers by allowing for driver reassignment(s)…optimization determinations”, [0056]: “dispatch radius be increased”). *Examiner’s note: here Sweeney teaches a system that sets a proximity radius and drive time requirement for assigning a transport vehicle (associating the transport vehicle with a location of a user to be picked up). The system can further increase the proximity radius and drive time requirements to fulfil additional demands (such as more pick-up requests than can be handled by transport vehicles within a smaller proximity to a location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Prager with the aforementioned limitations taught by Sweeney with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references to increase transportation efficiency (Sweeney [0134]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights