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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 8, 2025 amends independent claims 1-3 and 13 and adds new claims 24-26. Claims 1-26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on December 8, 2025, regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The newly presented claim limitations in the independent claims are taught by previously cited reference, Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) hereinafter “Thrun2”, in combination with the previously cited references. Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and directs the Applicant to the teachings Examiner has shown in the rejections that follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 13 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant is requested to provide evidence from the specification to support any amended claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation: “… and secure the payload within the second AV, and …” as recited in claim 26. While the published specification (US 2024/0140629), at [0009], [0036], and [0085], for example, discloses that the second AV is coupled to a payload or package, the published specification does not provide support for the foregoing claim limitation. Moreover, the specification, at Fig. 12G, in connection with [0110], depicts payload 1234g being released from the ancillary autonomous vehicle 1200g, and as such, supports the payload as being coupled to the ancillary AV instead of being within the ancillary AV.
Appropriate amendments are required to address the foregoing issues. No new matter should be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 12, 16-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) and further in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912).
Regarding claim 1, Thrun teaches an autonomous vehicle delivery system configured to deliver a payload in a rural and/or urban environment comprising: (see Thrun at col. 2 lines 4-5 which discloses that Fig. 10 is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of a two-aircraft personal transportation system having a range represented by circle 1000 given pickup location 1002 and that in this example, the range (1000) corresponds roughly to the size of a city; see Thrun at col. 4 lines 19-30 and at lines 58-62 which discloses flying the occupied aircraft (100b) from the pickup location to the drop off location; see Thurn at Figs. 1B and/or 11ABC which illustratively depicts occupant 110a and battery 112b being delivered. Examiner maps the occupant 110a and/or battery 112b to the payload.)
a first autonomous vehicle (AV), the first AV configured to travel between a payload receiving location and a payload drop location; (see Thrun at col. 7 lines 7-14 which discloses that in some embodiments, autonomous flying techniques and/or processes are used to fly the occupied aircraft from the pickup location 302 to the drop off location 304; see Thrun at col. 13 line 40 to col. 14 line 18, in conjunction with Fig. 10, which discloses a second aircraft which detachably or removably couples itself to the personal transportation system and tows or otherwise transports the first aircraft over a second leg (1006). Examiner maps the second leg 1006 depicted in Thrun at Fig. 10 to the travel between a payload receiving location and a payload drop location. Examiner maps Thrun’s second aircraft to the first autonomous vehicle.)
the second AV configured for being coupled to a payload and configured to travel from the first AV to a designated drop target at the payload drop location [via the tether] (see Thrun at col. 4 lines 58-60 which discloses flying the occupied aircraft 100b from the pickup location; see Thrun, at col. 7 lines 1-20 and at Fig. 3, which discloses that the aircraft is flown from the pickup location 302 to the drop off location 304 and that the occupant gets off and takes their removable battery with them at the drop off location 304; see Thrun at Fig. 2A and 2B which illustratively depicts a ground or receiving surface at a drop off location; see Thrun at col. 14 which discloses that once the two aircraft get close to the drop off location (1008), the two aircraft decouple from each other, and the first aircraft then completes the relatively short third leg (1010) from the decoupling location to the drop off location (1008); Examiner maps Thrun’s first aircraft to the second autonomous vehicle. Also, see Thrun at col. 13 lines 59-62 which discloses that with the first aircraft in the air, a second aircraft detachably or removably couples itself to the personal transportation system and tows or otherwise transports the first aircraft over a second leg (1006).)
Thrun does not expressly disclose and a tether coupling the first AV to a second autonomous vehicle (AV), the second AV deployed from and retracted toward the first AV via the tether which in related art Thrun2 teaches (see Thrun2 at [0030] for example which discloses that the two multicopters are connected by a flexible connector (106) and during flight (as shown here), the flexible connector is taut and vertically tethers the two multicopters to each other. Examiner maps the flexible connector to the recited tether that couples the first AV to a second AV. See Thrun2 [0032] which discloses that the exemplary VTM system is used to transport a payload from a pickup location to a drop off location. See Thrun2 at [0036] which discloses that once the VTM system arrives at the drop off location the VTM system (200c) will vertically descend in order to drop the payload (202c) off. See Thrun2 at [0052] in conjunction with Fig. 5C which discloses that Fig. 5C is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of a retractable, roll-up flexible connector and that in this example, the flexible connector (520) includes a case (522) into which the line (524) rolls up into if there is no pull or tension on the line, that if there is pull or tension on the line, then the flexible connector unwinds from the case until some maximum length is reached and that in some embodiments, a spring is used to pull the flexible connector into the case where it is rolled up when there is no tension or pull on the line. Examiner notes that the retractable, roll-up flexible connector that rolls up and unwinds such that the second AV is deployed and retracted toward the first AV via the tether.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include a tether coupling the first AV to a second autonomous vehicle (AV), the second AV deployed from and retracted toward the first AV via the tether, as taught by Thrun2.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification such that both multicopters contribute to carrying the payload, as suggested by Thrun2 at [0030].
While Thrun2 discloses coupling the first AV to a second AV via the tether (see Thrun2 at [0030], for example), the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the second AV held within the first AV [via the tether] for travel to the payload drop location, which in a related art Yates teaches (see Yates at [0094] which discloses that the UAV can be jettisoned or deployed from either a stationary base or a moving craft, that in exemplary embodiments, the UAV can be jettisoned or deployed from a moving aircraft (mothership), that the mothership can be any aircraft that is capable of carrying and jettisoning the UAV, that the mothership can itself be an unmanned aircraft, that as an unmanned aircraft the mothership can either have its own autopilot or autonomous flight control system, or it can be controlled remotely and that in exemplary embodiments, the mothership may be a combination of manned and unmanned type of aircraft and autonomous and remotely controlled aircraft and that the UAV can be carried inside the mothership, for example in the cargo bay. Furthermore, Yates at [0094] discloses that the UAV can be carried inside the mothership, for example, in the cargo bay. Examiner notes that mothership corresponds to the first AV while the UAV corresponds to the second AV.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include the second AV held within the first AV for travel to the payload drop location, as taught by Yates.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification such that the UAV to be jettisoned or deployed from a moving craft, as suggested by Yates at [0094].
Regarding claim 6, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the second AV comprises a control feature configured to control movement of the second AV upon release from the first AV including controlling an orientation or position of the second AV relative to the first AV (see Thrun at col. 7 lines 7-14 which discloses that in some embodiments, autonomous flying techniques and/or processes are used to fly the occupied aircraft from the pickup location (302) to the drop off location (304) (i.e., the occupant is strictly an occupant and does not have to fly or otherwise instruct the aircraft. Examiner maps flying techniques and processes to control feature configured to control movement of the second AV upon release from the first AV including controlling an orientation or position of the second AV relative to the first AV.).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 6, wherein the control feature comprises a rotating component, the rotating component configured to influence angular momentum of the second AV during the travel between the first AV and the designated drop target (see Thrun at col. 17 lines 16-24 which discloses that a variety of coupling techniques, coupling or rendezvous locations (e.g., the first aircraft may be on the ground), and/or aircraft types (e.g., fixed wing, tilt wing, tilt rotor, etc.) may be used. Examiner maps tilt rotor to the rotating component. Examiner notes that a tilt rotor would influence angular momentum of the second AV.)
Regarding claim 9, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 6, wherein the control feature is fixed relative to a body of the second AV (see Thrun at col. 17 lines 16-24 which discloses that a variety of coupling techniques, coupling or rendezvous locations (e.g., the first aircraft may be on the ground), and/or aircraft types (e.g., fixed wing, tilt wing, tilt rotor, etc.) may be used.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the second AV is coupled to a package, the package including the payload (see Thrun at col. 8 lines 33-44 which discloses that removable battery 112b is now coupled (e.g., removably and/or temporarily) to aircraft 100b in Fig 1B. Examiner maps battery to package which comprises a payload that is transported.)
Regarding claim 16, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the first AV comprises: a propulsion system coupled with the first AV and comprising a plurality of fixed rotor assemblies and a plurality of tilt rotor assemblies, each tilt rotor assembly of the plurality of tilt rotor assemblies being configured to transition between: a first configuration in which the tilt rotor assembly has a first orientation to induce a forward flight of the AV, and a second configuration in which the tilt rotor assembly has a second orientation to induce a hover of the AV (see Thrun at col. 15 lines 1-8 which discloses that with the tilt rotors pointing backward as shown in FIG. 11B, the second aircraft (with the first aircraft in tow) can efficiently travel the second leg (1006) from San Francisco to San Jose; Examiner notes that tilting the rotors pointing backward causes the aircraft to induce a forward flight of the AV. Also, see Thrun at col. 15 lines 14-21 which discloses that it is noted that between FIG. l0A and FIG. 10B, the tilt rotors (1108a/1108b) of the second aircraft (1104a/1104b) change position from downward to backward and the rotor (1120a/1120b) of the first aircraft (1100a/1100b) stops rotating and that any appropriate sequencing associated with these two changes may be used (e.g., the tilt rotors (1108a/1108b) may change position first and then the single rotor (1120a/1120b) may stop, or vice versa). Also, see Thrun at col. 15 lines 27-34 which discloses that in any appropriate order or sequence, the tilt rotors (1108c) of the second aircraft (1104c) return to a downward facing position (e.g., so that the second aircraft 30 can hover midair and more easily detach the hook (1106c) from the loop (1102c) using small movements and/or adjustments) and the rotor (1120c) of the first aircraft (1100c) turns on.)
Regarding claim 17, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 1, further comprising an autonomous vehicle (AV) station, the AV station configured to dock the first AV above grade and charge one or more electrical components of the AV (see Thrun2 at [0088] which discloses that in this example, each multicopter has a corresponding base station (1106a-1106c) which that multi copter takes off from, lands on, and uses to charge. Also, see Thrun2 at Fig. 11 which illustratively depicts charger/base stations 1106abc located above grade (or above ground).)
Regarding claim 18, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 17, wherein the AV station is configured to permit lowering of the second AV to allow loading of a payload through manual or automated means (see Thrun2 at [0033] in conjunction with Fig. 2B which discloses that FIG. 2B is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of a vertically-tethered multicopter (VTM) system hovering so that a payload can be detachably coupled to the vertically tethered multicopter (VTM) system and in this state, the VTM system (200b) has descended to a height low enough for the VTM system (200b) and payload (202b) to be detachably connected to each other while the VTM system hovers in the air (i.e., none of the multicopters land), and that in this example, a hook and ring are used but any other type of connector may be used ( e.g., carabiners ).)
Regarding claim 19, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 18, wherein the second AV is configured to dock with the AV station while the first AV hovers (see Thrun2 at [0087-0088] in conjunction with Fig. 11 which discloses a vertically-tethered multicopter (VTM) system with detachable multicopters, that a top multicopter (1100a) in the VTM system is airborne with the flexible connector (1102) attached to the topmost multicopter (1100a), and that in this example, each multicopter has a corresponding base station (1106a-1106c) which that multicopter takes off from, lands on, and uses to charge and that for example, near field charging techniques may be used so that a wired connection or plug into the multicopter is not required to charge the multicopter and alternatively, there may be some cord or plug which is inserted into or connected to the multicopter and used to charge the multicopter. Thus, Examiner notes that each of the multicopters, whether it be the top or bottom multicopter, may land and charge themselves at their respective base stations. Examiner notes that while one of the multicopters is charging at a base station, another one of the multicopters may be positioned airborne relative to the base station. Examiner notes that the process of charging corresponds to docking with base station.)
Regarding claim 24, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 1, further comprising a winch mechanism coupled to the tether and configured to wind the tether, wherein winding the tether retracts the second AV toward and into the first AV (see Thrun2 at [0052] which discloses an embodiment of a retractable, roll-up flexible connector, that the flexible connector (520) includes a case (522) into which the line (524) rolls up into if there is no pull or tension on the line, and that if there is pull or tension on the line, then the flexible connector unwinds from the case until some maximum length is reached; Thrun2 at [0052] further discloses that in some embodiments, a spring is used to pull the flexible connector into the case where it is rolled up when there is no tension or pull on the line. Examiner maps the case and/or spring to the winch mechanism.)
Claims 2-5, 8, 11, 13, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) and further in view of Oshima et al. (US 2021/0300557).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Thrun discloses the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the first AV is configured to release the second AV from the first AV via the tether at the payload drop location (see Thrun2 at [0030] for example which discloses that the two multicopters are connected by a flexible connector (106) and during flight (as shown here), the flexible connector is taut and vertically tethers the two multicopters to each other. Examiner maps the flexible connector to the recited tether. Also, see Thrun2 [0036] which discloses that the vertically-tethered multicopter (VTM) system descending to drop off a payload; see Thrun2 at [0052] in conjunction with Fig. 5C which discloses that Fig. 5C is a diagram illustrating an embodiment of a retractable, roll-up flexible connector and that in this example, the flexible connector (520) includes a case (522) into which the line (524) rolls up into if there is no pull or tension on the line, that if there is pull or tension on the line, then the flexible connector unwinds from the case until some maximum length is reached and that in some embodiments, a spring is used to pull the flexible connector into the case where it is rolled up when there is no tension or pull on the line. Examiner notes that the retractable, roll-up flexible connector rolls up and unwinds such that the second AV is released via the tether at the payload drop location.)
The modified Thrun does not expressly disclose and the AV delivery system further comprises a retraction assembly configured to return the second AV to the first AV which in a related art Oshima teaches (see Oshima at [0270] which discloses that child drone 300 is coupled to parent drone 200 via wire 600; see Oshima at [0518] which discloses that first extension arm 5340a and second extension arm 5340b are connected to the child drone main body via wires 611a and 611b, respectively, and are capable of taking up or letting out wires 611a and 611b, respectively, that child drone 3000 includes wires 611a and 611b that connect, respectively, first extension arm 5340a and second extension arm 5340b to the child drone main body, that child drone 3000 further includes wire actuation controllers that control the lengths of respective wires 611a and 611b by taking up or letting out respective wires 611a and 611b; see Oshima at [0612] which discloses that if processor 734 determines that the package have been stored into delivery box 470 (YES in S8115), processor 734 controls a package mounting portion (not illustrated) provided at the leading end of hanging wire 792, and the package mounting portion releases (cuts off) the package. Examiner maps wire actuation controllers to retraction assembly.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the first AV is configured to release the second AV at the payload drop location, and the AV delivery system further comprises a retraction assembly configured to return the second AV to the first AV, as taught by Oshima.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to control the lengths of wires, as suggested by Oshima at [0518].
Regarding claim 3, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 2, wherein the retraction assembly comprises the tether extending between the first AV and the second AV; and a winch mechanism coupled to the tether and associated with the first AV or the second AV, wherein the winch mechanism is configured to manipulate the tether and move the second AV and the first AV relative to one another (see Oshima at [0260-0261] which discloses that parent drone 200 and child drone 300 are coupled to each other via a coupling line, such as wire 600, for example and that child drone 300 and parent drone 200 fly while being coupled to each other via the coupling line. Examiner maps coupling line or wire 600 to tether extending between the first AV and the second AV. See Oshima at [0518] which discloses that first extension arm 5340a and second extension arm 5340b are connected to the child drone main body via wires 611a and 611b, respectively, and are capable of taking up or letting out wires 611a and 611b, respectively, that child drone 3000 includes wires 611a and 611b that connect, respectively, first extension arm 5340a and second extension arm 5340b to the child drone main body, that child drone 3000 further includes wire actuation controllers that control the lengths of respective wires 611a and 611b by taking up or letting out respective wires 611a and 611b. Examiner notes that one or more wire actuation controllers capable of taking up or letting out wires corresponds to a winch mechanism.)
Regarding claim 4 the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 3, further comprising a tether attachment feature configured to fix an end of the tether to the first AV or the second AV (see Oshima at [0260-0261] which discloses that parent drone 200 and child drone 300 are coupled to each other via a coupling line, such as wire 600, for example; see Oshima at [0267] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that parent drone 200 and child drone 300 are coupled to each other by wire 600 via wire control module 212 of parent drone 200 and wire control module 311 of child drone 300. Examiner maps coupling line to the tether. Oshima at Fig. 2 illustratively depicts wire control module 212 of parent drone 200 fixedly connected to wire control module 311 of child drone 300. Examiner maps either of the wire control modules to tether attachment feature. In other words, Oshima teaches a tether attachment feature configured to fix an end of the tether to the first AV or the second AV. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of what is written in the specification.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 3, wherein an orientation of the second AV is controlled by moving the tether relative to a body of the second AV (see Oshima at ]0297] and at Fig. 12 which discloses that rotary ring itself rotates in direction in which wire pulls rotary ring; Oshima at Fig. 12 further discloses that as wire connector rotates along with rotary ring, parent drone is prevented from rotating upside down and hanging by wire upon having fallen, and damage to parent drone or load is prevented; see Oshima at [0872] which discloses that while the control circuit lets out the hanging wire, the control circuit adjusts at least one of the position and the orientation of the main body in accordance with the position of the package relative to the storage device.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 7, wherein the rotating component is fixed relative to a body of the second AV, the rotating component comprising differential thrusters or inertia wheels which in a related art Oshima teaches (see Oshima at [0237] which discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle may further include a thruster device removably attached to the package and that the thruster device may include a plurality of propellers, a plurality of second motors that respectively rotate the plurality of propellers, and a support member that supports the plurality of second motors; see Oshima at [0446] which discloses that a third electric motor 317 is fixed to any one of the support position 344 of one arm 340f, support position 344 of other arm 340f, or counterbalance 3441; also, see Oshima at [0776] which discloses that electric motors rotate respective propellers 912. Examiner notes that a plurality of propellers includes rotating components. Examiner notes that in at least one embodiment, a third electric motor rotates respective propellers in a fixed position. Examiner notes that a thruster device that includes a plurality of propellers is tantamount to differential thrusters.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the rotating component is fixed relative to a body of the second AV, the rotating component comprising differential thrusters or inertia wheels, as taught by Oshima.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to guide the package to the storage device and reliably lower the package and store the package into the storage device, which makes it possible to deliver the package more reliably to the receiver, as suggested by Oshima at [0238].
Regarding claim 11, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 6, wherein a landing position of the second AV is controlled in part by modulating a position of the first AV in tandem with motion of the second AV which in a related art, Oshima teaches (see Oshima at [0373-0378] which discloses that in response to receiving the descending instruction (S8011), parent drone 200 starts preparing to land in accordance with the descending instruction and that specifically, controller 230 of parent drone 200 causes actuator 210 to control the rotation of the propellers so as to move parent drone 200 to a point directly under child drone 300 (S8012), and that in response to receiving the descending instruction (S8011), parent drone 200 starts preparing to land in accordance with the descending instruction, and that specifically, controller 230 of parent drone 200 causes actuator 210 to control the rotation of the propellers so as to move parent drone 200 to a point directly under child drone 300 (S8012). Examiner notes that controller of parent drone causing actuator to control the rotation of the propellers so as to move the parent drone to a point directly under the child drone corresponds to wherein a landing position of the second AV is controlled in part by modulating a position of the first AV in tandem with motion of the second AV.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein a landing position of the second AV is controlled in part by modulating a position of the first AV in tandem with motion of the second AV, as taught by Oshima.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to prepare the parent drone and child drone to land, as suggested by Oshima at [0373-0374].
Regarding claim 13, the modified Thrun teaches in a first configuration, hold the payload and secure the payload within the second AV (see Thrun at col. 4 lines 34-44 in conjunction with Fig. 1B which illustratively depicts at least a second battery 112b and/or an occupant (110b) as a payload within the occupied aircraft or multicopter (100b).) The modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the second AV comprises a release assembly, wherein the release assembly is configured to: [in a first configuration, hold the payload and secure the payload within the second AV,] and in a second configuration, release the payload from the second AV at the designated drop target, which in a related art, Oshima teaches (see Oshima at [0612] which discloses that if processor 734 determines that the package have been stored into delivery box 470 (YES in S8115), processor 734 controls a package mounting portion (not illustrated) provided at the leading end of hanging wire 792, the package mounting portion releases (cuts off) the package, and that the package mounting portion can couple a package thereto or hold a package. Examiner notes that package may be mapped to payload.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the second AV comprises a release assembly, wherein the release assembly is configured to: in a first configuration, hold the payload and secure the payload within the second AV, and in a second configuration, release the payload from the second AV at the designated drop target, as taught by Oshima.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to release or hold a package, as suggested by Oshima at [0612].
Regarding claim 25, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 1, further comprising a tether attachment feature configured to fix an end of the tether to the first AV or the second AV which in a related art Oshima teaches (see Oshima at [0260-0261] which discloses that parent drone 200 and child drone 300 are coupled to each other via a coupling line, such as wire 600, for example; see Oshima at [0267] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that parent drone 200 and child drone 300 are coupled to each other by wire 600 via wire control module 212 of parent drone 200 and wire control module 311 of child drone 300. Examiner maps coupling line to the tether. Oshima at Fig. 2 illustratively depicts wire control module 212 of parent drone 200 fixedly connected to wire control module 311 of child drone 300. Examiner maps either of the wire control modules to tether attachment feature. In other words, Oshima teaches a tether attachment feature configured to fix an end of the tether to the first AV or the second AV. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of what is written in the specification.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include a tether attachment feature configured to fix an end of the tether to the first AV or the second AV, as taught by Oshima.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to engage in parent-child coupled flight, as suggested by Oshima at [0261].
Regarding claim 26, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 13, wherein in the first configuration, the payload is enclosed completely within the second AV (see Yates at [0096] which discloses that in an exemplary embodiment, the EUAV can be loaded with up to 700 lbs of supply, and that the EUAV can include the payload contained in a 2ft x 2ft x 6ft fuselage; see Yates at [0097] which discloses that the fuselage can also include provisions on its underbelly for forklift skids as well as numerous lifting eyes and cargo rings to provide for secure airborne transport to the drop zone. Examiner notes that payload contained in a fuselage corresponds to the payload is enclosed completely within the second AV.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) and further in view of Buchmueller et al. (US 2017/0247109).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 6, wherein the control feature is articulable relative to a body of the second AV, (see Thrun at col. 17 lines 16-24 which discloses that a variety of coupling techniques, coupling or rendezvous locations (e.g., the first aircraft may be on the ground), and/or aircraft types (e.g., fixed wing, tilt wing, tilt rotor, etc.) may be used. Examiner maps tilt rotor, for example, to the control feature relative to a body of the second AV.)
The modified Thrun does not expressly disclose and wherein the control feature comprises active thrusters of open or ducted fan configurations, enclosed air impeller, or compressed gas thrusters which in a related art Buchmueller teaches (see Buchmueller at [0032] which discloses that the thrust generators 272 may be embodied as one or more fans, engines, compressed gas thrusters, etc. and that the thrust generators 272 are controlled by the payload controller 27 4 to maintain an orientation of the platform 280, the item 290 attached to the platform 280, and the UAV 200 and that in one embodiment, several thrust generators 272 may be oriented in alternate directions to provide thrust in different directions, as necessary.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the control feature comprises active thrusters of open or ducted fan configurations, enclosed air impeller, or compressed gas thrusters, as taught by Buchmueller.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide thrust in different directions, as necessary, as suggested by Buchmueller at [0032].
Claims 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2020/0115049).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Thron discloses during and from a hovering operation (see Thrun at col. 13 lines 27-34 which discloses that in some embodiments, an occupied personal transportation system may stop forward flight and hover in air.)
The modified Thron does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the first AV comprises a plurality of deployable members configured to expand with release from a portion of the AV [during a hovering operation], wherein the plurality of deployable members are configured to cause a controlled descent of the AV [from the hovering operation], which in a related art, Nakamura teaches (see Nakamura at [0004] which discloses a parachute apparatus for an unmanned aerial vehicle lessens impact at the time of landing by lowering a speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle by using an expanded parachute in the event of falling of the unmanned aerial vehicle; see Nakamura at [0150] which discloses that a lift generation member in any form may be employed so long as lift is generated in an expanded state thereof, and a Rogallo paraglider, a Rogallo parachute, a triangular paraglider, and a triangular parachute are also additionally applicable. Examiner maps parachute to the plurality of deployable members configured to cause a controlled descent.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the first AV comprises a plurality of deployable members configured to expand with release from a portion of the AV, wherein the plurality of deployable members are configured to cause a controlled descent of the AV, as taught by Nakamura.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to lessen impact at the time of landing, as suggested by Nakamura at [0004].
Regarding claim 15, the modified Thrun teaches the AV delivery system of claim 14, further comprising a fabric portion coupled with the plurality of deployable members to define a canopy shape or aerodynamic maneuvering surfaces configured to cause the controlled descent of the AV from the hovering operation (see Nakamura at [0014] which discloses that the lift generation member may be in any form so long as it generates lift in the expanded state, and examples of the lift generation member include a parafoil, a Rogallo paraglider, a Rogallo parachute, a triangular paraglider, and a triangular parachute; Examiner notes that each of a parafoil, a Rogallo paraglider, a Rogallo parachute, a triangular paraglider, and a triangular parachute contain a fabric portion, as required for it to generate lift.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) and further in view of Evans et al. (US 9,656,805).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 1, further comprising a staging device, the staging device comprising a plurality of bins configured to receive items for transportation by the first AV and determine whether the items satisfy a threshold criteria indicative of an acceptable payload size, which in a related art Evans teaches (see Evans at col. 5 lines 35-58 which discloses that the item(s) of one or more shipment sets may be picked at the picking operation 140 directly into storage areas (e.g., bins) of the mobile base; see Evans at col. 7 lines 37-43 which discloses that the size of the mobile base 200 may vary and, for purposes of illustration with respect to the example of FIG. 2, may include several sections of storage areas (e.g., bins), varying numbers and/or sizes of storage 40 areas, and/or additional features may be included depending on the specific implementation; also, see Evans at col. 8 lines 46-50 which discloses that items 212 of different sizes and/or shapes may be stored in the bins 208 and in various implementations, a bin may include one or more items 212 of the same type and/or items of different types, shapes, and/or sizes. Examiner notes that using a bin to store items of the same type and/or size corresponds to whether the items satisfy a threshold criteria indicative of an acceptable payload size. Examiner maps the mobile base to the staging device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include a staging device, the staging device comprising a plurality of bins configured to receive items for transportation by the first AV and determine whether the items satisfy a threshold criteria indicative of an acceptable payload size, as taught by Evans.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to determine a routing destination for each packed shipment set dependent on the size of a shipping package, as suggested by Evans at col. 7 lines 16-20.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) and further in view of Randall (US 2020/0062385).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 6, wherein the control feature comprises a ducted fan configuration, which in a related art Randall teaches (see Randall at [0200] which discloses that the aircraft can include a ducted fan propulsion, that other flight dynamics can be managed by adjusting the preferred independently operated impellers, using cyclic and collective pitch controls, similar to those on conventional helicopters, that small frame UAV models may use fixed pitch contra-rotating impellers, that another complex system for maintaining lateral stability can include the use of actuators to impart active differential thrust, called distributed electric propulsion, which generates moments by accelerating air around key points on the aircraft, and that another embodiment can augment pitch and roll control through the addition of independently actuated thrust deflector vanes or control surfaces just beneath the impellers toward the duct exit, and that the ducted fan also can deliver significantly greater static thrust, and therefore higher efficiency, when compared to open rotors of similar diameter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the control feature comprises a ducted fan configuration, as taught by Randall.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the ducted fan can deliver significantly greater static thrust, as suggested by Randall at [0200].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) in view of Oshima et al. (US 2021/0300557) and further in view of Burgess (US 2020/0324902).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 13, wherein the release assembly comprises doors configured to transition between the first configuration and the second configuration which in a related art, Burgess teaches (see Burgess at [0086] which discloses that the payload-release device 106 may also take the form of a container, bucket, cage, or other enclosure with a bottom (or other enclosing surface) that can be opened and/or removed and that while the payload 108 is lowered from the UAV 100, the payload 108 can be secured within the enclosure, and then the bottom of the enclosure can be opened once payload 108 is on the ground. Examiner maps other enclosing surface that can be opened to the recited doors.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the release assembly comprises doors configured to transition between the first configuration and the second configuration, as taught by Burgess.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the payload may be lowered from the UAV, as suggested by Burgess at [0086].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrun et al. (US 10,493,863) in view of Thrun et al. (US 2020/0369382) (hereinafter “Thrun2”) in view of Yates et al. (US 2021/0031912) and further in view of Burgess (US 2020/0324902).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Thrun does not expressly disclose the AV delivery system of claim 1, wherein the second AV comprises a container portion configured to receive the payload which in a related art Burgess teaches (see Burgess at [0086] which discloses that the payload-release device 106 may also take the form of a container, bucket, cage, or other enclosure with a bottom (or other enclosing surface) that can be opened and/or removed and that while the payload 108 is lowered from the UAV 100, the payload 108 can be secured within the enclosure, and then the bottom of the enclosure can be opened once payload 108 is on the ground; see Burgess at [0094] which discloses that in some cases, the standardized features of the payload 108 may be integrated in a packaging module (e.g., a reusable or disposable container), and the packaging module may house (or be fastened to) one or more items that are being delivered using the UAV 100.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thrun to include wherein the second AV comprises a container portion configured to receive the payload, as taught by Burgess.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the payload may be lowered from the UAV in a reusable or disposable container, as suggested by Burgess at [0086] and [0094].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664