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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/15/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gil et al (US 20220355929) in view of Jiang et al (CN 106314798) and Gwin (US 20190047696).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, lines 2-4 should read "in a longitudinal direction of the upper connecting portion of the respective one of the leg portions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al (US 20220355929) in view of Jiang et al (CN 106314798) and Gwin (US 20190047696).
Regarding claim 1, Gil et al teaches a package supporting device comprising (Abstract):
a base (62), an upper portion of the base (62) being configured to be attached to an unmanned aerial vehicle (12) (Paragraph 0028, lines 1-7; Paragraph 0032, lines 1-5; Fig. 3, elements 12, 62);
a plurality of first supporting portions (66) fixed to the underside of the base (62) and extending in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction, with parcel carriers (34) being supported by a respective first supporting portion (66) of among the plurality of first supporting portions to be moveable along a longitudinal direction of the respective first supporting position toward the package (60) and away from the package (60) (Paragraph 0032, lines 1-20; Fig. 3, elements 34, 60, 62, 66); and
a drive portion (32A) that is operable to cause each of the parcel carriers (34) to move toward the package (60) or away from the package (60) along the respective first supporting position (Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0034, lines 1-8).
Gil et al does not teach a plurality of leg portions. Jiang et al teaches a package supporting device with a plurality of leg portions provided at an underside of the base, each of the leg portions including two abutting portions (3, 4) that are arranged at intervals in a horizontal direction orthogonal to a vertical direction and that correspondingly abut two adjacent side surfaces of a package, the two adjacent surfaces connecting an upper and a lower surface of the package, and each of the leg portions supporting a corner portion of the package in a state in which the two abutting portions (3, 4) correspondingly abut the two adjacent side surfaces of the package (Page 2, paragraph 15; Page 3, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Jiang et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of leg portions that can lift and support an item as taught by Jiang et al (Page 3, paragraph 2).
Gil et al does not teach second supporting portions. Gwin et al teaches an apparatus lifting device with a plurality of second supporting portions (136), each of which is provided between the base (116) and a respective one of the leg portions (120), and supports the respective one of the leg portions (120) so that the respective one of the leg portions (120) is rotatable with the vertical direction as an axial direction (Paragraph 0023, lines 10-16; Fig. 1, elements 120, 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Gwin et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of a leg portion that has multiple degrees of freedom as taught by Gwin et al (Paragraph 0023, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 4, Gil et al teaches a package supporting device comprising (Abstract):
a base (62), an upper portion of the base (62) being configured to be attached to an unmanned aerial vehicle (12) (Paragraph 0028, lines 1-7; Paragraph 0032, lines 1-5; Fig. 3, elements 12, 62);
a plurality of first supporting portions (66) fixed to the underside of the base (62) and extending in a direction orthogonal to the vertical direction, with parcel carriers (34) being supported by a respective first supporting portion (66) of among the plurality of first supporting portions to be moveable along a longitudinal direction of the respective first supporting position toward the package (60) and away from the package (60) (Paragraph 0032, lines 1-20; Fig. 3, elements 34, 60, 62, 66); and
a drive portion (32A) that is operable to cause each of the parcel carriers (34) to move toward the package (60) or away from the package (60) along the respective first supporting position (Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6; Paragraph 0034, lines 1-8).
Gil et al does not teach a plurality of leg portions. Jiang et al teaches a package supporting device with a plurality of leg portions provided at an underside of the base, each of the leg portions including two abutting portions (3, 4) that are arranged at intervals in a horizontal direction orthogonal to a vertical direction and that correspondingly abut two adjacent side surfaces of a package, the two adjacent surfaces connecting an upper and a lower surface of the package, and each of the leg portions supporting a corner portion of the package in a state in which the two abutting portions (3, 4) correspondingly abut the two adjacent side surfaces of the package (Page 2, paragraph 15; Page 3, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Jiang et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of leg portions that can lift and support an item as taught by Jiang et al (Page 3, paragraph 2).
Gil et al does not teach second supporting portions. Gwin et al teaches an apparatus lifting device with a plurality of second supporting portions (136), each of which is provided between the base (116) and a respective one of the leg portions (120), and supports the respective one of the leg portions (120) so that the respective one of the leg portions (120) is rotatable with the vertical direction as an axial direction (Paragraph 0023, lines 10-16; Fig. 1, elements 120, 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Gwin et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of a leg portion that has multiple degrees of freedom as taught by Gwin et al (Paragraph 0023, lines 19-23).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gil et al, Jiang et al and Gwin, in further view of Namiki (JP H07279989).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gil et al, Jiang et al and Gwin fails to teach restricting portions. Namiki teaches a plurality of rotation restricting portions, each rotation restricting portion (8) restricting rotation of a respective one of the leg portions (120), with the vertical direction as the axial direction, wherein the plurality of rotation restricting portions (8) respectively restrict rotation of the leg portions (120), with the vertical direction as the axial direction, in a state in which each of the leg portions (120) is not supporting the package (Page 9, paragraph 3; Page 10, paragraphs 1, 2; Fig. 1, elements 8, 120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Namiki in combination with Gil et al, Jiang et al and Gwin to facilitate the creation of rotation restricting portions that use frictional force to prevent rotational transmission as taught by Namiki (Page 19, paragraph 5; Page 20, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gil et al, Jiang et al and Gwin fails to teach a restricting spring. Namiki teaches each of the rotation restricting portions (8) is a rotation restricting spring (7), a part of each rotation restricting spring (7) being engaged with a respective one of the leg portions (120); and rotation of each of the leg portions (120), with the vertical direction as the axial direction, is allowed by deformation of a respective one of the rotation restricting springs (7) (Page 10, paragraph 1, 2; Page 12, paragraph 4; Page 13, paragraph 1; Page 14, paragraphs 3, 4, 5; Page 15, paragraph 1; Fig. 3, elements 7, 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Namiki in combination with Gil et al, Jiang et al and Gwin to facilitate the creation of rotation restricting springs that can create frictional contact with the leg portion as taught by Namiki (Page 9, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 5, Gil et al teaches a plurality of slide portions (68), each of which is engaged with a respective one of the first supporting portions (66), supports a respective one of the parcel carriers (34), and is configured to slide along the longitudinal direction of the respective one of the first supporting portions (66) (Paragraph 0032, lines 1-20; Fig. 3, elements 34, 62, 66, 68),
Wherein the drive portion (32A) is operable to cause each of the plurality of parcel carriers (34) to slide along the longitudinal direction of the respective one of the first supporting portions (66) to move the respective one of the leg portions toward the package (60) or away from the package (60) (Paragraph 0032, lines 10-14; Paragraph 0033, lines 1-6).
Gil et al fails to teach leg portions. Jiang et al teaches a package supporting device with multiple leg portions (Page 1, paragraph 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Jiang et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of leg portions that can be positioned to grab objects as taught by Jiang et al (Page 3, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 6, Gil et al fails to teach leg portions. Jiang et al teaches a package supporting device wherein each of the leg portions includes:
An upper connecting portion (1) connecting upper ends of the two abutting (3, 4) portions in the horizontal direction (Page 3, paragraph 14; Fig. 2, element 1); and
A lower connecting portion (6) connecting lower ends of the two abutting portions (3, 4) in the horizontal direction, the lower connecting portion (6) supporting the package from below (Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, element 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Jiang et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of leg portions that can properly support an object as taught by Jiang et al (Page 3, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 7, Gil et al fails to teach second supporting portions. Gwin teaches an apparatus lifting device wherein each second supporting portion of the plurality of second supporting portions (136) engages a central position, in a longitudinal direction of the upper connecting portion, of the upper connecting portion of the respective one of the leg portions (120) (Paragraph 0023, lines 10-16; Fig. 1, elements 120, 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Gwin et al in Gil et al to facilitate the creation of a leg portion that has multiple degrees of freedom as taught by Gwin et al (Paragraph 0023, lines 19-23).
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 SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights