DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-15, and 19-20 remain pending. Claims 2, 5-6, and 16-18 remain canceled. Claims 1, 7, 10-12, 15, and 20 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “the morphological shape”. It is unclear if this is referring to the “curve morphological shape” of claim 10 or not. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims rejected herein under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected below under 35 USC 102 or 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 broadens the possible shapes of the body and therefore is of improper dependent form as failing to further limit the subject matter of claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. (US 2018/0281954 A1) in view of Lance (US 916,331).
Regarding claim 1, Atchley teaches an unmanned aerial payload delivery system (Fig. 7, UAV 702 & “package carrier system” 101) comprising: a body of the system (Figs. 7, body of UAV 702 & “package carrier system” 101); at least one line (Fig. 7, cables 118; “the suspension supports can be configured to cooperate with one or more cables that can cooperate with an unmanned vehicle that suspends the package support frame and package carried by the package support frame”, Para. [0028]) for suspending a container (Fig. 7, container 104) below the body (Fig. 7 shows body of container 104 suspended below body of UAV 702); and an actuator (Figs. 1-4c, an actuator “release tab” 114) of the container to present a naturally tipping morphology (As shown in Figs. 1-2 and 5-6 with “package” 500 being guided below and out of container 104 with “tapered sides” 124; Figs. 2 & 6 shows “tapered sides” 124 being tipped outwards and being assisted by shape of tapered sides/trapezoid shape of container 104) for passive delivery of a payload (Figs. 1-4c, an actuator “release tab” 114 and payload “package” 500; described as a passive delivery system: “The weight of the package support frame and/or the package supported within the package cavity 302 cause the package supports and/or the release plate to move relative to each other causing an unlocking with the set of at least one locking grooves 110 sliding along the respective one of the set of at least one of the groove pins 112 such that at least the base 118 of the first package support pivots away from the base 118 of the second package support enlarging a package release aperture 304 formed by the bases of the first and second package supports and further causing an increase in distance between tapered lateral sides 124 along lateral sides of each of the package supports 104. By enlarging the release aperture 304, a package carried by the delivery system 100 is allowed to drop through the release aperture and out of the package support frame 102.”, Para. [0031]) from the container to a delivery site upon actuator interfacing therewith (As described: “Some embodiments provide a package release system that includes a simple release triggered by the release tab pressing against a surface (e.g., due to weight of the package support frame 102 and/or package 500). In response, the release plate is activated and at least the bottoms of one or both package supports open to allow the package to be carefully set on the surface. Once the package is released, the “load” is reduced. This reduced load can, in some implementations, simplify the removal of the package carrier system 101 from the delivery site (e.g., reduced load allows a UAV to more easily fly off while carrying the package carrier system. The opening of the package supports 104 allows the package to drop out of the package carrier system to touch down gently on the surface and remain upright without damaging the item in the package.”, Para. [0076]).
Atchley does not expressly disclose a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container.
However, in an analogous payload container art, Lance teaches a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container (Figs. 1-9 show a curved shape container rolling on the curved end to deliver a payload of material for concrete by rolling the payload out of the container by tipping one side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Atchley to further include a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container, as taught by Lance, with a reasonable expectation for success, to place a payload “without shock”, as discussed by Lance, Col. 1, Line 15.
Regarding claim 3, Atchley teaches wherein the container is of a top opening configuration (As shown in Fig. 3, “package receiving aperture” 306 at top of “container” 100/104: “The tapered sides result in a package release aperture 304 that has a smaller area than an area of the package receiving aperture 306, which is separated by a distance 308 from the bases 118 of the first and second package supports. In some instances, the distance is equal to a height of the package supports.”, Para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Atchley teaches wherein a cavity (Fig. 3, “package cavity”, 302) defining the container interior presents a decline surface to the payload during the delivery (As shown in Figs. 1-3 and 5-7 with “taper sides” 124 shown providing declining surfaces with “package release aperture” 304 being smaller than “package receiving aperture” 306; further described: “the package supports 104 are formed with tapered lateral sides 124. The first package support can have a first tapered side 124 that tapers toward the second package supports along at least a portion of a height of its lateral side. Similarly, the second package support can have a tapered side 124 that tapers toward the first package support along at least a portion of a height of its lateral side. The tapered sides result in a package release aperture 304 that has a smaller area than an area of the package receiving aperture 306, which is separated by a distance 308 from the bases 118 of the first and second package supports. In some instances, the distance is equal to a height of the package supports.”, Para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Atchley teaches wherein the curved morphological shape of the container (note, Lance is relied upon above for the container shape) actuator is responsive to a predetermined force to trigger the delivery upon the interfacing (As described: “at least one of the release plates, and typically each of the release plates includes a release tab 114. The release tab is formed to extend beyond the base 118 of the first and second package supports 104 by at least a threshold distance 402. In some embodiments, the threshold distance is typically dependent on at least the dimensions of the locking groove 110. For example, in some implementations, the release tab extends below the base 118 of the package supports by at least a height 404 of a locking portion of the locking groove 110. The release tab is configured to contact a surface (e.g., a delivery surface where the product is to be delivered). The weight of the package support frame and/or the package supported within the package cavity 302 cause the package supports and/or the release plate to move relative to each other causing an unlocking with the set of at least one locking grooves 110 sliding along the respective one of the set of at least one of the groove pins 112 such that at least the base 118 of the first package support pivots away from the base 118 of the second package support enlarging a package release aperture 304 formed by the bases of the first and second package supports and further causing an increase in distance between tapered lateral sides 124 along lateral sides of each of the package supports 104. By enlarging the release aperture 304, a package carried by the delivery system 100 is allowed to drop through the release aperture and out of the package support frame 102.”, Para. [0031]) by way of tipping of the container (Figs. 2 & 6 shows “tapered sides” 124 being tipped outwards and being assisted by shape of tapered sides/trapezoid shape of container 104; shown “package receiving aperture” 306 in both positions and shown tipping below “package release aperture” 304 when releasing “package” 500).
Regarding claim 8, Atchley as modified by Lance teaches the system of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the predetermined force is between about 25g. and about 35g.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Atchley wherein the predetermined force is between about 25g. and about 35g, because the weight of the predetermined force is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting weight could provide benefits to the sensitivity of the passive actuator, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as a container with a release tab that requires an applied force by interfacing with the ground or by hand to release a payload as taught by Atchley, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Atchley as modified by Lance teaches the system of claim 7 but is silent on wherein the predetermined force is less than a weight of the payload.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Atchley wherein the predetermined force is less than a weight of the payload, because the weight of the predetermined force is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting weight could provide benefits to the sensitivity of the passive actuator, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as “The weight of the package support frame and/or the package supported within the package cavity 302 cause the package supports and/or the release plate to move relative to each other causing an unlocking with the set of at least one locking grooves 110 sliding along the respective one of the set of at least one of the groove pins 112 such that at least the base 118 of the first package support pivots away from the base 118 of the second package support enlarging a package release aperture 304 formed by the bases of the first and second package supports and further causing an increase in distance between tapered lateral sides 124 along lateral sides of each of the package supports 104. By enlarging the release aperture 304, a package carried by the delivery system 100 is allowed to drop through the release aperture and out of the package support frame 102.” as taught by Atchley, Para. [0031], discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Atchley teaches a delivery guide (As shown in Figs. 1-2 and 5-6 with “package” 500 being guided below and out of container 104 with “tapered sides” 124) for a payload (Figs. 1-2 and 5-7, “package” 500) container (Figs. 1-2 and 5-7, container 100/104) of an unmanned aerial delivery system (Fig. 7), the delivery guide comprising a body of a naturally tipping morphology secured below an opening to the container (As shown in Fig. 3, “package receiving aperture” 306 at top of “container” 100/104: “The tapered sides result in a package release aperture 304 that has a smaller area than an area of the package receiving aperture 306, which is separated by a distance 308 from the bases 118 of the first and second package supports. In some instances, the distance is equal to a height of the package supports.”, Para. [0036]) at a top thereof for passive delivery of a payload from the container (Figs. 2 & 6 shows “tapered sides” 124 being tipped outwards and being assisted by shape of tapered sides/trapezoid shape of container 104; shown “package receiving aperture” 306 in both positions and shown tipping below “package release aperture” 304 when releasing “package” 500) upon interfacing between the body and a surface delivery site (As described: “Further, at least one of the release plates further includes at least one release tab that extends beyond the bases of the first and second package supports. By extending below the bases of the first and second package supports, the first release tab can contact a delivery surface during delivery and cause an unlocking of the release plate such that the release plate moves relative to the package supports and with the set of locking grooves sliding along the respective one of the groove pins such that at least the base of the first package support pivots away from the base of the second package support enlarging a package release aperture.”, Para. [0025]).
Atchley does not expressly disclose a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container.
However, in an analogous payload container art, Lance teaches a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container (Figs. 1-9 show a curved shape container rolling on the curved end to deliver a payload of material for concrete by rolling the payload out of the container by tipping one side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Atchley to further include a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container, as taught by Lance, with a reasonable expectation for success, to place a payload “without shock”, as discussed by Lance, Col. 1, Line 15.
Regarding claim 13, Atchley teaches wherein the container comprises a cavity (Fig. 3, “package cavity”, 302) leading to the opening (Figs. 1-3 and 5-7 show “cavity” 302 leading toward both openings “package release aperture” 304 and “package receiving aperture” 306) for the passive delivery of the payload (As shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Atchley teaches a method of delivering a payload to a delivery site (Fig. 7; “Contact Activated Retail Delivery Package Release Systems and Methods”, Title; delivery site described here: “Some embodiments provide a package release system that includes a simple release triggered by the release tab pressing against a surface (e.g., due to weight of the package support frame 102 and/or package 500). In response, the release plate is activated and at least the bottoms of one or both package supports open to allow the package to be carefully set on the surface. Once the package is released, the “load” is reduced. This reduced load can, in some implementations, simplify the removal of the package carrier system 101 from the delivery site (e.g., reduced load allows a UAV to more easily fly off while carrying the package carrier system. The opening of the package supports 104 allows the package to drop out of the package carrier system to touch down gently on the surface and remain upright without damaging the item in the package.”, Para. [0076]), the method comprising: loading a payload (Figs. 5-7, “package” 500) into a container (Figs. 1-3 and 5-7, container 100/104) of an unmanned aerial delivery system (Figs. 7 with “package” 500 shown loaded into container 100/104 of system with UAV 702); suspending the container with a naturally tipping morphology (As shown in Figs. 1-2 and 5-6 with “package” 500 being guided below and out of container 104 with “tapered sides” 124; Figs. 2 & 6 shows “tapered sides” 124 being tipped outwards and being assisted by shape of tapered sides/trapezoid shape of container 104) from a body of the system (Fig. 7 shows container 100/104 suspended from body of UAV 702); transporting the system to the delivery site (Implicitly disclosed by releasing “package” 500 at “delivery site”: “In response, the release plate is activated and at least the bottoms of one or both package supports open to allow the package to be carefully set on the surface. Once the package is released, the “load” is reduced. This reduced load can, in some implementations, simplify the removal of the package carrier system 101 from the delivery site (e.g., reduced load allows a UAV to more easily fly off while carrying the package carrier system.”, Para. [0076]); interfacing the naturally tipping morphology of the container with a surface at the delivery site (As described: “Further, at least one of the release plates further includes at least one release tab that extends beyond the bases of the first and second package supports. By extending below the bases of the first and second package supports, the first release tab can contact a delivery surface during delivery and cause an unlocking of the release plate such that the release plate moves relative to the package supports and with the set of locking grooves sliding along the respective one of the groove pins such that at least the base of the first package support pivots away from the base of the second package support enlarging a package release aperture.”, Para. [0025]); and passively delivering the payload to the site by way of the interfacing to attain tipping of the container (As described in both Paras. [0025] and [0076] above and as shown in Figs. 1-2 and 5-6 with “package” 500 being guided below and out of container 104 with “tapered sides” 124; Figs. 2 & 6 shows “tapered sides” 124 being tipped outwards and being assisted by shape of tapered sides/trapezoid shape of container 104).
Atchley does not expressly disclose a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container.
However, in an analogous payload container art, Lance teaches a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container (Figs. 1-9 show a curved shape container rolling on the curved end to deliver a payload of material for concrete by rolling the payload out of the container by tipping one side.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Atchley to further include a curved morphological shape configured to achieve a rolling delivery of a payload from the container, as taught by Lance, with a reasonable expectation for success, to place a payload “without shock”, as discussed by Lance, Col. 1, Line 15.
Regarding claim 20, Atchley teaches further comprising returning the system from the delivery site after the delivery in absence of landing of the system (Inherent to all UAV delivery system, since all UAVs that have taken flight, as shown in Fig. 7, need to land as the battery or fuel runs low. Therefore, the UAV must either land at the delivery site or return to elsewhere to land. Note, no airport, take-off site, or origin site is positively recited in the claims and therefore it is unclear where the system is to return to).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. (US 2018/0281954 A1) in view of Lance (US 916,331), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Gil et al. (US 2022/0320669 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Atchley as modified by Lance teaches the delivery guide of claim 10 but does not expressly disclose wherein the morphology is at least partially one of curved, tubular, spherical and skeletal.
However, in an analogous UAV delivery art, Gil teaches wherein the morphology is at least partially one of curved, tubular, spherical and skeletal (Fig. 1, “payload container” 102, shown tubular, with curved sides, partially spherical ends, and skeletal interior).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Atchley wherein the morphology is at least partially one of curved, tubular, spherical and skeletal, as taught by Gil, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it would have been an obvious matter of preference to make the different portions of the container of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 12, Atchley as modified by Gil teaches the delivery guide of claim 11, wherein the morphology further comprises a flat side surface (Atchley, Figs. 1-3 and 5-7 show sides of interior are flat; Gil, Fig. 2., end 208 shown being a flat side surface).
Regarding claim 14, Atchley as modified by Lance teaches the delivery guide of claim 13 but does not expressly disclose wherein the cavity is of a conical shape to facilitate the delivery.
However, in an analogous UAV delivery art, Gil teaches wherein the cavity is of a conical shape to facilitate the delivery (“It should be understood that the battery pack 206 can be of any shape such as sphere, cylinder, cone, cube, cuboid, hexagonal prism, square-based pyramid, tetrahedron, triangular prism, or any structure with one or more faces that are curved, or the like, or a combination. It should be understood that the case 200 can also be of any shape such as sphere, cylinder, cone, cube, cuboid, hexagonal prism, square-based pyramid, tetrahedron, triangular prism, or any structure with one or more faces that are curved, or the like, or a combination or even change shapes based on the load being carried, the battery pack 206, the shape of the payload container, or the like, or a combination.”, Para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Atchley wherein the cavity is of a conical shape to facilitate the delivery, as taught by Gil, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it would have been an obvious matter of preference to make the different portions of the container of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. (US 2018/0281954 A1) in view of Lance (US 916,331), as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Prager et al. (US 2018/0072421 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Atchley as modified by Lance teaches the method of claim 15 but does not expressly disclose wherein the interfacing comprises introducing slack in at least one line supporting the suspending of the container from the body.
However, in an analogous UAV delivery art, Prager teaches wherein the interfacing comprises introducing slack in at least one line supporting the suspending of the container from the body (“Once the payload 408 reaches the ground, the control system may continue operating the spool 404 to lower the tether 402, causing over-run of the tether 402. During over-run of the tether 402, the payload coupling apparatus 412 may continue to lower as the payload 408 remains stationary on the ground. The downward momentum and/or gravitational forces on the payload coupling apparatus 412 may cause the payload 408 to detach from the payload coupling apparatus 412 (e.g., by sliding off a hook of the payload coupling apparatus 412). After releasing payload 408, the control system may operate the spool 404 to retract the tether 402 and the payload coupling apparatus 412 toward the UAV 400. Once the payload coupling apparatus reaches or nears the UAV 400, the control system may operate the spool 404 to pull the payload coupling apparatus 412 into the receptacle 414, and the control system may toggle the payload latch 406 to the closed position, as shown in FIG. 4C.”, Para. [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Atchley wherein the interfacing comprises introducing slack in at least one line supporting the suspending of the container from the body, as taught by Prager, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the container and payload has reached the ground and/or the recipient before returning the tether to the UAV.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1, 10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon Lance (US 916,331) for the amended limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647