DETAILED ACTION
Responsive to the Amendment filed January 12, 2026. Claims 1-11 remain pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Newly added limitations determining, when the flight vehicle is flying, whether a criterion relating to permission of delivery at the reception place is satisfied based on the first location information and the second location information, in independent claim 1 (and similarly in independent claims 10 and 11) do not appear to be supported by the original disclosure. No mention of any type of permission or permission of delivery is found in the disclosure, let alone the step of determining whether a criterion relating to permission of delivery at the reception place is satisfied based on the first location information and the second location information. Clarification of support is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganesh et al (US 2016/0068264).
As per claim 1, Gabbai teaches a server apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising:
acquiring first location information indicating a location specified as a reception place for an item to be delivered by a flight vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0028-0029, 0035], fig 3C; delivery address/location), and second location information indicating at least one of: (i) a current location of a receiving person (see at least paragraphs [0029, 0047]; users location/landing zone location); and (ii) situation information, including image data, of the reception place from which a location or presence/absence of a person at the reception place is inferable (limitation not required; met by selection of the alternative option);
determining, when the flight vehicle is flying, whether a criterion relating to permission of delivery at the reception place is satisfied based on the first location information and the second location information the criterion including at least one of: (i) a relationship between the location indicated by the first location information and a location represented by the second location information (see at least paragraphs [0117-118, 0122, 0117, 0135-0142]; purchase code authenticated after purchaser’s landing zone pad located at delivery address has established link with drone) and (ii) a third party other than an authorized person is not present within a region around the reception place during a specified reception time period whether the location indicated by the first location information and the location indicated by the second location information when the flight vehicle is flying satisfy a predetermined criterion (limitation not required; met by selection of the alternative option); and
transmitting a command to the flight vehicle, and causing the flight vehicle to execute flight control for performing, when it is determined that the criterion is satisfied, at least one of: (i) authentication of the receiving person and (ii) delivery control including approach, descent and release of the item at the reception place (see at least figs 5A).
As per claim 2, Gabbai teaches the server apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the operations further comprise causing, by the command, the flight vehicle to execute flight control of moving to a location where authentication of the receiving person is possible (see at least paragraph [0045]; drone moves closer to user device).
As per claim 3, Gabbai teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating information for adjusting a location to which the flight vehicle moves, based on a comparison result between image data of the reception place captured by the receiving person and criterion image data being associated with each location, and including the information in the command (limitation relates to limitations not required by parent claim).
As per claim 4, Gabbai teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining whether the second location information is generated in a time period specified as a time period for receiving the item, and performing determination of whether the criterion is satisfied, when it is determined that the second location information is generated in the time (limitation relates to limitations not required by parent claim).
As per claim 5, Gabbai teaches wherein the operations further comprise acquiring, as the second location information, terminal location information indicating a location of a terminal owned by the receiving person (non-functional descriptive language, however, see paragraphs [0110]; user’s phone/device).
The limitation is non-functional descriptive language that does not actively recite a function and therefore does not add any meaningful limitations to the scope of the claim. “A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does not what it is" (MPEP 2173.05g). Non-functional descriptive material does not impart a patentable distinction to a claim. Patentable weight will only be given when such descriptive material has a functional relationship to the substrate (MPEP 2111.05).
As per claim 6, Gabbai teaches wherein the operations further comprise acquiring, as the terminal location information, the image data of the reception place captured by the terminal (limitation relates to limitations not required by parent claim).
As per claim 7, Gabbai teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining that the criterion is satisfied, when a distance determined by the location indicated by the first location information and the location indicated by the second location information is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, or when the location indicated by the first location information and the location indicated by the second location information belong to a same section (see at least paragraph [0056]).
As per claim 8, Gabbai teaches wherein the operations further comprise, when it is determined that the criterion is not satisfied, transmitting, to the flight vehicle, a command to suspend delivery of the item (see at least figure 5A]).
As per claim 9, Gabbai teaches wherein the command to suspend delivery of the item includes one of a command that causes the flight vehicle to return to a departure point in delivery of the item, and a command that prioritizes delivery of another item loaded on the flight vehicle (see at least figure 5A]).
Claims 10-11 contain similar limitations as the claims above and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ramsey Refai whose telephone number is (313)446-4867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (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, 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.
RAMSEY REFAI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RAMSEY REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664