DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 3/6/2026.
Claims 11 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant has not provided any arguments specifically directed towards the rejections of the claims.
Upon further review the Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner has determined that interpreting the limitation of “instructing, by the server, the candidate system to provide guidance information to the UAV when the candidate system detects that the UAV is within a distance between the candidate system and the UAV, wherein the guidance information includes information collected from a sensing component of the candidate system, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the UAV,” with respect to claim 1, as the transmission of raw images of the UAV to the UAV would be unreasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. For further explanation, see the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 11-13, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation of when the candidate system detects that the UAV is within a distance between the candidate system and the UAV (emphasis added). The condition in which the UAV is detected to be within a distance from the candidate system and itself is permanently and automatically true, rendering the limitation meaningless. It is recommended to amend this limitation to recite a clear distance threshold, e.g., “when the candidate system detects that the UAV is within a predetermined distance from the candidate system.” Claim 11 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of a platform component configured to enable the UAV to land on. For grammatical clarity, it is recommended to amend this limitation to either end with the object it is referencing or use a standard participle construction, e.g., “a platform component configured for the UAV to land thereon.” Claims 11-13 and 20 are objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone, while claim 11 recites wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone. The limitation of claim 17 is duplicated and should be removed.
Claim 20 recites the limitation of the drone in the eighth and ninth lines of claim 20, while the preceding elements recite “at least one drone.” Consistent claim language should be maintained throughout claim 20.
Claim 20 recites two distinct instances of the limitation of a control unit in the second and ninth lines of claim 20, rendering it unclear whether these are intended to be separate physical components or the same component. These limitations should be amended to align with the Applicant’s intention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 18 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of wherein the sensing component includes a distance sensor, and wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes the distance between the UAV and the candidate system, while claim 1 recites the limitation of wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the UAV. A known “distance sensor” generates a distance measurement, not an image; therefore, claim 10 provides a technical contradiction by further limiting the “sensing component” to be a distance sensor, such that the “information collected from the sensing component,” defined as an image of the UAV in claim 1, is further limited to include a distance. The “sensing component” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification as a singular sensor, not a suite of sensors, in light of paragraph [0019] of the Applicant’s specification filed 9/8/2023 that describes “one or more sensing components,” where a camera and distance sensor are described as separate and distinct sensing components.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
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 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss et al. (US 2018/0229852 A1), hereinafter Boss, in view of Cheng et al. (US 2020/0239135 A1), hereinafter Cheng, and Yi et al. (US 2021/0331798 A1), hereinafter Yi.
Claim 1
Boss discloses the claimed method (see Figure 3), comprising:
receiving, by a server (i.e. server computer 54 depicted in Figure 1), a request for accommodating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in an area (i.e. UAV 100 depicted in an “area” in Figure 2) (see ¶0030, with respect to step 204, regarding that the UAV sends a query to the server for an available refuel docking platform, where the query includes the current location of the UAV, so as to identify available refuel docking platforms that are within a specific range of the UAV’s location, as described in ¶0022 and ¶0016);
generating, by the server, a list of available systems (i.e. available refuel docking platforms on respective vehicles) located in the area (see ¶0018, regarding that server computer 54 manages locations of available refuel docking platforms, where the locations of available refuel docking platforms are stored and updated in a database, as described in ¶0032; ¶0021-0027, with respect to Figure 2, regarding the identification of available refuel docking platforms associated with vehicles in an area of UAV 100);
determining, by the server, a candidate system (e.g., available refuel docking platform associated with vehicle 105 in Figure 2) from the list of available systems at least based on a location of the UAV (see ¶0021-0027, with respect to the example in Figure 2, regarding that the available refuel docking platform of vehicle 105 is identified from numerous vehicles 101-107 with respect to the location of UAV 100, where server computer 54 manages the locations of the available refuel docking platforms, as described in ¶0018); and
transmitting, by the server, information regarding the candidate system to the UAV (see ¶0027, with respect to Figure 2, regarding that the location of available refuel docking platform of vehicle 105 is sent to UAV 100, where server computer 54 provides locations of the available refuel docking platforms to the UAV device computer 52, as described in ¶0018).
The claimed “list” is not defined as being in any particular order, and therefore the storage of all “available systems” in a database may reasonably teach a “list of available systems.”
While Boss discloses the “available systems” as available refuel docking platforms, it may not be reasonable to interpret these platforms as available sheltering systems, as claimed. However, similar platforms are known to include elements of “sheltering,” in light of Cheng.
Specifically, Cheng teaches a base station 50 comprising a platform 58 (similar to one of the available systems of Boss) that is exposed for take-off and landing operations of drone 10 (similar to the UAV of Boss), where the base station 50 is disposed on moving vehicle 57 (see ¶0028, with respect to Figures 2B-2D; ¶0045), similar to the platform 300 attached to vehicle 302 in Boss (see Figure 5). Cheng further teaches that base station 50 comprises a protective cover 56, designed to protect drone 10 from the external environment when closed (see ¶0028), which may be reasonably interpreted as sheltering.
In Boss, a plurality of mobile docking platforms (“available systems”) are distributed in an area for landing by a drone. In Cheng, a single mobile platform is provided for landing by a drone. However, it is the technique of providing a cover, so as to incorporate “sheltering” to a platform, that is modified by Cheng; therefore, the quantity of docking platforms does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Boss and Cheng are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a platform on a vehicle for docking and charging a UAV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the available systems of Boss to be available sheltering systems, in the same manner that the platform of Cheng includes a protective cover, with the predictable result of providing an internal space for the drone to not be affected by the external environment (¶0028 of Cheng).
While Boss further discloses instructing, by the server, the candidate system to provide guidance information to the UAV (see ¶0019, regarding the UAV refuel program 67 is transmitted by server computer 54 to vehicle device computer 56 for use, where the UAV refuel program 67 is used by vehicle device computer 56 to communicate with UAV device computer 52 to properly align and securely dock the UAV relative to the dock present on the vehicle, as discussed in ¶0017), Boss does not further disclose that the “guidance information” is provided when the candidate system detects that the UAV is in a distance between the candidate system and the UAV, wherein the guidance information includes information collected from a sensing component of the candidate system, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the UAV. However, incorporating a camera into the docking platform of Boss and Cheng, so as to transmit guidance information that includes information derived from an image captured by the camera, would be obvious, in light of Yi.
Specifically, Yi teaches that a base station, defined as including a cover that can be opened and closed in ¶0328 (similar to the candidate system of Boss and Cheng) provides control information (similar to the guidance information of Boss) to a drone (similar to the UAV of Boss) (see ¶0350-0355, with respect to step S1130 of Figure 11, regarding that the drone receives control information that includes movement information for the drone, which is calculated by the station based on the current position of the drone recognized through the camera sensor included in the station) when the station detects that the drone is in a distance between the station and the drone (see ¶0381-0388, with respect to Figure 13, regarding that station determines the current position of the drone with respect to the landing position of the station for transmitting control information to the drone in step S13030). As discussed in the objection of claim 1 above, the condition in which the UAV is detected to be within a distance from the candidate system and itself is permanently and automatically true, such that Yi reasonably teaches the condition of “when the candidate system detects that the UAV is in a distance between the candidate system and the UAV” as the mere detection of the relative position of the UAV with respect to the landing position.
Yi further teaches that the control information includes information collected from a sensing component of the station (see ¶0350-0355, with respect to step S1130 of Figure 11, regarding that the drone receives control information that includes movement information for the drone, which is calculated by the station based on the current position of the drone recognized through the camera sensor included in the station), wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone (see ¶0353-0354, regarding that the movement information is calculated from the current position of the drone that is recognized through a camera sensor included in the base station). This limitation is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, paragraph [0022] of the Applicant’s specification filed 9/8/2023 describes the “guidance information” with respect to the “information collected from the sensing component,” where the system first collects the images of the drone from the camera and then provides guidance to the drone regarding how to land on the platform. Thus, the control information (i.e. “guidance information”) received by the drone of Yi includes an image of the drone captured by the camera sensor (i.e. “information collected from the sensing component”) in the same manner that the Applicant’s disclosed invention teaches that “the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone.” The limitation of “information collected from the sensing component” encompasses data derived from the information that is being packaged into the “guidance information” signal, and it would be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the “guidance information” as raw images of the drone being directly transmitted to the drone, in light of the Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, the specification does not disclose that the drone performs on-board processing of raw images of itself for guidance.
Since the systems of Boss and Yi are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing guidance information to a drone via a candidate system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of instructing, by the server, the candidate system to provide guidance information to the UAV of Boss to be performed when the candidate system detects that the UAV is in a distance between the candidate system and the UAV, wherein the guidance information includes information collected from a sensing component of the candidate system, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the UAV, in the same manner that the drone of Yi receives control information based on the relative position of the drone with respect to the landing position, where the control information is calculated based on images of the drone acquired through a camera of the station, with the predictable result of correctly landing a drone at a landing position of a station according to control information transmitted from the station even when the drone cannot correctly recognize the landing position of the station (¶0316-0362 of Yi).
Claim 2
Boss further discloses that the candidate system includes a platform component configured to enable the UAV to land on (see ¶0036, with respect to Figure 5, depicting the refuel docking platform 300 as a “platform component” that supports landing of the UAV 304).
Claim 3
In light of the combination of Boss and Cheng applied to teach the “available sheltering systems,” where the platform of Boss is modified by Cheng to incorporate a protective cover, Cheng, in combination with Boss, may further teach that the platform component is movable between an open position and a closed position (see ¶0028, regarding that protective covers 56 are pivotally rotatable with respect to platform 58 to be in a closed or open state) using the same rationale applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4
In light of the combination of Boss and Cheng applied to teach the “available sheltering systems,” where the platform of Boss is modified by Cheng to incorporate a protective cover, Cheng, in combination with Boss, may further teach that the candidate system includes a storage component configured to accommodate the UAV (see ¶0028, with respect to Figures 2B-2D, regarding the protective cover 56 that forms an internal space for housing drone 10) using the same rationale applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5
In light of the combination of Boss and Cheng applied to teach the “available sheltering systems,” where the platform of Boss is modified by Cheng to incorporate a protective cover, Cheng, in combination with Boss, may further teach that the candidate system includes a cover configured to enable the UAV to arrive and depart (see ¶0028, with respect to Figures 2B-2D, regarding protective covers 56 are pivotally rotatable with respect to platform 58 to be in a closed or open state, where flying out and landing is coordinated with the protective cover, as described in ¶0022), wherein when the cover is at an open position, the candidate system is accessible to the UAV (see ¶0022, regarding the protective cover is opened to facilitate drone 10 returning to base station 50).
Claim 6
Boss further discloses that the candidate system includes a charging component configured to charge the UAV (see ¶0038-0039, regarding that an induction charger present on the surface of the platform recharges the UAV via induction methods once the UAV is locked in place on the platform).
Claim 7
Boss further discloses that the charging component includes a wireless charging component (see ¶0038-0039, regarding that an induction charger present on the surface of the platform recharges the UAV via induction methods once the UAV is locked in place on the platform). Induction charging is a well-known type of wireless power transfer.
Claim 9
Boss, as modified by Yi in the rejection of claim 1, further discloses that the candidate system includes a control unit configured to communicate with and provide the guidance information for the UAV (see ¶0017, regarding that the UAV refuel program 67 on the vehicle device computer 56 communicates with the UAV device computer 52 to properly align and securely dock the UAV relative to the dock present on the vehicle).
Claim 10
Yi further teaches that the sensing component includes a distance sensor, and wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes the distance between the UAV and candidate system (see ¶0387, regarding that the station calculates a distance in which the drone needs to move to the landing position by comparing the current position of the drone with the landing position, where the current position of the drone is recognized through the camera sensor, as described in ¶0382, with reference to the method of Figure 12, described in ¶0352-0354, regarding that the movement information includes distance information, which is calculated from the current position of the drone that is recognized through a camera sensor included in the base station). The camera sensor of Yi may reasonably be applied to teach the claimed “distance sensor,” due to its data being used to calculate the claimed “distance.” See the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding issues with this limitation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss in view of Cheng and Yi, and in further view of Jiang (“An Autonomous Landing and Charging System for Drones,” June 2019, MIT), hereinafter Jiang.
Claim 8
While Boss discloses the “charging component” as wireless, Boss does not disclose that the charging component includes a wired charging component. However, wired charging is a well-known alternative to wireless charging and would be an obvious modification in light of Jiang.
Specifically, Jiang teaches a drone configured to land on a drone charging platform (see abstract on page 3), where the drone charging platform may be designed using a wireless charging mechanism (similar to the wireless charging component of Boss) or a wired charging component (see first paragraph on page 39; section 5.2 on pages 44-45, describing the wired contact charging between the charging station and drone).
Since the systems of Boss and Jiang are directed to the same purpose, i.e. charging a drone after landing on a platform, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging component of Boss, so as to include a wired charging component, in the same manner that Jiang teaches using wired contact charging as an alternative to wireless charging, with the predictable result of providing a higher power rate that may be optimal for drones (see second paragraph on page 18 of Jiang).
Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Cheng.
Claim 11
Yi discloses the claimed method of operating a sheltering system (see Figures 11, 13, and 17), comprising:
receiving a request for accommodating a drone (see ¶0421-0425, with respect to step S17010 in Figure 17, referencing step S11010 in Figure 11, regarding that the drone searches neighboring stations by transmitting a first signal requesting station information related to landing to a base station, where response signals transmitted by base stations include the station ID and whether landing at the station is possible);
determining, based on the request, a candidate container (i.e. base station, defined as including a cover that can be opened and closed in ¶0328) for the drone (see ¶0424-0427, with respect to step S17020 of Figure 17, regarding that the drone selects a station for landing from among the searched stations based on the received responses that include information on whether landing at the station is possible);
receiving a signal indicating that the drone is within a distance between the sheltering system and the drone (see ¶0390-0393, with respect to step S13040 of Figure 13, regarding that a message indicating landing is transmitted to the drone when the distance between the current position of the drone and landing position is within a predetermined distance);
collecting information regarding the drone by a sensing component (see ¶0353-0354, regarding that current position of the drone is recognized through a camera sensor included in the station),
wherein the sheltering system includes a platform component configured to enable the drone to land on (see ¶0347-0350, regarding that the cover of the selected station is opened and the drone receives control information related to a landing position of a landing point included in the station).
Yi further discloses that the claimed method comprises transmitting guidance information to the drone, the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component (see ¶0350-0355, with respect to step S1130 of Figure 11, regarding that the drone receives control information that includes movement information for the drone, which is calculated by the station based on the current position of the drone recognized through the camera sensor included in the station), wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone (see ¶0353-0354, regarding that the movement information is calculated from the current position of the drone that is recognized through a camera sensor included in the base station). This limitation is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, paragraph [0022] of the Applicant’s specification filed 9/8/2023 describes the “guidance information” with respect to the “information collected from the sensing component,” where the system first collects the images of the drone from the camera and then provides guidance to the drone regarding how to land on the platform. Thus, the control information (i.e. “guidance information”) received by the drone of Yi includes an image of the drone captured by the camera sensor (i.e. “information collected from the sensing component”) in the same manner that the Applicant’s disclosed invention teaches that “the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone.” The limitation of “information collected from the sensing component” encompasses data derived from the information that is being packaged into the “guidance information” signal, and it would be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the “guidance information” as raw images of the drone being directly transmitted to the drone, in light of the Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, the specification does not disclose that the drone performs on-board processing of raw images of itself for guidance.
While Yi discloses the “sheltering system” and “candidate container” as a base station, it may not be reasonable to interpret the base station as a sheltering charging system and candidate charging container, as claimed. However, similar base stations are known to include elements of “charging,” in light of Cheng.
Specifically, Cheng teaches a base station 50 that may be mobile or fixed at a specific position, as described in ¶0049, and includes a protective cover 56 (similar to the “candidate container” and “sheltering system” of Yi) that is opened for take-off and landing operations of drone 10 (similar to the drone of Yi). Cheng further teaches that the base station 50 includes a charging port for charging a drone that has landed on the base station 50 (see ¶0022, ¶0042).
In Yi, a base station is selected from a plurality of neighboring base stations for landing by a drone. In Cheng, a single base station is provided for landing by a drone. However, it is the technique of providing charging capabilities to a base station that is modified by Cheng; therefore, the quantity of base stations does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Yi and Cheng are directed to the same purpose, i.e. landing a drone on a base station that includes a controllable cover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the candidate container and sheltering system of Yi to be a candidate charging container and sheltering and charging system, respectively, in the same manner that the base station of Cheng includes a charging port for charging a drone that has landed on the base station, with the predictable result of providing charging operations on a base station that prepare a landed drone for desired cruising operations (¶0022 of Cheng).
Claim 12
Yi further discloses moving the platform component from a closed position to an open position so as to enable the drone to land on (see ¶0347-0350, regarding that the cover of the selected station is opened and the drone receives control information related to a landing position of a landing point included in the station).
Claim 13
Yi does not further describe the process in which the “platform component” is opened and therefore, does not further disclose rotating the platform component from a closed position to an open position so as to enable the drone to land on. However, this feature would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill, in light of Chen.
Specifically, as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, the base station of Yi is modified by Cheng to teach the sheltering and charging system. Cheng further teaches rotating the protective covers 56 of the base station 50 (similar to the platform component of Yi) from a closed position to an open position so as to enable drone 10 (similar to the drone of Yi) to land on (see ¶0028, regarding that protective covers 56 are pivotally rotatable with respect to platform 58 to be in a closed or open state; ¶0022, regarding that when drone 10 is returning to base station 50 for landing, base station 50 is controlled to open the protective cover).
In Yi, a base station is selected from a plurality of neighboring base stations for landing by a drone. In Cheng, a single base station is provided for landing by a drone. However, it is the incorporation of a rotatable protective cover to a base station that is modified by Cheng; therefore, the quantity of base stations does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Yi and Cheng are directed to the same purpose, i.e. landing a drone on a base station that includes a controllable cover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation in which the platform component is controlled from a closed position to an open position so as to enable the drone to land on of Yi, so as to be performed by rotating, in the same manner that the protective covers of Cheng are pivotally rotatable with respect to the platform of the base station to be in a closed or open state, with the predictable result of providing a known configuration of protective covers capable of exposing a platform of a base station (¶0028 of Cheng) for a drone to land on the platform and re-charge (¶0022 of Cheng).
Claim 14
In light of the combination of Yi and Cheng applied to teach the “candidate charging container,” where the base station of Yi is modified by Cheng to incorporate a charging interface, Cheng, in combination with Yi, may further teach enabling a charging component to charge the drone when the drone is positioned in the candidate charging container (see ¶0022, regarding that after drone 10 is landed on base station 50, base station 50 charges drone 10; ¶0042, regarding the charging port is located at a specific position of the platform 58 of base station 50) using the same rationale applied in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 15
Cheng further teaches that the charging component includes a wireless charging component (see ¶0042, regarding that the charging point may be a wireless charging port).
Claim 17
Yi further discloses that the sensing component includes a camera, and wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone (see ¶0353-0354, regarding that the movement information is calculated from the current position of the drone that is recognized through a camera sensor included in the base station), as discussed in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 18
Yi, as modified by Cheng, further discloses that the sensing component includes a distance sensor, and wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes a distance between the drone and the candidate charging container (see ¶0387, regarding that the station calculates a distance in which the drone needs to move to the landing position by comparing the current position of the drone with the landing position, where the current position of the drone is recognized through the camera sensor, as described in ¶0382, with reference to the method of Figure 12, described in ¶0352-0354, regarding that the movement information includes distance information, which is calculated from the current position of the drone that is recognized through a camera sensor included in the base station). The camera sensor of Yi may reasonably be applied to teach the claimed “distance sensor,” due to its data being used to calculate the claimed “distance.” See the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding issues with this limitation.
Claim 19
Yi, as modified by Cheng, further discloses selecting the candidate charging container from available candidate charging containers (see ¶0338, with respect to step S11010 of Figure 11, regarding that the drone searches neighboring drone stations through station ID search and selects a station at which it will land from among the searched stations using a station ID, where the drone requests station information on stations located around the drone, and station information is defined as a list of identifier patterns for station identification, as described in ¶0341-0342).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi in view of Cheng, and in further view of Jiang.
Claim 16
While Cheng discloses the “charging component” as being either a contact type or wireless charging port (see ¶0042), Cheng does not disclose that the charging component includes a wired charging component. However, wired charging is a well-known type of contact type charging, as well as a well-known alternative to wireless charging, and would be an obvious modification in light of Jiang.
Specifically, Jiang teaches a drone configured to land on a drone charging platform (see abstract on page 3), where the drone charging platform may be designed using a wireless charging mechanism (similar to the wireless charging port embodiment of Cheng) or a wired charging component (see first paragraph on page 39; section 5.2 on pages 44-45, describing the wired contact charging between the charging station and drone).
Since the systems of Cheng and Jiang are directed to the same purpose, i.e. charging a drone after landing on a platform, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging component of Cheng, so as to include a wired charging component, in the same manner that Jiang teaches using wired contact charging as an alternative to wireless charging, with the predictable result of providing a higher power rate that may be optimal for drones (see second paragraph on page 18 of Jiang).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Yi.
Claim 20
Cheng discloses the claimed system for sheltering and charging multiple drones (i.e. base station 50, depicted in Figure 1), comprising:
a control unit (i.e. processor 59) configured to communicate with at least one drone of the multiple drones (see ¶0038, regarding processor 59 is coupled to communication transceiver 51, so as to transmit location information to drone 10);
a platform component (i.e. platform 58) configured to enable the least one drone to land on by moving from a closed position to an open position (see ¶0042, regarding that the covers are moved to the open position for drone 10 to land on platform 58 of base station 50; ¶0022);
a storage component configured to accommodate the at least one drone (see ¶0028, regarding an internal space is formed when the protective covers 56 are closed, so drone 10 is not affected by the external environment);
a charging component configured to charge the at least one drone when the at least one drone is positioned in the storage component (see ¶0042, regarding a charging port is located at a specific position of platform 58 of base station 50, where drone 10 is charged when the protective cover is closed, as described in ¶0022).
The base station 50 depicted in Figure 2B of Cheng may reasonably shelter and charge “multiple drones,” one at a time, where each drone is configured similarly to drone 10. The claim language only requires operations with respect to “one drone of the multiple drones.” If this feature cannot be reasonably gleaned from the disclosure of Cheng, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to configure the base station of Cheng to be accessible to multiple drones, with the predictable result of providing recharging operations to multiple drones, so each drone may have enough charge to perform their respective cruising operations (¶0022 of Cheng).
While Cheng teaches the transmission of location information of the base station to the drone for navigation to the base station (see ¶0041), Cheng does not specifically teach that base station includes a sensing component configured to collect information regarding the at least one drone, and a control unit configured to transmit guidance information to the drone, the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the at least one drone. However, incorporating a camera into the base station of Cheng, so as to transmit guidance information that includes information derived from an image captured by the camera, would be obvious, in light of Yi. The limitations of “information regarding the drone” and “information collected from the sensing component” may be interpreted as separate and distinct due to the absence of antecedent basis.
Specifically, Yi teaches that a base station, defined as including a cover that can be opened and closed in ¶0328 (similar to the system of Boss and Cheng) comprises a sensing component configured to collect information regarding a drone (similar to the UAV of Boss) (see ¶0353-0354, regarding that current position of the drone is recognized through a camera sensor included in the station), and a control unit configured to transmit guidance information to a drone (similar to the UAV of Boss) (see ¶0350-0355, with respect to step S1130 of Figure 11, regarding that the drone receives control information that includes movement information for the drone, which is calculated by the station based on the current position of the drone recognized through the camera sensor included in the station; ¶0463, with respect to Figure 18, depicting base station 1810 that includes processor 1811), the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone (see ¶0353-0354, regarding that the movement information is calculated from the current position of the drone that is recognized through a camera sensor included in the base station). This limitation is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, paragraph [0022] of the Applicant’s specification filed 9/8/2023 describes the “guidance information” with respect to the “information collected from the sensing component,” where the system first collects the images of the drone from the camera and then provides guidance to the drone regarding how to land on the platform. Thus, the control information (i.e. “guidance information”) received by the drone of Yi includes an image of the drone captured by the camera sensor (i.e. “information collected from the sensing component”) in the same manner that the Applicant’s disclosed invention teaches that “the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the drone.” The limitation of “information collected from the sensing component” encompasses data derived from the information that is being packaged into the “guidance information” signal, and it would be unreasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the “guidance information” as raw images of the drone being directly transmitted to the drone, in light of the Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, the specification does not disclose that the drone performs on-board processing of raw images of itself for guidance.
Since the systems of Boss and Yi are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing guidance information to a drone via a system for sheltering and charging the drone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Boss to further include a sensing component configured to collect information regarding the at least one drone, and a control unit configured to transmit guidance information to the drone, the guidance information including information collected from the sensing component, wherein the information collected from the sensing component includes an image of the at least one drone, in the same manner that the drone of Yi receives control information based on the relative position of the drone with respect to the landing position, where the control information is calculated based on images of the drone acquired through a camera of the station, with the predictable result of correctly landing a drone at a landing position of a station according to control information transmitted from the station even when the drone cannot correctly recognize the landing position of the station (¶0316-0362 of Yi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Bart et al. (US 11,328,614 B1) teaches the use of dock-mounted sensors to determine a position of the drone relative to the dock and generating a message to the drone with instructions to adjust the navigation path of the drone (see col. 8, lines 40-52), Carver et al. (US 2023/0147814 A1) teaches that a server receives requests for an available docking/charging station in a geographic area in which a UAV is operating (see ¶0064), Sanz et al. (US 2016/0001883 A1) teaches a UAV ground station that communicates with the UAV to autonomously land the UAV onto the UAV ground station (see ¶0035), where the ground station may include a lid that is configured to close and open (see ¶0052), Raptopoulos et al. (US 2014/0032034 A1) teaches that a UAV begins receiving guidance information from a ground station when the UAV is within a short range of the ground station, where the ground station includes a sensor array that detects position of the UAV and transmits movement data for the UAV to determine how it is moving in response to controls and adjust its control (see ¶0071), Roh et al. (KR 10-2021-0023138) teaches a take-off and landing station 120 that receives an image of an unmanned aerial vehicle 110 and transmits the image to control device 130, which further transmits a flight control command to the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 based on the received image (see ¶0022 of translation), and Wankewycz (US 2018/0245365 A1) teaches that landing system 930 in Figure 53 includes a camera 944 that collects an image of UAV 931 (see ¶0635).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights