DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kozlenko et al. (US 2021/0276733), hereinafter Kozlenko, in view of Smith ( US 2011/0234160), and in view of Cooper et al. (US 11148805 B2), hereinafter Cooper.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 1-3, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1 (see above):-
a dock assembly [see figure 1, element 100], comprising:
a docking station [docking station (110)] including:
a landing surface [landing surface (110)] configured to interface with an unmanned aerial vehicle [vehicle (200)];
an extended portion [ extended area (150)] fixedly coupled to the landing surface and extending from the landing surface [extending (150) is fixed on the landing surface [110]] ;
a fiducial located [fiducial (122)] on the extended portion;
a battery charger [charger 120; it is implicit a charger circuit or element must be present to charge the unarmed vehicle] configured to charge a battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is interfacing with the landing surface; and
one or more conducting contacts [contacts (130)] in communication with the battery charger; and a stand coupled to the docking station [three linear actuators for tilting and lifting the docking box is disclosed; see ¶0026];
wherein the battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to compress the one or more conducting contacts to charge the battery; wherein the stand includes one or more adjustable legs configured to adjust a position of the docking station and configured for freestanding of the docking station on a surface.
Smith discloses in figure 1, wherein the battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to compress the one or more conducting contacts to charge the battery [noted that Smith discloses pogo pins for charging contacts and the device is compressed the pogo contacts to charge the battery of the device].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to use pogo pins in Kozlenko’s apparatus as taught by Smith in order to provide charging electrical contacts due to compressing force for reliable charging contacts and also provide a flexible, easy assembly and lower cost connectors.
Neither Kozlenko nor Smith discloses wherein the stand includes one or more adjustable legs configured to adjust a position of the docking station and configured for freestanding of the docking station on a surface.
Cooper discloses in figure 6A, wherein the stand includes one or more adjustable legs [legs 606(1) 606(2) ]configured to adjust a position of the docking station and configured for freestanding of the docking station on a surface [fasteners (624) .are used to couple the legs to the base; see Col. 8, lines 28-67].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use legs in Kozlenko’s apparatus as taught by Cooper in order to reliably secure the docking stations.
As to claim 2, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1, wherein the one or more adjustable legs of the stand are configured for mounting to a surface of a structure [¶0026].
As to claim 3, Kozlenko in combination with Cooper discloses, wherein the stand is coupled to the docking station [ducking station (100)] by at least one of a mounting bracket, a threaded member, or one or more fasteners [see ¶0033; and also see Cooper’s Col. 8, lines 30-67]].
As to claim 6, Kozlenko discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the battery charger is located within an enclosure of the docking station and the one or more conducting contacts are one or more pogo pins located on the landing surface of the docking station.
Smith discloses in figure 1, wherein the battery charger is located within an enclosure of the docking station and the one or more conducting contacts are one or more pogo pins [figure 1, element 90 are pogo pins; [0018] located on the landing surface of the docking station.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention made to use pogo pins in Kozlenko's apparatus as taught by Smith in order to provide a flexible, easy assembly and lower cost connectors.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlenko in view of Smith, Cooper, and in view of Perelman et al. ( US 2020/0003243), hereinafter Perelman.
As to claim 4, Kozlenko discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the stand is coupled to the docking station by a mounting bracket located therebetween; wherein the mounting bracket includes an upper member coupled to the docking station and a lower member coupled to the stand; and wherein the lower member is configured to releasably engage the upper member.
Perelman discloses in figure 1, wherein the stand [ stands (54) and (56)] is coupled to the docking station by a mounting bracket [mounting bracket (10)] located therebetween; wherein the mounting bracket includes an upper member coupled to the docking station and a lower member coupled to the stand; and wherein the lower member is configured to releasably engage the upper member [the mounting member (10) has bottom and top parts; see figures 1-7].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use mounting brackets between the legs and the docking surface as taught by Perelman in Kozlenko’s apparatus in order to have simple and easy connectors.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokzlenko in views of Smith, Cooper and Sussman et al. (US 2023/0150150), hereinafter Sussman.
As to claim 5, Kozklenko discloses all of the claim limitations except, an additional fiducial configured for positioning adjacent to, and separate from, the docking station
Sussman discloses in figures 1-4, an additional fiducial configured for positioning adjacent to, and separate from, the docking station [plurality of Fiducial markers are discloses ; see ¶00023].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use plurality of fiducial markers in Koklenko’s apparatus as taught by Sussmann in order to reliably or effectively secure the unmanned vehicle on the docking station.
Claims 7- 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlenko in view of Okafor ( US 2020/0003243), hereinafter Perelman.
As to claim 7, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1 (see figure above):- a support assembly for unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising
a dock station [see figure 1, element 110], including
a landing surface [landing surface (110)] complimentary is shape to a bottom surface of the unmanned aerial vehicle [noted that the aerial vehicle (200) landed on the landing surface so the landing surface has complementary shape] .
a fiducial located [fiducial (122)] on the docking station adjacent to and separate from the landing surface; and
a battery charger [charger 120; it is implicit a charger circuit or element must be present to charge the unarmed vehicle] configured to charge a battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle while the bottom surface of the unmanned aerial vehicle is contacting the landing surface.
Kozlenko does not disclose explicitly, a mount coupled to the docking station and configured to support the docking station , wherein the mount includes a rigid arm having a first end coupled to the docking station and an opposing second end configured to mount to a structure.
Okafor discloses in figure 5, a mount [see figure 5] coupled to the docking station and configured to support the docking station , wherein the mount includes a rigid arm having a first end coupled to the docking station and an opposing second end configured to mount to a structure [see ¶0050-0051; docking station is disclosed for electrical vehicles].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use wall mounting device in Kozlenko’s apparatus to mount the docking stations as taught by Okafor in order to secure the unmanned vehicle and efficiently use floor space.
As to claim 8, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1, wherein the docking station further includes: an extended portion [retractable arm (150)] coupled to the landing surface and extending from the landing surface, wherein the fiducial is located on the extended portion [see figure above].
As to claim 9, Kozlenko in combination with Okafor discloses, wherein the mount includes a cantilevered arm configured for mounting to at least one of a wall or a ceiling of the structure [see Kozlenko’s ¶0018, 0021 and also see Okafor’s figure 8 and Col. 8, lines 30-67].
As to claim 10, Okafor discloses in figures 1-5, wherein the mount is coupled to the docking station near a first end of the mount, and wherein a second end of the mount opposing the first end is configured for mounting to the structure [see figure 5, and also see Col. 8, lines 30-67].
As to claim 11, Okafor discloses in figures 1-5, wherein the mount is removably coupled to the docking station by a mounting bracket located between the mount and the docking station [see Col. 8, lines 30-67].
As to claim 12, Okafor discloses in figures 1-5, wherein the mounting bracket includes an upper member coupled to an exterior surface of an enclosure of the docking station and a lower member coupled to the mount [see Col. 8, lines 30-67].
As to claim 13, Okafor discloses in figures 1-5, wherein the lower member is configured to releasably engage the upper member [see Col. 8, lines 30-67also].
As to claim 15, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1, wherein the battery charger is located within an enclosure of the docking station and the battery charger includes one or more conducting contacts located on the landing surface of the docking station [the landing surface (10) is retractable and the retractable arm (150) pull the landing surface (10) which includes the charging area inside the box and extend the charging area outside the docking house; see Abstract and also ¶0038] .
As to claim 16, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1, wherein the structure is a building, and the mount is configured for mounting to at least one of a wall or a ceiling of the building [mounting on the wall is disclosed; see ¶0022].
As to claim 17, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1, wherein the structure is at least one of a shelving unit or a storage rack, and the mount is configured for mounting to a surface of the at least one of the shelving unit or the storage rack [noted that the leg of the docking station of Kozlenko can be considered as a shelving unit].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokzlenko in view of Okafor, in view of Sussman et al. (US 2023/0150150), hereinafter Sussman.
As to claim 14, Kozklenko discloses all of the claim limitations except, an additional fiducial coupled to the mount and positioned substantially perpendicular to the fiducial.
Sussman discloses in figures 1-4, an additional fiducial coupled to the mount and positioned substantially perpendicular to the fiducial of the docking station [see ¶0023].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use plurality of fiducial markers in Koklenko’s apparatus as taught by Sussmann in order to reliably or effectively secure the unmanned vehicle on the docking station.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokzlenko in view of Sussman et al. (US 2023/0150150), hereinafter Sussman.
As to claim 18, Kozlenko discloses in figure 1 (see figure above):- a system comprising unmanned aerial vehicle including a propulsion mechanism and a battery a docking station including [see figure above];-
a dock station [see figure 1, element 110], including
a landing surface [landing surface (110)] configured to support the unmanned aerial vehicle.
an extended portion [ extended area (150)] fixedly coupled to the landing surface and extending from the landing surface [extending (150) is fixed on the landing surface [110]] ;
a battery charger [charger (120); it is implicit a charger circuit or element must be present to charge the unarmed vehicle] configured to charge the battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is located on the landing surface; a support configured to couple to the docking station [¶0026].
Kozlenko does not disclose explicitly, a second fiducial positioned separate from the docking station.
Sussman discloses in figures 1-4, an additional fiducial coupled to the mount and positioned substantially perpendicular to the fiducial of the docking station [see ¶0023].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to use plurality of fiducial markers in Koklenko’s apparatus as taught by Sussmann in order to reliably or effectively secure the unmanned vehicle on the docking station.
As to claim 19. Kozlenko discloses in figure 1, wherein the support is either a stand that includes one or more adjustable legs configured to adjust a position of the docking station [noted that the legs provided in Kozlenko discloses legs and it is implicit that the legs are adjusted the position] or a mount configured to couple to the docking station and to secure the docking station to a structure.
As to claim 20. Sussman discloses in figures 1-4, wherein an area of the second fiducial is greater than an area of the first fiducial, and wherein the second fiducial is located adjacent to, and separate from, the docking station [¶0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_F.
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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
