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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/211,958 filed on 6/20/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on
4/3/2026.
This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Request for Continued Examination” filed on 4/3/2026.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennie (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108713 A1) in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249703 A1), in further view of Carpenter (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0028904 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Bennie teaches computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to (see Figure 4, Paragraph 34 teaching a drone delivery system, wherein the drone has a processor 132 and a memory 134 that stores instructions executable by the processor):
Receive instructions, at an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), to deliver a package to a customer (see Figure 6, Paragraph 13 lines 3-10, teaching that a vehicle sends a fuel delivery request to the drone);
Initiate a pairing process between a user device associated with the customer, a vehicle, and the UAV (see Paragraph 73 teaching that computer 20 compiles a message payload that includes vehicle identifier data such as a VIN number, user account data such as an IP address or chipset of a mobile device that is paired with the vehicle’s communication module, and UAV data);
Establish a 5G connection with the vehicle (see Figure 4, Paragraph 58 lines 1-10 teaching that the vehicle 12, a wireless communication network 120, and the UAV 14 are in communication with each other via a wireless or LTE cellular network);
Receive data from the vehicle, the data comprising speed and direction (see Figure 4, Paragraph 57 lines 6-14 teaching that a vehicle computer 20 may provide vehicle speed and direction data to the UAV 14);
Determine, based on the data received from the vehicle, the delivery is to a vehicle in transit (see Figure 4, Paragraph 57 lines 6-8, Paragraph 72 lines 3-20 teaching that the vehicle’s positioning unit 108 provides heading data, including direction, speed, and route information, to the UAV so that the UAV may be able to locate the vehicle); and
Determine an optimal route to intercept the vehicle (see Paragraph 72 lines 3-11 teaching that vehicle computer 20 sends vehicle GPS data so that the UAV 14 may be able to locate the vehicle 12).
Bennie fails to teach initiating authorization communication to the customer to confirm the instructions; and
Receiving authorization from the customer, the authorization including a request for the UAV to follow a vehicle corresponding to the customer.
However, Chen teaches initiating authorization communication to the customer to confirm the instructions (see Paragraph 64 teaching an unmanned aerial vehicle control system wherein a user confirms a command to the UAV); and
Receiving authorization from the customer, the authorization including a request for the UAV to follow the customer (see Paragraph 64 teaching that the confirmation relates to a command for the UAV to enter a following mode while pursuing a target).
Bennie and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UAV control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a feature wherein a user can confirm a command for a UAV to follow a target as taught by Chen. Doing so could increase the accuracy of a UAV control system by providing a two-step process before the UAV is commanded to initiate movement according to a specific target. This could prevent accidental wastes of energy in situations in which the UAV is erroneously commanded to move towards or with the wrong target.
Bennie further fails to teach wherein the pairing process associates delivery of the package with a combination of the customer and the vehicle the customer is currently using.
However, Carpenter teaches wherein the pairing process associates delivery of the package with a combination of the customer and the vehicle the customer is currently using (see Paragraph 42 teaching a drone organizing system wherein drones are deployed to deliver packages to customer locations, including a moving customer vehicle).
Bennie and Carpenter are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drone delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a feature wherein a package delivery job is associated with a user and a vehicle currently operated by the user as taught by Carpenter. Doing so could increase the reliability of a drone delivery system by offering a redundancy quality check that ensures packages are being delivered to the correct customer, and validating that safeguard by checking which vehicle the customer is currently operating.
In regard to Claim 2, Bennie further teaches upon entering a predetermined range of the vehicle, determining how to deliver the package (see Paragraph 87 lines 6-11, Paragraph 90 lines 1-2, Paragraph 91 lines 1-4, Paragraph 95 lines 1-2 teaching that once the UAV 14 is proximate to vehicle 12, a docking procedure is initiated, wherein there are multiple docking procedures).
In regard to Claim 3, Bennie further teaches upon determining the vehicle is preparing to stop, preparing to deliver the package (see Paragraph 98 lines 5-11 teaching that the vehicle 12 may stop moving before attempting to dock the UAV 14 again if multiple moving-vehicle attempts have failed).
In regard to Claim 4, Bennie further teaches upon determining the vehicle is not preparing to stop, preparing to deliver the package (see Paragraph 90 teaching that the vehicle 12 may instruct the UAV 14 to stand by prior to docking until the vehicle can appropriately adjust its speed or until a straight stretch of roadway becomes available).
In regard to Claim 6, Bennie further teaches delivering the package to an interface of the vehicle (see Paragraph 67 lines 16-22, Paragraph 99 lines 1-2 teaching that the UAV 14 delivers a fuel parcel 140 to the vehicle).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennie (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108713 A1) in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249703 A1), in further view of Carpenter (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0028904 A1), in further view of Siegel (U.S. Patent Publication 2015/0370251 A1).
In regard to Claim 5, Bennie fails to teach maintaining a constant speed, accelerating, or decelerating, based on the data communicated by the vehicle.
However, Siegel teaches maintaining a constant speed, accelerating, or decelerating, based on the data communicated by the vehicle (see Paragraph 25 lines 16-28 teaching a drone-to-vehicle delivery system wherein the drone and the vehicle communicate directly in order to match the drone’s speed with that of the vehicle).
Bennie and Siegel are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drone-to-vehicle delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a feature wherein the drone can adjust its speed based on information from the vehicle as taught by Siegel. Doing so could increase safety and reliability of the system, by creating better condition in which the drone could land on, or attach to, the vehicle
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennie (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108713 A1) in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249703 A1), in further view of Carpenter (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0028904 A1), in further view of Ali (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0280074 A1).
In regard to Claim 7, Bennie fails to teach providing a notification to the user indicating the package has been delivered to the interface.
However, Ali teaches providing a notification to the user indicating the package has been delivered to the interface (see Paragraph 7 teaching an unmanned aerial vehicle delivery system wherein a UAV sends a delivery confirmation report to a UAV server or controller after delivering a package).
Bennie and Ali are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UAV delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a delivery report as taught by Ali. Doing so could increase the reliability of the system by ensuring that the user receives confirmation of delivery.
The rest of Claim 7 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the package is delivered to a vehicle). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 8, Bennie fails to teach wherein the notification comprises an identification of the recipient.
However, Ali teaches wherein the notification comprises an identification of the recipient (see Paragraph 7 teaching that the delivery report is generated based on recipient identification data).
Bennie and Ali are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UAV delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a feature wherein delivery reports are based on user identification data as taught by Ali. Doing so could increase the reliability of the system by ensuring that delivery reports are sent to the corresponding user or recipient.
The rest of Claim 7 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the package is delivered to a vehicle). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 9, Bennie fails to teach wherein the notification comprises an image of the package delivered to the interface.
However, Ali teaches wherein the notification comprises an image of the package delivered to the interface (see Paragraph 7 teaching that the delivery report includes an image of the package in the receiving zone).
Bennie and Ali are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UAV delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a delivery report including an image of the package at the delivery site as taught by Ali. Doing so could increase the reliability of the system by ensuring that the user receives confirmation of delivery, and can use the image to visually validate that the package was delivered.
The rest of Claim 9 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (that the package is delivered to a vehicle). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claims 10-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennie (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108713 A1) in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249703 A1), in further view of Carpenter (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0028904 A1), in further view of Venkatraman (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0061251 A1).
In regard to Claim 10, Bennie further teaches a method for delivering goods to a connected vehicle using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the method comprising (see Paragraph 67 lines 16-22, Paragraph 99 lines 1-2 teaching that the UAV 14 delivers a fuel parcel 140 to the vehicle):
Communicating, by the connected vehicle, a request to pair with a user device corresponding to a customer (see Paragraph 58 lines 14-23 teaching that the vehicle fuel delivery request may be sent to the UAV 14 via a mobile device, such as a smartphone, carried by a user of the vehicle 12);
Wherein, after the pairing process, the connected vehicle recognizes that a delivery is expected by the UAV and begins sending data to the UAV (see Figure 4, Paragraphs 89, 90 teaching that after the fuel is validated, a docking procedure begins wherein the vehicle’s computer 20 sends docking instructions to the UAV);
Establishing a 5G connection with a UAV authorized to deliver a package to the customer (see Figure 4, Paragraph 51 lines 13-22, Paragraph 58 lines 1-10 teaching that the vehicle 12, a wireless communication network 120, and an authorized UAV 14 are in communication with each other via a wireless or LTE cellular network);
Communicating the data corresponding to the connected vehicle to the UAV, the data comprising speed and direction (see Figure 4, Paragraph 57 lines 6-14 teaching that a vehicle computer 20 may provide vehicle speed and direction data to the UAV 14); and
Receiving, at an interface of the connected vehicle, the package (see Paragraph 37 lines 3-6, Paragraph 67 lines 16-22, Paragraph 99 lines 1-2 teaching that the UAV 14 delivers a fuel parcel 140 to a fuel-receiver 18 the vehicle).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the fuel validation step as sufficient to teach the “pairing process” disclosed by Claim 10, because if the fuel validation step is successful, the subsequent step is to coordinate the docking procedure between the vehicle and the UAV, and if the validation step is unsuccessful, the process reverts to a previous step, rather than proceeding with docking (see Figure 5). Essentially, the fuel validation step determines whether the UAV and the recipient vehicle have established an operational link. If so, they proceed to make physical contact.
Bennie fails to teach wherein the data is received by the UAV in real-time.
However, Venkatraman teaches wherein the data is received by the UAV in real-time (see Paragraph 32 lines 1-3 teaching a drone navigation system wherein the drone receives real-time data in order to dynamically change its route or flight plan).
Bennie and Venkatraman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drone systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a capability wherein the drone can receive data in real-time as taught by Venkatraman. Doing so could increase the accuracy and reliability of a drone delivery system by ensuring that data received for navigational or operational purposes is as current and accurate as possible.
The rest of Claim 10 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (initiating a pairing process between the user device associated with the customer, a vehicle, and the UAV, and wherein the pairing process associates delivery of a package with a combination of the customer and the connected vehicle the customer is currently using). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 11, Bennie further teaches receiving, by the connected vehicle, an indication the customer has authorized delivery of the package to the connected vehicle (see Paragraph 88 lines 1-4, Paragraph 89 lines 7-8, Paragraph 90 lines 1-2 teaching that after the vehicle 12 validates the type of fuel being carried by the UAV, a UAV docking procedure is coordinated).
In regard to Claim 12, Bennie further teaches determining the UAV is within a predetermined range of the connected vehicle (see paragraph 87 lines 6-11 teaching that the system determines when the UAV 14 is proximate to, or has line-of-sight of, the vehicle 12).
In regard to Claim 13, Bennie further teaches receiving an indication from the UAV indicating how the UAV will deliver the package (see Paragraph 99 lines 10-13 teaching that the UAV 14 sends a message to the vehicle 12 indicating that it is ready to dispense fuel into the vehicle chamber 22).
In regard to Claim 14, Bennie further teaches providing an indication to the UAV the connected vehicle is preparing to stop (see Figure 4, Paragraph 67 lines , 33-35, Paragraph 57 lines 6-14, Paragraph 98 lines 5-11 teaching that a vehicle computer 20 may provide vehicle speed and direction data to the UAV 14, which can execute a docking procedure while the vehicle 12 is stationary or moving, and wherein the procedure can be attempted after a number of failed moving-vehicle attempts).
Here, and for Claim 15 below, the Examiner is interpreting the facts that the vehicle communicates speed and direction data to the UAV, the docking procedure can be carried out while the vehicle is in motion or stationary, and the vehicle can stop to conduct the docking procedure after attempting to conduct the procedure while moving, to mean that the vehicle provides indications to the UAV as to whether the next docking procedure will be carried out while the vehicle is in motion or while it is stationary.
In regard to Claim 15, Bennie further teaches providing an indication to the UAV the connected vehicle is not preparing to stop (see Figure 4, Paragraph 67 lines , 33-35, Paragraph 57 lines 6-14, Paragraph 98 lines 5-11 teaching that a vehicle computer 20 may provide vehicle speed and direction data to the UAV 14, which can execute a docking procedure while the vehicle 12 is stationary or moving, and wherein the procedure can be attempted after a number of failed moving-vehicle attempts).
In regard to Claim 16, Bennie further teaches a system for delivering goods to a connected vehicle using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the system comprising (see Paragraph 67 lines 16-22, Paragraph 99 lines 1-2 teaching that the UAV 14 delivers a fuel parcel 140 to the vehicle):
A cell site comprising a plurality of antennas in communication with the UAV and a connected vehicle, the cell site (see Figure 4, Paragraph 63 lines 1-4 teaching that the UAV 14 and the vehicle 12 may be in communication with a wireless communication network 120 and a land communications network 122):
Receiving a request from a user device corresponding to a customer, the request comprising instructions to deliver a package to the customer (see Figure 4, Paragraph 80 lines 1-4 teaching that the vehicle computer 20 sends a fuel delivery request to the server 116, which is integrated with either the wireless communication network 120 or the land communications network 122); and
Establishing a connection between the connected vehicle paired to the user device and the UAV authorized to deliver a package to an interface of the connected vehicle, the connection enabling the data corresponding to the connected vehicle to be communicated to the UAV (see Paragraph 58 lines 14-18, Paragraph 80 lines 6-15, Paragraph 88 lines 1-4, Paragraph 89 lines 7-8, Paragraph 90 lines 1-2 teaching that the server 116 determines which UAV 14 to dispatch, wherein once the UAV is proximate the vehicle 12, the UAV sends a message to vehicle 12 advising the vehicle that it is present and has identified the vehicle, wherein the vehicle can validate the UAV’s fuel type to initiate the docking procedure, and wherein mobile device 110 is carried by the vehicle user).
The rest of Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (initiating a pairing process between the user device associated with the customer, a vehicle, and the UAV, and wherein the pairing process associates delivery of a package with a combination of the customer and the connected vehicle the customer is currently using), and Claim 10 (wherein real-time data is received by the UAV after the pairing process). Please see the rejections of Claims 1, 10 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 17, Bennie further teaches wherein the data comprises speed and direction of the connected vehicle (see Figure 4, Paragraph 57 lines 6-14, Paragraph 63 lines 1-4 teaching that vehicle computer 20 may provide vehicle speed and direction data to the UAV 14 via the server 116).
The rest of Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 10 (wherein the data is received in real-time). Please see the rejection of Claim 10 above for analysis.
In regard to Claim 18, Bennie further teaches determining an optimal route to intercept the connected vehicle (see Paragraph 63 lines 1-4, Paragraph 72 lines 3-11 teaching that vehicle computer 20 sends vehicle GPS data via the server 116 so that the UAV 14 may be able to locate the vehicle 12).
In regard to Claim 20, Bennie further teaches enabling the user to provide authorization to the UAV to deliver the package to the interface of the connected vehicle (see Paragraph 63 lines 1-4, Paragraph 88 lines 1-4, Paragraph 89 lines 7-8, Paragraph 90 lines 1-2 teaching that once the UAV is proximate the vehicle 12, the UAV sends a message to vehicle 12 advising the vehicle that it is present and has identified the vehicle, wherein the vehicle can validate the UAV’s fuel type to initiate the docking procedure, and wherein the communication is relayed via server 116).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennie (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0108713 A1) in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0249703 A1), in further view of Carpenter (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0028904 A1), in further view of Ali (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0280074 A1), in further view of Venkatraman (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0061251 A1).
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 7 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 7 above for analysis.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1, 10, 16 have been fully considered, but are either not persuasive, or 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.
All 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
The Applicant argues that the Bennie reference's message payload compilation is fundamentally different from the claimed “pairing process” because it does not teach initiating a three-way pairing process between a user device, a vehicle, and a UAV. The Examiner disagrees that this reference does not teach a “pairing process.” As stated in the 35 U.S.C. rejection of Claim 10 above, the Examiner is interpreting the fuel validation step as sufficient to teach the “pairing process,” because if the fuel validation step is successful, the subsequent step is to coordinate the docking procedure between the vehicle and the UAV, and if the validation step is unsuccessful, the process reverts to a previous step, rather than proceeding with docking (see Figure 5). Essentially, the fuel validation step determines whether the UAV and the recipient vehicle have established an operational link. If so, they proceed to make physical contact.
With regard to the “three-way pairing process between a user device, a vehicle, and a UAV,” that limitation is taught by the newly incorporated Carpenter reference. Carpenter teaches wherein the pairing process associates delivery of the package with a combination of the customer and the vehicle the customer is currently using (see Paragraph 42 teaching a drone organizing system wherein drones are deployed to deliver packages to customer locations, including a moving customer vehicle).
Bennie and Carpenter are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drone delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a feature wherein a package delivery job is associated with a user and a vehicle currently operated by the user as taught by Carpenter. Doing so could increase the reliability of a drone delivery system by offering a redundancy quality check that ensures packages are being delivered to the correct customer, and validating that safeguard by checking which vehicle the customer is currently operating.
The Applicant further argues that the Bennie reference does not teach a determination step where the UAV decides whether the delivery is to a vehicle in transit. The Examiner disagrees. See Figure 4, Paragraph 57 lines 6-8, Paragraph 72 lines 3-20 teaching that the vehicle’s positioning unit 108 provides heading data, including direction, speed, and route information, to the UAV so that the UAV may be able to locate the vehicle. The Bennie reference does not assert that the vehicle must be in transit in every embodiment. See Paragraph 35 lines 4-9 teaching that the “vehicle . . . permits the UAV to deliver fuel to the vehicle while the vehicle is stationary or in motion.”
The Applicant further argues that the Bennie reference fails to teach wherein “the connected vehicle recognizes that a delivery is expected by the UAV and begins sending real-time data to the UAV.” The newly incorporated Venkatraman reference teaches this feature. See Paragraph 32 lines 1-3 teaching a drone navigation system wherein the drone receives real-time data in order to dynamically change its route or flight plan.
Bennie and Venkatraman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of drone systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bennie’s invention to include a capability wherein the drone can receive data in real-time as taught by Venkatraman. Doing so could increase the accuracy and reliability of a drone delivery system by ensuring that data received for navigational or operational purposes is as current and accurate as possible.
Claims 2-9, 11-15, 17-20 remain rejected under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant’s amendments, arguments, and remarks do not overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights