DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 12-13, 19-20, 24-25, 28-30, 33-35, 37-40, and 54-66 are pending. Claims dated 04/10/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/10/2026 with respect to claims 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 Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informality: “collars or fittings” should be “the collars or fittings”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informality: “collars or fittings” should be “the collars or fittings”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informality in line 4: “the collar or fitting of the plurality of aerial vehicles” is suggested to be “the collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles”.
This change may also require changes to claim 55 and 58 for antecedent basis as these claims recite “the collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 24, 29, and 55 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 65 and 66 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – the sensor configured to sense a rotational or radial alignment of the collars or fittings with the plurality of shafts, the base being configured to at least one of rotationally and radially align the plurality of shafts with the collars or fittings in response to a signal from the sensor. The closest prior art Jeong (KR-20070045758-A) does not disclose a sensor to sense a rotational or radial alignment of the collars or fittings with the plurality of shafts, and does not specifically disclose the claimed use of “extending through a different one of a collar or fitting of the at least one aerial vehicle…” as per claim 1, so there would be no motivation to include a sensor to do the claimed functions of claim 12.
Regarding claim 24, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – further comprising processing circuitry configured to launch a plurality of aerial vehicles that are stacked on the shafts. The closest prior art Jeong discloses the structural aspects of the stand, but does not disclose the processing circuitry involved to launch a plurality of aerial vehicles that are stacked on the shafts.
Regarding claim 29, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – further comprising processing circuitry to cause launching of the stacked plurality of aerial vehicles in succession. Similar to the reasoning in claim 12, the closest prior art Jeong discloses the structural aspects of the stand, but does not disclose the processing circuitry involved to cause launching of the stacked plurality of aerial vehicles in succession.
Regarding claim 55, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – wherein the stand further comprises a sensor configured to sense alignment of the shaft and collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles during landing, the base being configured to align the shaft with the collar or fitting in response to a signal from the sensor. Similar to the reasoning in claim 12, there would be no motivation to include a sensor in Jeong to do the claimed functions of claim 55.
Regarding claim 65, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – a sensor configured to sense alignment of the shaft and the collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle of the at least one aerial vehicle during landing and to produce a signal based on the alignment, the base being configured to align the shaft with the collar or fitting in response to the signal from the sensor. Similar to the reasoning in claims 12 and 55, there would be no motivation to include a sensor in Jeong to do the claimed functions of claim 65.
Regarding claim 66, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – a sensor configured to sense a rotational or radial alignment of the collars or fittings with the plurality of shafts, the base being configured to at least one of rotationally and radially align each shaft of the plurality of shafts with a respective different one of the collar or fitting in response to a signal from the sensor. Similar to the reasoning in claims 12, 55, and 65, there would be no motivation to include a sensor in Jeong to do the claimed functions of claim 66.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 25, 28, 33-34, 37, 40, 54, 59-61, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (KR-20070045758-A) and herein after will be referred to as Jeong.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches a stand configured for at least one of landing and launching at least one aerial vehicle, the stand comprising (FIG. 1 launch device 120):
a base; and (FIG. 1 base 131)
a plurality of shafts configured to project upward from the base and to support at least one aerial vehicle, each shaft being configured to align or couple with and extend through a different one of a collar or fitting of the at least one aerial vehicle and having alignment therewith during the at least one of landing and launching of the at least one aerial vehicle (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
329
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[FIG. 1 Jeong] [FIG. 5 Applicant’s drawing]
Note: The three support rods 133 in Jeong FIG. 1 appear to have sufficient length to align or couple with and extend through a different one of a collar or fitting of the at least one aerial vehicle and having alignment therewith during the at least one of landing and launching of the at least one aerial vehicle as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above.
In In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court affirmed a finding that a prior patent to a conical spout used primarily to dispense oil from an oil can inherently perform the functions recited in applicant’s claim to a conical container top for dispensing popped popcorn. In re Schreiber (1997) establishes that the prior art structure, if structurally identical to a claimed invention, inherently anticipates that invention, even if the prior art did not specifically disclose the claimed use or function. Here, as disclosed by Jeong FIG. 1, while Jeong does not specifically disclose the claimed use of “extending through a different one of a collar or fitting of the at least one aerial vehicle…”, the claimed structure of the stand is already known as shown in FIG. 1 Jeong, and therefore, Jeong anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the shafts are configured to project upward to guide the at least one aerial vehicle via the shafts receiving collars or fittings of the at least one aerial vehicle. (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 are projected upward).
Regarding claim 28, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the plurality of shafts are configured to enable stacking of a plurality of aerial vehicles on the plurality of shafts (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 have sufficient length to enable stacking as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above).
Regarding claim 33, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein a cross-section of the shafts is matched by at least a portion of a cross-section of the collars or fittings (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 have circular cross-section that appear to match a cross-section of the collars or fittings as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above).
Regarding claim 34, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the collars or fittings are non-cylindrical (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above enable extending through a different one of a collar or fitting of the at least one aerial vehicle that is non-cylindrical (i.e. a circular shape but with pointed tip like a teardrop would still slide through the shaft)).
Regarding claim 37, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the plurality of shafts are parallel to one another (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 are parallel to one another).
Regarding claim 40, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the shafts are configured to couple with collars or fittings of a same type (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 with circular cross-section enables coupling with a collar or fitting with at least a circular cross-section).
Regarding claim 54, Jeong teaches a stand configured for launching a plurality of aerial vehicles, the stand comprising (FIG. 1 launch device 120):
a base; and (FIG. 1 base 131)
a shaft coupled to the base and having a length that enables a plurality of aerial vehicles to be stacked relative to one another via a coupled arrangement between the shaft and a collar or fitting of the plurality of aerial vehicles (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
Note: The three support rods 133 in Jeong FIG. 1 appear to have sufficient length to stack the aerial vehicles relative to one another via a coupled arrangement between the support rod and a collar or fitting of the plurality of aerial vehicles as compared to the shafts in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above in the rejection of claim 1.
In In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court affirmed a finding that a prior patent to a conical spout used primarily to dispense oil from an oil can inherently perform the functions recited in applicant’s claim to a conical container top for dispensing popped popcorn. In re Schreiber (1997) establishes that the prior art structure, if structurally identical to a claimed invention, inherently anticipates that invention, even if the prior art did not specifically disclose the claimed use or function. Here, as disclosed by Jeong FIG. 1, while Jeong does not specifically disclose the claimed use of “stacking the aerial vehicles…”, the claimed structure of the stand is already known as shown in FIG. 1 Jeong, and therefore, Jeong anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 59, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 54.
Jeong also teaches wherein the shaft is a first shaft and further comprising at least one second shaft to form a plurality of shafts, wherein, for a given aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles, each shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to align or couple with the collar or fitting of the given aerial vehicle in the stacked arrangement (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
Regarding claim 60, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 54.
Jeong also teaches wherein a cross-section of the shaft is matched by at least a portion of a cross-section of the collar or fitting (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 have circular cross-section that appear to match a cross-section of the collars or fittings as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above).
Regarding claim 61, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the collar or fitting is non-cylindrical (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above enable extending through a different one of a collar or fitting of the at least one aerial vehicle that is non-cylindrical (i.e. a circular shape but with pointed tip like a teardrop would still slide through the shaft)).
Regarding claim 64, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 54.
Jeong also teaches wherein the length of the shaft extends at least one of into and beyond the collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle positioned farthest from the base on a stack of aerial vehicles (FIG. 1 three support rods 133 appear to have sufficient length to extend at least one of into and beyond the collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle positioned farthest from the base on a stack of aerial vehicles as compared to the shafts 22 in Applicant’s drawings FIG. 5 shown above).
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 13, 20, 38, 56, 58, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of McGeer (US-20150239578-A1) and herein after will be referred to as McGeer.
Regarding claim 13, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to capture an aerial vehicle by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet.
However, McGeer teaches wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to capture an aerial vehicle by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet ([0037] the fingers are magnetic or include electro-magnets that facilitate capture of the aircraft by attracting one or more magnetic components of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to capture an aerial vehicle by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet, with a reasonable expectation of success to help keep the aircraft steady, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of facilitating capture of the aircraft (McGeer [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of the at least one aerial vehicle.
However, McGeer teaches wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of the at least one aerial vehicle (FIG. 1A rotatable base 110).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the base as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of the at least one aerial vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of to account for the aircraft having a non-vertical orientation (McGeer [0049]).
Regarding claim 38, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes.
However, McGeer teaches wherein the shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes (FIG. 1A rotatable base 110 and as the base rotates the positions of the shafts fixed to the base change).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the base as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein the shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes (as rotation of the base adjusts the positions of shafts fixed on the base), with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of to account for the aircraft having a non-vertical orientation (McGeer [0049]).
Regarding claim 56, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 54.
Jeong also teaches further configured for landing the plurality of aerial vehicles (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the shaft is configured to capture an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet.
However, McGeer teaches wherein the shaft is configured to capture an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet ([0037] the fingers are magnetic or include electro-magnets that facilitate capture of the aircraft by attracting one or more magnetic components of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the shaft as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein the shaft is configured to capture an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet, with a reasonable expectation of success to help keep the aircraft steady, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of facilitating capture of the aircraft (McGeer [0037]).
Regarding claim 58, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 54.
Jeong also teaches further configured for landing the plurality of aerial vehicles (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles during landing.
However, McGeer teaches wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles during landing (FIG. 1A rotatable base 110).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the base as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of an aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles during landing, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of to account for the aircraft having a non-vertical orientation (McGeer [0049]).
Regarding claim 63, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong also teaches wherein the shaft is a first shaft and further comprising at least one second shaft to form a plurality of shafts (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes.
However, McGeer teaches wherein the plurality of shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes (FIG. 1A rotatable base 110 and as the base rotates the positions of the shafts fixed to the base change).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the base as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein the plurality of shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes (as rotation of the base adjusts the positions of shafts fixed on the base), with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of to account for the aircraft having a non-vertical orientation (McGeer [0049]).
Claims 19 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of McGeer, in view of Sugumaran (US-20160144982-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Sugumaran.
Regarding claim 19, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach: wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts includes electromagnets configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle.
However, McGeer teaches wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts includes electromagnets ([0037] the fingers are magnetic or include electro-magnets that facilitate capture of the aircraft by attracting one or more magnetic components of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts includes electromagnets, with a reasonable expectation of success, to help keep the aircraft steady, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of facilitating capture of the aircraft (McGeer [0037]).
Lee, in view of McGeer does not explicitly teach the electromagnets are configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle
However, Sugumaran teaches electromagnets configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle ([0042] The permanent magnet portion of magnet 602 may attract magnet 600, and the electromagnet portion, when energized, may repel magnet 600. Such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the electromagnets on the at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts as taught in Jeong, in view of McGeer to incorporate the teachings of Sugumaran to include being configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since “such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400” (Sugumaran [0042]).
Regarding claim 57, Jeong teaches the stand of claim 54.
Jeong also teaches further configured for landing the plurality of aerial vehicles (FIG. 1 three support rods 133).
Jeong does not explicitly teach: wherein the shaft includes at least one electromagnet configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launching or landing of at least one of the plurality of aerial vehicles.
However, McGeer teaches wherein the shaft includes at least one electromagnet ([0037] the fingers are magnetic or include electro-magnets that facilitate capture of the aircraft by attracting one or more magnetic components of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the shaft as taught in Jeong to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein the shaft includes at least one electromagnet, with a reasonable expectation of success, to help keep the aircraft steady, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of facilitating capture of the aircraft (McGeer [0037]).
Lee, in view of McGeer does not explicitly teach the at least one electromagnet is configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launching or landing of at least one of the plurality of aerial vehicles.
However, Sugumaran teaches electromagnets configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launching or landing of at least one of the plurality of aerial vehicles ([0042] The permanent magnet portion of magnet 602 may attract magnet 600, and the electromagnet portion, when energized, may repel magnet 600. Such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the electromagnets on the shaft as taught in Jeong, in view of McGeer to incorporate the teachings of Sugumaran to include being configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launching or landing of at least one of the plurality of aerial vehicles, with a reasonable expectation of success since “such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400” (Sugumaran [0042]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, in view of Sugumaran.
Regarding claim 30, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach further comprising processing circuitry configured to control a magnetic circuit of at least one of the stand and the at least one aerial vehicle as the at least one aerial vehicle is launching from the stand.
However, Sugumaran teaches further comprising processing circuitry configured to control a magnetic circuit of at least one of the stand and the at least one aerial vehicle as the at least one aerial vehicle is launching from the stand ([0042] The permanent magnet portion of magnet 602 may attract magnet 600, and the electromagnet portion, when energized, may repel magnet 600. Such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Jeong to incorporate the teachings of Sugumaran to include further comprising processing circuitry configured to control a magnetic circuit of at least one of the stand and the at least one aerial vehicle as the at least one aerial vehicle is launching from the stand, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400” (Sugumaran [0042]).
Claims 35, 39, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong.
Regarding claim 35, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein at least one shaft is not circular in cross-section.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to include wherein at least one shaft is not circular in cross-section since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). In light of Applicant’s specification [0075] it appears the invention would perform equally well with shapes that are or are not cylindrical. Furthermore, Applicant’s FIG. 5 shows that the invention performs equally well with a shaft that is circular in cross-section. A person of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of selecting between shapes of shafts to perform the same function(s).
Regarding claim 39, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of at least one shaft is tapered.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to include wherein at least a portion of at least one shaft is tapered since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). In light of Applicant’s specification [0076] it appears the invention would perform equally well with shafts that are not tapered. Furthermore, Applicant’s FIG. 5 shows that the invention performs equally well with a shaft that is not tapered. A person of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of selecting between shapes of shafts to perform the same function(s).
Regarding claim 62, Jeong teaches the stand of Claim 54.
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein the shaft is not circular in cross-section.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to include wherein the shaft is not circular in cross-section since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). In light of Applicant’s specification [0075] it appears the invention would perform equally well with shapes that are or are not cylindrical. Furthermore, Applicant’s FIG. 5 shows that the invention performs equally well with a shaft that is circular in cross-section. A person of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of selecting between shapes of shafts to perform the same function(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160257424-A1: Stabler discloses a landing pad with shafts for landing a UAV
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights