DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
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 “telescopic arm” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz 2018/0245365 and in view of Umezawa et al. 2009/0104007.
In Re Claims 1 and 17, Wankewycz teaches a body (10, Fig. 1); a top surface (top surface of 10, Fig. 2) comprising an aperture (Opening for UAV 2, Fig. 2) defining an opening to the top surface; a sliding top cover (11, 12, Fig. 2); an asset platform (30, Fig. 2); and a scissor lift (20, Fig. 2), wherein: the sliding top cover is configured to slide along the top surface to an open position and expose the aperture, (Fig. 2) the scissor lift is configured to activate and raise the asset platform to a first level to receive an asset through the aperture and activate to lower the asset platform to a second level to enclose the asset within the body, and the sliding top cover is configured to slide along the top surface to a closed position such that the asset is not viewable. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)
Wankewycz does not teach an unmanned ground vehicle comprising: a set of wheels;
However, Umezawa et al. teach an unmanned ground vehicle (100)(abstract) comprising a set of wheels (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an unmanned vehicle with a set of wheels in the vehicle of Wankewycz as taught by Umezawa et al. with a reasonable expectation for automatically transporting contents to various areas.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. and further in view of Cantrell et al. 2019/0343317.
In Re Claims 2 and 18, Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. do not teach wherein the sliding top cover is configured to first receive the asset and the asset platform receives the asset based at least in part on a gravitational force that pulls the asset from the sliding top cover to the asset platform upon the sliding top cover sliding to the open position.
However, Cantrell et al. teach wherein the sliding top cover (128) is configured to first receive the asset (190) and the asset platform (124, 155, fig. 1) (Paragraph 51) receives the asset based at least in part on a gravitational force that pulls the asset from the sliding top cover to the asset platform upon the sliding top cover sliding to the open position. (Paragraph 51)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to have the sliding top cover receive the asset before opening in the vehicle of Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. as taught by Cantrell et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent deposit before the platform is ready.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. and further in view of Johnson et al. 11,377,235.
In Re Claim 8, Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. do not teach wherein the scissor lift is configured to store potential energy (302) while at the second level and release the potential energy to kinetic energy, thereby causing a springing action of the asset through the aperture to an area outside the body of the unmanned ground vehicle.
However, Johnson et al. teach wherein the scissor lift (301) is configured to store potential energy (302, Fig. 3A) while at the second level and release the potential energy to kinetic energy, (Column 6, Lines 38-43) thereby causing a springing action of the asset through the aperture to an area outside (Fig. 3B) the body (300). (Column 6, Line 38-43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to release potential energy into kinetic energy in the vehicle of Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. as taught by Johnson et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to assist in removing material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. and further in view of Gil et al. 9,928,749.
In Re Claim 9, Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. do not teach wherein upon delivery of the asset to a destination location, the unmanned ground vehicle generates and transmits a proof-of-delivery indication to at least one of a logistics server, a mobile computing entity, or a logistics vehicle.
However, Gil et al. teach wherein upon delivery of the asset to a destination location, an unmanned vehicle (100, 200) generates and transmits a proof-of-delivery indication to at least one of a logistics server, a mobile computing entity (804), or a logistics vehicle. (Fig. 46)(Column 84, Lines 17-30)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to transmit proof of delivery in the vehicle of Wankewycz/Umezawa et al. as taught by Gil et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to track and communicate material locations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz 2018/0245365 and in view of Fisher et al. 2017/0021942
In Re Claim 10, Wankewycz teaches a body (10, Fig. 1); a top surface (top surface of 10, Fig. 2) comprising an aperture (Opening for UAV 2, Fig. 2) defining an opening to the top surface; a sliding top cover (11, 12, Fig. 2); an asset platform (30, Fig. 2); and a scissor lift (20, Fig. 2), wherein: the sliding top cover is configured to slide along the top surface to an open position and expose the aperture, (Fig. 2) the scissor lift is configured to activate and raise the asset platform to a first level to receive an asset through the aperture and activate to lower the asset platform to a second level to enclose the asset within the body, and the sliding top cover is configured to slide along the top surface to a closed position such that the asset is not viewable. (Fig. 1, Fig. 2)
Wankewycz does not teach an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: a set of motors;
However, Fisher et al. teach an unmanned aerial vehicle (102) comprising a set of motors (Paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an unmanned aerial with a set of wheels in the vehicle of Wankewycz as taught by Fisher et al. with a reasonable expectation in order to provide a well known vertical takeoff and landing in order to provide flexibility in delivery locations.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz/Fisher et al. and further in view of Cantrell et al. 2019/0343317.
In Re Claim 11, Wankewycz/Fisher et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wankewycz/Fisher et al. do not teach wherein the sliding top cover is configured to first receive the asset and the asset platform receives the asset based at least in part on a gravitational force that pulls the asset from the sliding top cover to the asset platform upon the sliding top cover sliding to the open position.
However, Cantrell et al. teach wherein the sliding top cover (128) is configured to first receive the asset (190) and the asset platform (124, 155, fig. 1) (Paragraph 51) receives the asset based at least in part on a gravitational force that pulls the asset from the sliding top cover to the asset platform upon the sliding top cover sliding to the open position. (Paragraph 51)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to have the sliding top cover receive the asset before opening in the vehicle of Wankewycz/Fisher et al. as taught by Cantrell et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent deposit before the platform is ready.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz/Fisher et al. and further in view of Johnson et al. 11,377,235.
In Re Claim 15, Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. do not teach wherein the scissor lift is configured to store potential energy (302) while at the second level and release the potential energy to kinetic energy, thereby causing a springing action of the asset through the aperture to an area outside the body of the unmanned ground vehicle.
However, Johnson et al. teach wherein the scissor lift (301) is configured to store potential energy (302, Fig. 3A) while at the second level and release the potential energy to kinetic energy, (Column 6, Lines 38-43) thereby causing a springing action of the asset through the aperture to an area outside (Fig. 3B) the body (300). (Column 6, Line 38-43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to release potential energy into kinetic energy in the vehicle of Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. as taught by Johnson et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to assist in removing material.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. and further in view of Gil et al. 9,928,749.
In Re Claim 16, Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. do not teach wherein upon delivery of the asset to a destination location, the unmanned ground vehicle generates and transmits a proof-of-delivery indication to at least one of a logistics server, a mobile computing entity, or a logistics vehicle.
However, Gil et al. teach wherein upon delivery of the asset to a destination location, an unmanned vehicle (100, 200) generates and transmits a proof-of-delivery indication to at least one of a logistics server, a mobile computing entity (804), or a logistics vehicle. (Fig. 46)(Column 84, Lines 17-30)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to transmit proof of delivery in the vehicle of Wankewycz/ Fisher et al. as taught by Gil et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to track and communicate material locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Walsh et al., Sweeny et al., Zhang et al., and RAZ et al. teach a body, top surface and sliding top cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652