DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of invention/group I and species II in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
3. Upon a detailed review of the applicant’s disclosure, the restriction requirement mailed on 01/15/2025, in particular the requirement for restriction between the Species as outlined by the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn. Therefore, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/15/2025, is withdrawn in-part since there appears to be no distinct or independent species as best understood.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 04/15/2025 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a. Claim 1: the “housing… is provided with one or more docking modules”, the “housing… is further provided with one or more guides”, the “at least one of said guides is configured to detachable connected or dock to one or more guides of said connected housing” and an aircraft apparatus which comprises docking between the housings and the guides.
b. Claim 2: the “housing is provided with two or more guides, at least some of which are disposed parallel to one another, perpendicular to one another and/or at a predetermined angle with respect to one another”;
c. Claim 3: the “at least one of said guides is mounted on a rotary device mounted in the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable said at least one guide to rotate by a predetermined angle of rotation”;
d. Claim 4: the “housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one guide or configured to interact with said at least one guide so as to enable rotation thereof by a predetermined angle of rotation”;
e. Claim 5: the “at least one of said guides is configured telescopic” and “the drive device”;
f. Claim 6: the “the control module is further configured to present control commands to the drive device so as to enable at least partial retraction of said extended guide”;
g. Claim 7: the “housing is configured to tilt or rotate by a predetermined angle with respect to at least one of said guides”;
h. Claim 8: the “housing is configured to alter the shape thereof and/or the dimensions thereof”;
i. Claim 13: the “the housing is further provided with one or more controllable working members configured to interact with a payload when actuated so as to enable mounting or suspension of said payload on at least one of said guides and to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide while actuation of said working members and further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said controllable working members so as to enable actuation of at least one of same in response to control commands of the control module”
j. Claim 14: the “housing is provided with two or more parallel guides”;
k. Claim 15: “at least one of said guides is comprised of two or more portions, at least one of which is configured movable, and the housing further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one movable portion of the guide so as to enable movement thereof with respect to the remaining portions of the guide for altering the shape of said at least one guide”;
l. Claim 16: the “the housing is provided with two distinct guides and a movable connecting guide” and the “drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said movable connecting guide so as to enable same to move for connecting said guides to one another”;
m. Claim 17: the “housing is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of said guides so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide”;
n. Claim 18: the “payload movement module is a robotic manipulator or grip configured to grip and move a payload along said at least one guide”;
o. Claim 19: the “the payload movement module is a pusher configured to momentarily exert force upon a payload while actuation of said pusher for moving the payload along said at least one guide, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said pusher in a manner to actuate same”;
p. Claim 20: the “weight sensors”, the “spots of the load-bearing structure” and the “payload movement module”;
q. Claim 21: the “payload movement module is movably mounted on at least one additional guide”;
r. Claim 22: the “the payload movement module is further configured to demount a payload from the guide”;
s. Claim 24: the “said at least one guide has one or more payload demounting spots”;
t. Claim 25: the “at least one of said docking modules is movably mounted on at least one of said guides”
u. Claim 26: the “at least one of said guides is further provided with a gripping mechanism configured to grip a payload to enable same to be mounted or suspended on said at least one guide and to move along said at least one guide to enable said gripped payload to move along said at least one guide”;
v. Claim 27: the “gripping mechanism is configured rotatable so as to enable rotation of said gripped payload with respect to said at least one guide”;
w. Claim 28: the “at least one of said guides is configured movable, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a guide movement module being under control of the control module and configured to operably interact with said at least one movable guide so as to enable same to move together with a payload mounted or suspended on said at least one movable guide”;
x. Claim 31: the “housing of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of the guides of the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide, and the control module is further configured to present control commands to the payload movement module so as to enable movement of the payload from the aircraft apparatus to be undocked to at least one of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses while presence of the aircraft apparatuses in the air space”;
y. Claim 32: the “housing of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of the guides of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide, and the control module is further configured to present control commands to the payload movement module so as to enable receipt of the payload from at least one of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses and to enable movement of said received payload into the aircraft apparatus to be undocked while presence of the aircraft apparatuses in the air space”;
z. Claim 33: the “parking station”;
za. Claim 35: “the control module is further configured to present control commands to the payload movement module of the aircraft apparatus to be docked so as to enable movement of the payload from the aircraft apparatus to be docked to at least one of the docked to one another aircraft apparatuses”;
zb. Claim 36: “the control module further enables movement of the payload movement module along an additional cluster guide formed from said additional guides upon docking said aircraft apparatuses to one another”;
zc. Claim 48: For all subject matter listed above that is also present in this claim.
No new matter should be entered.
6. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification (see Applicant’s PGPub US 2024/0217678 A1 for any reference made to the text):
a. para. [0135]: In one of the embodiments of the present invention, at least one or each of the guides 140 which may be provided to the housing 110 in at least one or each of the aircraft apparatuses 100 being part of the system 500-1 shown in FIG. 1 may be mounted on a rotary device (not shown) mounted in said housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable rotation of said guide 140 by a predetermined angle of rotation, thus allowing to alter the path or trajectory of movement of a payload along that guide 140 and/or allowing to connect said guide 140 mounted on the rotary device to at least one other guide being part of said guides 140 provided to said housing 110.
b. para. [0133]: According to other embodiments of the present invention, at least one or each of the guides 140 which may be provided to the housing 110 in at least one or each of the aircraft apparatuses 100 being part of the system 500-1 shown in FIG. 1 may comprise two or more portions, at least one of which is configured movable, wherein said housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus may further comprise a drive device being under control of the control module of said aircraft apparatus 100 and operably coupled to said at least one movable portion of the guide 140 so as to enable movement of said at least one movable portion of the guide 140 with respect to the remaining portions of the guide 140 for altering the shape of said guide 140. See also paras. [0136]-[0137] and [0139]-[0142].
c. para. [0140]: In some other embodiment of the present invention, the housing 110 in at least one or each of the aircraft apparatuses 100 being part of the system 500-1 shown in FIG. 1 may be further provided with one or more controllable working members (not shown) configured to interact with a payload when actuated so as to enable mounting or suspension of said payload on at least one of the guides 140 of said housing 110 and to enable movement of said payload along said at least one guide 140 while actuation of said working members and may further comprise a drive device (not shown) being under control of the control module of said aircraft apparatus 100 and operably coupled to said controllable working members so as to enable actuation of at least one of same in response to control commands of the control module of the aircraft apparatus 100.
d. para. [0142]: n other embodiments of the present invention, the housing 110 in at least one or each of the aircraft apparatuses 100 being part of the system 500-1 shown in FIG. 1 may be further provided with a payload movement module (not shown) being under control of the control module of said aircraft apparatus 100 and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of the guides 140 provided to said housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement of said payload along said at least one guide 140. In one of the variations of this embodiment of the present invention, the payload movement module (not shown) may be a robotic manipulator or grip configured to grip and move a payload along at least one of the guides 140 provided to the housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus. In another variation of this embodiment of the present invention, the payload movement module (not shown) may be a pusher configured to momentarily exert force upon a payload while actuation of said pusher for moving that payload along at least one of the guides provided to the housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus, wherein said housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus may further comprise a drive device (not shown) being under control of the control module of said aircraft apparatus 100 and operably coupled to said pusher in a manner to actuate same. In yet another variation of this embodiment of the present invention, the payload movement module (not shown) may be movably mounted on at least one additional guide (not shown) distinct from the guides 140 for moving a payload along at least one guide 140. In another variation of this embodiment of the present invention, the payload movement module (not shown) may be further configured to demount a payload from at least one guide 140 provided to the housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus.
e. para. [0147]; In various other embodiments of the present invention, at least one of the guides 140 provided to the housing 110 in at least one or each of the aircraft apparatuses 100 being part of the system 500-1 shown in FIG. 1 may be configured movable, wherein said housing 110 of the aircraft apparatus may further comprise a guide movement module (not shown) being under control of the control module of said aircraft apparatus 100 and configured to operably interact with said movable guide 140 so as to enable same to move together with a payload mounted or suspended on said movable guide. In one of the variations of this embodiment of the present invention, the movable guide 140 may be further configured to mount or suspend thereon a payload so as to enable movement of said payload along said movable guide 140 while movement of that guide 140.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, line 2: the term “which housing is provided with” should be replaced with “includes” or the like for the purpose of clarity.
b. Claim 1, line 4: the term “configured each” should be rewritten as --each configured-- for the purpose of grammatical compression.
c. Claim 1, line 8: the term “further provided with” should be replaced with “further includes” or the like for the purpose of clarity.
d. Claim 5, line 2: the term “configured telescopic” is grammatical incomprehensible and should be corrected.
e. Claim 9, line 2” the term “partially configured bendable” is grammatically incomprehensible and should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. Claims 17, 19-22, 31-32 and 36: the “payload movement module”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
11. Claims 1-28, 30-36 and 48 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.
12. Claim 1, lines 3-5, recites the limitation “one or more air propulsion units enabling movement of the aircraft apparatus through the air and one or more docking modules configured each to detachably connect said housing to the housing of other aircraft apparatus while docking said aircraft apparatuses to one another” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exact aircraft apparatus is being referenced in line 5. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the housing of other aircraft apparatus” in lines 4-5 of the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
13. Claim 1, lines 6-7, recites the limitation “control module configured to receive control commands so as to enable docking of said aircraft apparatus to at least one other aircraft apparatus” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the at least one other aircraft apparatus is the same as or different than the other aircraft apparatus as recited in lines 4-5. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
14. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the docking module” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
15. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the guide” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
16. Claim 1, lines 11-12, recites the limitation “at least one of said guides is configured to detachably connect or dock to one or more guides of said connected housing of other aircraft apparatus to form a cluster guide” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the housing of the other aircraft apparatus is connected to the housing of the aircraft apparatus (i.e., claimed invention) and therefore part of the claimed invention. Further stated, lines 4-5 merely requires the docking modules configured each to detachable connect said housing of the other aircraft apparatus. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “said connected housing” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
17. Claim 1, lines 13-15, recites the limitation “the control module is further configured to move the payload along said cluster guide to said at least one other aircraft apparatus and to undock the aircraft apparatus from said at least one other aircraft apparatus while presence of the aircraft apparatus in the air space” which renders the claim indefinite, since the cluster as claimed is not a part of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is unclear as to exactly how the control module is further configured to move the payload along said cluster guide to said at least one other aircraft apparatus and to undock the aircraft apparatus from said at least one other aircraft apparatus while presence of the aircraft apparatus in the air space. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly what is meant while presence of the aircraft apparatus in the air space with consideration of the aircraft apparatus being undocked from the other aircraft apparatus. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
18. Claim 2, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the housing is provided with two or more guides” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which housing of which aircraft apparatus is being referenced and whether the two or more guides or in addition or encompass the guides as recited in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the housing” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
19. Claim 3, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “at least one of said guides is mounted on a rotary device mounted in the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable said at least one guide to rotate by a predetermined angle of rotation” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which guide and housing of which aircraft apparatus is being referenced. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “at least one of said guides” and “said at least one guide” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
20. Claim 4, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said guides is rotatably mounted on the housing of the aircraft apparatus, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one guide or configured to interact with said at least one guide so as to enable rotation thereof by a predetermined angle of rotation” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which of said guides and housing of the aircraft apparatus is being referenced. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly what is being enabled for rotation. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations “at least of said guides”, “the housing of the aircraft apparatus”, “said at least one guide” in the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
21. Claim 5, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said guides is configured telescopic, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one guide or configured to interact with said at least one guide so as to enable at least partial extension thereof” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which guide, housing and aircraft apparatus is being referenced. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations” at least of said guides” and “the housing of the aircraft apparatus” in the claim.
22. Claim 6 recites the limitation “said extended guide” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
23. Claim 7, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the housing is configured to tilt or rotate by a predetermined angle with respect to at least one of said guides” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which housing of which aircraft apparatus is being referenced. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the housing” in the claim. Similarly, claim 8 is unclear for the same reasons.
24. Claim 9, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said guides is at least partially configured bendable or flexible” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which of said guides is being referenced. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “at least one of said guides” in the claim. Similarly, claims 10-11 are unclear for the same reasons.
25. Claim 12, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said guides is configured to enable movement of a payload along at least one of the three coordinate axes or is configured to move relative to the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement of a payload mounted or suspended on said at least one guide relative to the housing of the aircraft apparatus” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which guide and housing of which aircraft apparatus is being referenced. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “at least of said guides”, “the housing of the aircraft apparatus” and “the three coordinate axes” in the claim.
26. Claim 13, lines 1-7, recites the limitation “the housing is further provided with one or more controllable working members configured to interact with a payload when actuated so as to enable mounting or suspension of said payload on at least one of said guides and to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide while actuation of said working members and further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said controllable working members so as to enable actuation of at least one of same in response to control commands of the control module” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which of said guides and housings is being referenced. Further, it is unclear as to exactly what further comprises the drive device, and exactly what is meant by by the “actuation of at least one same”. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “said guides” and “the housing” in the claim.
27. Claim 14, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “wherein the housing is provided with two or more parallel guides configured to mount or suspend thereon a payload and to substantially rectilinearly move therealong said mounted payload” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which housing of which aircraft apparatus is being referenced.
28. Claim 15, lines 1-6, recites the limitation “wherein at least one of said guides is comprised of two or more portions, at least one of which is configured movable, and the housing further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one movable portion of the guide so as to enable movement thereof with respect to the remaining portions of the guide for altering the shape of said at least one guide” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which housing and guides of the aircraft apparatuses is being referenced. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly what is meant by the limitation “so as the enable same to move”. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the housing” and “said guides” in the claim.
29. Claim 16, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “the housing is provided with two distinct guides and a movable connecting guide, each of which is configured to mount or suspend thereon a payload and to move therealong said mounted payload and further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said movable connecting guide so as to enable same to move for connecting said guides to one another” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the two distinct guides are encompassed by the guides as recited in claim 1 or considered to be distinct from the guides. Further, it is unclear as to exactly which housing of which aircraft apparatus is being referenced. Further, it is unclear as to exactly what further comprises the drive device, and exactly what is meant by “so as to enable same to move”. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the housing” and “said guides” in the claim.
30. Claim 17, lines 1-4, recites the limitation “the housing is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of said guides so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which housing and said guides is being referenced. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the housing” and “said guides” in the claim.
31. The term “momentarily” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “momentarily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the exact extent in which the pusher is configured to exert a force upon a payload such that the exerted force is considered to be a momentarily exerted force.
32. Claim 20 recites the limitations “the spots of the load-bearing structure” and “said readings” in lines 3 and 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
33. Claim 21, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the payload movement module is movably mounted on at least one additional guide for moving a payload” which renders claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the additional guide is in addition to the guides as recited in claim 17, or is considered to be distinct from the guides.
34. Claim 23, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “at least one of said guides is further configured to demount a payload mounted on said at least one guide” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which of said guides of which aircraft apparatuses is being referenced. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “said at least one guide” in the claim. Similarly claim 24 is unclear for same reasons.
35. Claim 25, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “at least one of said docking modules is movably mounted on at least one of said guides” which renders the claim indefinite, since is it unclear as to exactly which of said docking modules and guides is being referenced. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “said docking modules” and “said guides” in the claim.
35. Claim 26, lines 1-4, recites the limitation “at least one of said guides is further provided with a gripping mechanism configured to grip a payload to enable same to be mounted or suspended on said at least one guide and to move along said at least one guide to enable said gripped payload to move along said at least one guide” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly which of said guides is being referenced and exactly what is meant by “to enable same”.
36. Claim 28, lines 1-5, recites the limitation “at least one of said guides is configured movable, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a guide movement module being under control of the control module and configured to operably interact with said at least one movable guide so as to enable same to move together with a payload mounted or suspended on said at least one movable guide” which renders the claim indefinite, since is unclear as to exactly which of said guides and housing is being referenced. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly at is meant “to enable same”.
37. Claim 30, lines 2-8, recites the limitation “two or more docked to one another aircraft apparatuses according to claim 1, wherein the control module further enables undocking of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses while presence of the cluster aircraft apparatus in the air space so as to enable formation of a cluster guide from the guides of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses and/or enables docking of yet another aircraft apparatus according to claim 1 to one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses so as to enable formation of a cluster guide from the guides of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether the applicant intends on positively claiming the aircraft apparatus and/or other aircraft apparatuses as recited in claim 1. Further stated, claim does not positively recite any other aircraft apparatus other than the aircraft apparatus as recited in line 1 of claim 1. The other aircraft apparatuses are merely functionally recited in the claim. Furthermore, the generally verbose and it is not particular clear as to exactly what is being claimed. What exactly is considered to be a “two or more docked”, and if the claimed invention is drawn to a cluster aircraft apparatus, how exactly is the control module enabling undocking of an aircraft apparatus? Would that not render the claimed invention as not being a cluster aircraft apparatus? Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “one another aircraft apparatus according to claim 1”, “the control module”, “the guides” in the claim.
38. Claim 31 recites the limitation “the housing”, “the control module”, “the guides” and “the aircraft apparatuses” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Similarly for claim 32.
39. Claim 33 recites the limitation “the control” and “the aircraft apparatus”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
40. Claim 34 recites the limitation “the control module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similarly for claim 35.
41. Claim 35 recites the limitations “the control module” and “the payload movement module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
42. Claim 36 recites the limitations “at least two of the aircraft apparatuses”, “the control module” and “the payload movement module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
43. The scope of claim 42 is unascertainable because the majority of the claim as currently constructed is both vague and indefinite and includes a plethora of instances of insufficient antecedent basis for limitations recited in the claim. Below is a non-exhaustive list of reasons as to why the claim is rendered indefinite:
a. Line 4: Which of the aircraft apparatuses is the “the docking module” being attributed to? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
b. Line 5: Is the “aircraft apparatuses” one of the “one or more aircraft apparatuses”? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
c. Line 6: What is exactly meant by “the guides of said docked to another aircraft apparatuses”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
d. Line 9: Which of the aircraft apparatuses is the “the docking module” being attributed to? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
e. Line 11: What is exactly meant by “the guides of said docked to another aircraft apparatuses”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
f. Line 15: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “said housing to the housing of other aircraft apparatuses. Furthermore, which of the aircraft apparatuses encompasses said housing?
g. Line 18: Which of the aircraft apparatuses as positively recited in the previous lines being referenced?
The claimed should be extensively reviewed such that the metes and bounds of the claim is definitively clear.
44. Claim limitation “rotary device… so as to enable said at least one guide to rotate” in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
45. Claim limitation “drive device… configured to interact” in claims 4-6, 13, 15-16, 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
46. Claim limitation “one or more controllable working members configured to interact” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
47. Claim limitation “guide movement module… configured to operably interact” in claim 28 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For each of the limitations above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
With consideration of the rejections above, each of the claims requires an extensive review such that each claim conform with the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
48. 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 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.
49. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-19, 21-28, 30-36 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beaman et al. (US 2018/0086460 A1), hereinafter “Beaman”.
50. Regarding Claim 1, Beaman discloses an aircraft apparatus (Abstract and paras. [0029] and [0044]; drone 20/220 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 4-5) comprising:
a housing (22/226) of the aircraft apparatus (220) which housing is provided with one or more air propulsion units (222) enabling movement of the aircraft apparatus through the air and one or more docking modules (228) configured each to detachably connect said housing to the housing of other aircraft apparatus (240) while docking said aircraft apparatuses to one another (paras. [0029], [0031], [0044]),
a control module (38) configured to receive control commands so as to enable docking of said aircraft apparatus to at least one other aircraft apparatus (paras. [0032], [0044], [0047]-[0049]), wherein
the housing of the aircraft apparatus is further provided with one or more guides (224) each of which is configured to come into detachable interaction with the docking module (228) of a payload (26) to be movably mounted or suspended on the guide (para. [0045]) and
at least one of said guides (242) is configured to detachably connect or dock to one or more guides (242) of said connected housing of other aircraft apparatus to form a cluster guide (para. [0047]), the control module is further configured to move the payload along said cluster guide to said at least one other aircraft apparatus and to undock the aircraft apparatus from said at least one other aircraft apparatus while presence of the aircraft apparatus in the air space (paras. [0045], [0048]-[0051]; controller 38 configured to via determining the change in orientation to allow the capture ring 238 to move along transfer arms 224/242 from drone 220 to drone 240, furthermore the controller 38 adjusts individual thrust devices 222/248 differently and continuously during the transfer process of payload 26, furthermore with consideration of the removable connection between drones 220/240, drone 240 is structurally capable of undocking from drone 220 as seen in FIGS. 4-7).
51. Regarding Claim 2, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the housing is provided with two or more guides (242), at least some of which are disposed parallel to one another, perpendicular to one another and/or at a predetermined angle with respect to one another (FIG. 8).
52. Regarding Claim 3, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is mounted on a rotary device mounted in the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable said at least one guide to rotate by a predetermined angle of rotation (para. [0047]; arms 224/242 are gimbally disposed so that each arm extends-collapses towards the long axis of the cone as the arms extended/retracted).
53. Regarding Claim 4, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is rotatably mounted on the housing of the aircraft apparatus (para. [0047]; transfer arms 224/242 gimbally mounted), and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one guide or configured to interact with said at least one guide so as to enable rotation thereof by a predetermined angle of rotation (para. [0058]; transfer sleeve 400 moves from a retracted position to an extended position, the sleeve 400 reduces the amount of orientation change used in the transfer process as seen in FIGS. 14A-15D, accordingly with consideration of control 38 being configured to adjust the altitude and orientation of the drone 220, the transfer sleeve 400 must be under the control of the controller 38).
54. Regarding Claim 5, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is configured telescopic (para. [0044] and [0047]), and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one guide or configured to interact with said at least one guide so as to enable at least partial extension thereof (paras. [0057]-[0058]).
55. Regarding Claim 6, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured to present control commands to the drive device so as to enable at least partial retraction of said extended guide (paras. [paras. [0050] and [0052]).
56. Regarding Claim 7, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the housing is configured to tilt or rotate by a predetermined angle with respect to at least one of said guides (para. [0057]; with consideration of the arms 224/242 being gimbally mounted, the drones 220/240 are by definition configured to tilt or rotate by a predetermined angle relative to respective arms 224/242).
57. Regarding Claim 9, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is at least partially configured bendable or flexible (with consideration of arms 224/242 being bent and curbed, the arms must be configured at least bendable).
58. Regarding Claim 10, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is configured rectilinear or curvilinear (arms 224/242 are by definition at least rectilinear as seen in FIGS. 4-5).
59. Regarding Claim 11, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is configured T-shaped, Z-shaped, X-shaped, Y-shaped, inverted-U-shaped, E-shaped, U- shaped, N-shaped, L-shaped, F-shaped, 0-shaped, H -shaped, V-shaped, inverted-L-shaped, C- shaped or W-shaped (arms 224/242 are at least L-shaped as seen in FIGS. 4-5).
60. Regarding Claim 12, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is configured to enable movement of a payload along at least one of the three coordinate axes or is configured to move relative to the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement of a payload mounted or suspended on said at least one guide relative to the housing of the aircraft apparatus (paras. [0045], [0048] and as seen in FIGS. 4-7).
61. Regarding Claim 13, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the housing is further provided with one or more controllable working members configured to interact with a payload when actuated so as to enable mounting or suspension of said payload on at least one of said guides and to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide while actuation of said working members (paras. [0049]-[0050]; capturing ring 238 interacting with payload 26 moved along arms 224/242 with controls provided by controller 38 as seen in FIGS. 4-7) and further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said controllable working members so as to enable actuation of at least one of same in response to control commands of the control module (para. [0058]; transfer sleeve 400 moves from a retracted position to an extended position, the sleeve 400 reduces the amount of orientation change used in the transfer process as seen in FIGS. 14A-15D, accordingly with consideration of control 38 being configured to adjust the altitude and orientation of the drone 220, the transfer sleeve 400 must be under the control of the controller 38).
62. Regarding Claim 14, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the housing is provided with two or more parallel guides configured to mount or suspend thereon a payload and to substantially rectilinearly move therealong said mounted payload (para. [0052]; drones 220/240 including an additional parallel guide 252 configured to mount and suspend thereon payload 26 as seen in FIGS. 4-8).
63. Regarding Claim 15, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is comprised of two or more portions, at least one of which is configured movable (para. [0057]), and the housing further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said at least one movable portion of the guide so as to enable movement thereof with respect to the remaining portions of the guide for altering the shape of said at least one guide (para. [0058]; transfer sleeve 400 moves from a retracted position to an extended position, the sleeve 400 reduces the amount of orientation change used in the transfer process as seen in FIGS. 14A-15D, accordingly with consideration of control 38 being configured to adjust the altitude and orientation of the drone 220, the transfer sleeve 400 must be under the control of the controller 38).
64. Regarding Claim 16, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the housing is provided with two distinct guides and a movable connecting guide, each of which is configured to mount or suspend thereon a payload and to move therealong said mounted payload (para. [0052]) and further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said movable connecting guide so as to enable same to move for connecting said guides to one another (para. [0057]).
65. Regarding Claim 17, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the housing is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of said guides so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide (paras. [0058]-[0059] and [0061]-[0062]).
66. Regarding Claim 18, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the payload movement module is a robotic manipulator or grip configured to grip and move a payload along said at least one guide (paras. [0059] and [0062]).
67. Regarding Claim 19, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the payload movement module is a pusher configured to momentarily exert force upon a payload while actuation of said pusher for moving the payload along said at least one guide, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a drive device being under control of the control module and operably coupled to said pusher in a manner to actuate same (paras. [0061]-[0064]).
68. Regarding Claim 21, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the payload movement module is movably mounted on at least one additional guide for moving a payload (paras. [0058]-[0059] and seen in FIGS. 14A-15B).
69. Regarding Claim 22, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the payload movement module is further configured to demount a payload from the guide (para. [0062]; demounting payload 26 via pick up member 414 as seen in FIGS. 15A-15B).
70. Regarding Claim 23, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 17, wherein at least one of said guides is further configured to demount a payload mounted on said at least one guide (para. [0062]; demounting payload 26 via pick up member 414 as seen in FIGS. 15A-15B).
71. Regarding Claim 24, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 14, wherein said at least one guide has one or more payload demounting spots (para. [0062]; demounting payload 26 via pick up member 414 as seen in FIGS. 15A-15B).
72. Regarding Claim 25, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said docking modules is movably mounted on at least one of said guides (paras. [0061]-[0064] and as seen in FIGS. 11-15D).
73. Regarding Claim 26, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is further provided with a gripping mechanism configured to grip a payload to enable same to be mounted or suspended on said at least one guide and to move along said at least one guide to enable said gripped payload to move along said at least one guide (paras. [0059] and [0062]-[0063] and as seen in FIGS. 14C-15D).
74. Regarding Claim 27, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 26, wherein said gripping mechanism is configured rotatable so as to enable rotation of said gripped payload with respect to said at least one guide (para. [0062]; picking up member 414 which includes an interlock device such as a spring-loaded latch is by definition configured rotatable).
75. Regarding Claim 28, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said guides is configured movable, and the housing of the aircraft apparatus further comprises a guide movement module being under control of the control module and configured to operably interact with said at least one movable guide so as to enable same to move together with a payload mounted or suspended on said at least one movable guide (paras. [0061]-[0064]).
76. Regarding Claim 30, Beaman discloses a cluster aircraft apparatus (a cluster formed of at least drones 220/240 as seen in FIGS. 5-6) comprising:
two or more docked to one another aircraft apparatuses according to claim 1 (drones 220/240 as discussed above, regarding claim 1), wherein the control module further enables undocking of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses while presence of the cluster aircraft apparatus in the air space so as to enable formation of a cluster guide from the guides of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses and/or enables docking of yet another aircraft apparatus according to claim 1 to one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses so as to enable formation of a cluster guide from the guides of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses (paras. [0031]-[0032] and [0047]; enabling docking between drones 220/240 via coupling device 36/228/244 of respective drones 220/240 controlled via controller 38 so as to form a cluster as seen in FIGS. 4-5).
77. Regarding Claim 31, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according 30, wherein the housing of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of the guides of the housing of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide (paras. [0058]-[0059] and [0061]-[0062]), and the control module is further configured to present control commands to the payload movement module so as to enable movement of the payload from the aircraft apparatus to be undocked to at least one of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses while presence of the aircraft apparatuses in the air space (paras. [0032] and [0047]-[0050]).
78. Regarding Claim 32, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the housing of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses is further provided with a payload movement module being under control of the control module and configured to interact with a payload mounted or suspended on at least one of the guides of the aircraft apparatus so as to enable movement thereof along said at least one guide (paras. [0058]-[0059] and [0061]-[0062]), and the control module is further configured to present control commands to the payload movement module so as to enable receipt of the payload from at least one of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses and to enable movement of said received payload into the aircraft apparatus to be undocked while presence of the aircraft apparatuses in the air space (paras. [0032] and [0047]-[0050]).
79. Regarding Claim 33, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the control module further enables direction of the aircraft apparatus to be undocked to a parking station for replenishing the range thereof (paras. [0032] and [0048] and [0051]; with consideration of the coupling devices 22/228/244 and thrust devices 222/248 being controlled via the controllers 38, the controllers 38 are structurally capable of enabling a direction of drones 220/240 to be undocked to a parking station for replenishing the range thereof).
80. Regarding Claim 34, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the control module further enables docking of an aircraft apparatus with a replenished range to one of the docked to one another aircraft apparatuses (with consideration of the controllers 38 controlling the operations, including the orientation and altitude of the drones 220/240, the controllers 38 are structurally capable of enabling docking drones 220/240 with replenished ranges to one another).
81. Regarding Claim 35, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 33, wherein the control module is further configured to present control commands to the payload movement module of the aircraft apparatus to be docked so as to enable movement of the payload from the aircraft apparatus to be docked to at least one of the docked to one another aircraft apparatuses (paras. [0032] and [0061]-[0064]).
82. Regarding Claim 36, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 31, wherein at least two of the aircraft apparatuses to be docked to one another are further provided each with an additional guide, and the control module further enables movement of the payload movement module along an additional cluster guide formed from said additional guides upon docking said aircraft apparatuses to one another (paras. [0056]-[0057] and [0061]-[0064]).
83. Regarding Claim 48, Beaman discloses a system for moving a payload, comprising:
one or more aircraft apparatuses (220/240) at least one of which is detachably docked to one or more additional aircraft apparatuses (220/240) or one or more cluster aircraft apparatuses by way of detachably connecting the docking modules (228/244) thereof to one another so as to enable movement (FIGS. 4-6), while presence of the aircraft apparatuses in the air space, of the payload along a cluster guide formed from the guides of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses (paras. [0043]-[0044], [0050]-[0052]; transferring payload 26 via transfer arms 224/242 as seen in FIGS. 4-7),
wherein the aircraft apparatus comprising:
a housing (226/246) of the aircraft apparatus (220/240) which housing is provided with one or more air propulsion units (222) enabling movement of the aircraft apparatus through the air and one or more docking modules (228/244) configured each to detachably connect said housing (220) to the housing (246) of other aircraft apparatus (240) while docking said aircraft apparatuses (220/240) to one another (FIGS. 5-6),
a control module (38) configured to receive control commands so as to enable docking of said aircraft apparatus to at least one other aircraft apparatus (paras. [0032], [0044], [0047]-[0049]), wherein
the housing of the aircraft apparatus is further provided with one or more guides (224) each of which is configured to come into detachable interaction with the docking module (238) of a payload (26) to be movably mounted or suspended on the guide (FIGS. 4-7), and
at least one of said guides is configured to detachably connect or dock to one or more guides of said connected housing of other aircraft apparatus to form a cluster guide (FIGS. 4-7),
the control module is further configured to move the payload along said cluster guide to said at least one other aircraft apparatus and to undock the aircraft apparatus from said at least one other aircraft apparatus while presence of the aircraft apparatus in the air space (paras. [0045], [0048]-[0051]; controller 38 configured to via determining the change in orientation to allow the capture ring 238 to move along transfer arms 224/242 from drone 220 to drone 240, furthermore the controller 38 adjusts individual thrust devices 222/248 differently and continuously during the transfer process of payload 26, furthermore with consideration of the removable connection between drones 220/240, drone 240 is structurally capable of undocking from drone 220 as seen in FIGS. 4-7);
wherein the cluster aircraft apparatus comprising:
two or more docked to one another aircraft apparatuses (220/240), wherein
the control module further enables undocking of at least one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses while presence of the cluster aircraft apparatus in the air space so as to enable formation of a cluster guide from the guides of the remaining docked to one another aircraft apparatuses and/or enables docking of yet another aircraft apparatus to one of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses so as to enable formation of a cluster guide from the guides of said docked to one another aircraft apparatuses (paras. [0031]-[0032] and [0047]; enabling docking between drones 220/240 via coupling device 36/228/244 of respective drones 220/240 controlled via controller 38 so as to form a cluster as seen in FIGS. 4-5, furthermore controllers 38 control thrust units 222 as well as the orientation and altitude of respective drones 220/240).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
84. 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.
85. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaman et al. (US 2018/0086460 A1), as cited on the IDS filed on 04/15/2025.
86. Regarding Claim 8, Beaman discloses the aircraft apparatus according to claim 1,
Beaman is silent regarding the housing is configured to alter the shape thereof and/or the dimensions thereof. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Beaman such that the housing is configured to alter the dimensions thereof. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In doing so, the aircraft apparatus is capable of being adaptable to intended missions and environments as well as the ability of having a reduced physical footprint as intended by the user.
Furthermore, 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Sun et al. (US 8473123 B2), Mills et al. (US 11724804 B2), Badichi et al. (US 11557834 B2), Bruno (US 2020/0398984 A1), Nesti et al. (US 11046434 B2), Duffy et al. (US 9457899 B2), Hajimiri (US 12140945 B2) individually disclose cluster aircrafts comprising one or more aircraft apparatuses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642