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 .
Restriction according to original presentation
The applicant has added a new claim that is an independent claim 14 that recites “...a controller operable to dispatch the second UAV upwardly from the ground station toward the first UAV and to command latching of the latching mechanism of second UAV with the interconnecting bar of the first UAV in midair while the second UA Vis located below the first UA V, wherein, the movable portion returns to its normally closed state once the interconnecting bar is admitted to the surrounding element; wherein the interconnecting bar of the first UAV remains horizontally and displaceable with respect to the surrounding element of the second UA V”. This feature is not present in claim 1 and claim 7. There is burden on the office as a normally closed biased element is classified in H01R43/0427 Hand tools for crimping fluid actuated hand crimping tools and others. This is distinct as the other independent claims lack these features. They have a separate state in the art. The office provides less than 3 hours to do this and a new independent claim with different features imposes a burden on the office for searching. The amendment is not entered.
Remarks
The office has received the applicant’s remarks.
The applicant has argued the rejection.
The applicant states that no reference in the prior art provides for “two spaced
bars that downwardly extend from an undersurface of the first UA V and at least one interconnecting bar which is interconnected between an end of each of said two spaced bars ... ".
PNG
media_image1.png
684
1086
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The office states that the applicant is correct in that the one figure shows a single connector arm. However, in FIG. 3b, the second embodiment includes a UAV that has a first connecting arm 306 and a second connecting arm 306 with each having a connector elopement. Therefore, the applicant’s contention that a UAV with two connector arms and hooks.
The applicant also states that BOSMAN fails to disclose a latching mechanism.
However, the office does not agree.
PNG
media_image2.png
728
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In FIG. 6, the top air drone can include two arms that surround the element 305. The drone places a first arm around the element 305 and a second arm around on the right hand side of the element 305.
PNG
media_image3.png
730
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As seen in FIG. 8, the two arms grab and secure the drone to the second air vehicle drone via grabbing member 304 by securing the arm and the second arm on the right and left hand sides. This is a latching mechanism. In page 10, lines 1-5, of the applicant’s specification the applicant states that this can be any element that yields and changes it shape to secure the two structures. The FIG. 8 has an arm and a second arm. These yield and change shape to secure the element 304 by tightly latching on it and holding it.
The applicant also has filed a new IDS with new references that are relevant. The office makes a brand new rejection of claim 1 and 7 based on these newly cited references.
PNG
media_image4.png
712
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
LACAZE discloses “...1. A system for latching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
a) a first UAV adapted to perform a mission, wherein the first UAV is configured with a latchable structure which comprises two spaced bars that downwardly extend from an undersurface of the first UAV and at least one interconnecting bar which is interconnected between an end of each of said two spaced bars; (see FIG 2 where a first drone includes a first latch member having a first box shaped female component with four surrounding members that extend down and a base that is interconnecting the walls and the second drone has a male component with four surrounding sides to interface with the first box shaped component)
PNG
media_image2.png
728
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
730
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LACAZE is silent but BOSMA teaches “...b) a second UAV adapted to assist the first UAV in performing the mission, (see element 103)
upon being latched together with the first UAV,
wherein the second UAV is irremovably connected to a latching mechanism which is configured with a surrounding element and with an element in releasable contact with the surrounding element that yields and changes its shape from a first shape to a second shape upon being contacted by the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure to initiate a latching operation therewith; (see paragraph 70-75 and FIG. 6-8 where the first aircraft has a first and a second latching member 304 for gripping a second structure on the second aircraft for refueling and exposing the port 306)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BOSMA with the disclosure of LACAZE with a reasonable expectation of success since BOSMA teaches that a first aircraft can include a first and second member (blades) on the first aircraft and that can move from an extended configuration to a second collapsed configuration to grab a second seal member 404 on the second aircraft to move and reveal a seal member and move the seal on the second aircraft to reveal a port for refueling. See paragraph 83-87/
The primary reference is silent but Woodworth teaches “..c) a cable movably connected to a ground station that extends to, and powers, the second UAV; and”. (see abstract where the tethered drone can be provided power delivery by the tether)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of LACAZE with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
PNG
media_image5.png
804
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Beaman teaches “..d) a controller operable to dispatch the second UAV upwardly from the ground station toward the first UAV and to command latching of the latching mechanism connected to the second UAV with the latchable structure of the first UAV in midair while the second UAV is located below, or horizontally spaced from, the first UAV during the latching operation, (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
wherein, following the latching operation, the yielding element assumes the first shape and is configured to, together with the surrounding element, to encircle the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure and to be freely displaceable along a length of at least one interconnecting bar. (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of LACAZE with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0021943 A1 to Peverill et al. that was filed in 2014 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200346781A1 to BOSMA that was filed in 2020 and in view of United States Patent No.: US 9561852 B1 to Beaman that was filed in 2016 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: SU 2016/0144958A1 to Woodworth et al. filed in 2012.
PNG
media_image6.png
532
996
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
592
1134
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PEVERILL discloses “...1. A system for latching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
a) a first UAV adapted to perform a mission, wherein the first UAV is configured with a latchable structure which comprises two spaced bars that downwardly extend from an undersurface of the first UAV and at least one interconnecting bar which is interconnected between an end of each of said two spaced bars; (see FIG. 1-3 where the drone has two arms that extend below the uav 308 and that can grasp a connecting bar 310)
PNG
media_image2.png
728
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
730
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PEVERILL is silent but BOSMA teaches “...b) a second UAV adapted to assist the first UAV in performing the mission, (see element 103)
upon being latched together with the first UAV,
wherein the second UAV is irremovably connected to a latching mechanism which is configured with a surrounding element and with an element in releasable contact with the surrounding element that yields and changes its shape from a first shape to a second shape upon being contacted by the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure to initiate a latching operation therewith; (see paragraph 70-75 and FIG. 6-8 where the first aircraft has a first and a second latching member 304 for gripping a second structure on the second aircraft for refueling and exposing the port 306)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BOSMA with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BOSMA teaches that a first aircraft can include a first and second member (blades) on the first aircraft and that can move from an extended configuration to a second collapsed configuration to grab a second seal member 404 on the second aircraft to move and reveal a seal member and move the seal on the second aircraft to reveal a port for refueling. See paragraph 83-87/
The primary reference is silent but Woodworth teaches “..c) a cable movably connected to a ground station that extends to, and powers, the second UAV; and”. (see abstract where the tethered drone can be provided power delivery by the tether)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
PNG
media_image5.png
804
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Beaman teaches “..d) a controller operable to dispatch the second UAV upwardly from the ground station toward the first UAV and to command latching of the latching mechanism connected to the second UAV with the latchable structure of the first UAV in midair while the second UAV is located below, or horizontally spaced from, the first UAV during the latching operation, (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
wherein, following the latching operation, the yielding element assumes the first shape and is configured to, together with the surrounding element, to encircle the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure and to be freely displaceable along a length of at least one interconnecting bar. (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
PNG
media_image8.png
584
900
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Beaman teaches “.2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the latching mechanism comprises a hook provided with a spring loaded, inwardly pivoting latch and a post downwardly extending from the hook to a hub of the second UAV, the latch being configured to yield upon being contacted by the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure to initiate a latching operation therewith”. (see Col. 11, lines 1-25 where a hook can be used by the receiving drone to connect from the transferring drone)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
Beaman teaches “..3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the second UAV is considerably smaller than the first UAV and is powered without batteries”. (see Fig. 16 where the drone 240 is larger than the drone 220 and the Woodworth reference discloses a powered tethered configuration)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
Beaman teaches “..4. The system according to claim 3, wherein the latching mechanism is adapted to assist the first UAV in landing onto a landing platform”. (see Col. 6, lines 1-30 where the drone can transfer the payload without landing in flight and then land without the package obstructing the device)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
Woodworth teaches “..5. The system according to claim 4, wherein the cable is wound about a spool mounted to the landing platform and a winch operatively connected to the spool is activatable following the latching operation to reduce a length of the cable from the spool to the second UAV during a landing maneuver. (see paragraph 59).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
Beaman teaches ..6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is operable to command operation of the first UAV to cause forcible contact between the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure and the yielding element of the latching mechanism when the first UAV is separated less than a predetermined distance from the ground station”. (see Col. 6, lines 1-30 where the drone can transfer the payload without landing in flight and then land without the package obstructing the device) (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
PEVERILL discloses “...7. A UAV landing method, comprising the steps of:
a) providing a first UAV configured with a latchable structure which comprises two spaced bars that downwardly extend from an undersurface of said first UAV and at least one interconnecting bar which is interconnected between an end of each of said two spaced bars; (see FIG. 1-3 where the drone has two arms that extend below the uav 308 and that can grasp a connecting bar 310)
PEVERILL is silent but BOSMA teaches “...b) providing a second UAV irremovably connected to a latching mechanism which comprises a surrounding element and with an element in releasable contact with the surrounding element that yields and changes its shape upon being contacted by the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure to initiate a latching operation therewith, (see paragraph 70-75 and FIG. 6-8 where the first aircraft has a first and a second latching member 304 for gripping a second structure on the second aircraft for refueling and exposing the port 306)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BOSMA with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BOSMA teaches that a first aircraft can include a first and second member (blades) on the first aircraft and that can move from an extended configuration to a second collapsed configuration to grab a second seal member 404 on the second aircraft to move and reveal a seal member and move the seal on the second aircraft to reveal a port for refueling. See paragraph 83-87/
Woodworth teaches “..wherein a cable extending from an underside of said second UAV to power said second UAV is movably connected to a landing platform of a ground station; (see abstract where the tethered drone can be provided power delivery by the tether)
c) by a controller in data communication with said first UAV, said second UAV and a winch operatively connected to a spool mounted to the landing platform and about which the cable is wound, upon determining that said first UAV is separated from the ground station by less than a predetermined distance, (see paragraph 59).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
Beaman teaches “...dispatching said second UAV upwardly from the ground station towards said first UAV; (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
d) by said controller, commanding controlled displacement of one or both of said first UAV and said second UAV while said second UAV is located below, or horizontally spaced from, said first UAV until the yielding element of said latching mechanism is contacted in midair by the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure and the yielding element together with the surrounding element encircle the at least one interconnecting bar, to complete the latching operation between said first UAV and said second UAV; and . (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
Woodworth teaches “...e) by said controller, causing said first UAV to land at the landing platform by commanding operation of the winch to reduce a length of the cable from said second UAV to the landing platform”. (see paragraph 59 and 86 and claim 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
Beaman teaches “..8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the step of commanding controlled displacement of one or both of said first UAV and said second UAV is performed by commanding the first UAV to accelerate until the at least one interconnecting bar forcibly contacts the yielding element of the latching mechanism and the shape of the yielding element is changed in response to the forcible contact, urging the yielding element together with the surrounding element to encircle the at least one interconnecting bar. (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
Beaman teaches “..9. The method according to claim 8, wherein the controller temporarily takes over motors and components of the first UAV until the at least one interconnecting bar forcibly contacts the yielding element of the latching mechanism. (see col. 7, lines 1-24 and FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of PEVERILL with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
PNG
media_image9.png
690
598
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Beaman teaches “..10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the controller determines that forcible contact is made between the at least one interconnecting bar and the latch with use of a touch sensor provided with the latchable structure that transmits a corresponding signal to the controller upon being forcibly contacted”. (see FIG. 21 where the electromagnet or sensor can detect that the two arms are engaged in block 326 and see figure 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
Beaman teaches “..11. The method according to claim 8, further comprising the step of commanding the first UAV, by the controller, to stop accelerating upon completion of the latching operation. (see Fig. 21 where the drone can align and then engage and then change the orientation and remain still to transfer the package and see col. 12, lines 1-50 where the drone is commanded to remain still and the first drone performs all steps by taking control of the second drone)
Beaman teaches “...12. The method according to claim 7, wherein all steps are performed autonomously. (see col. 1, lines 5-9)
Beaman teaches “...13. The method according to claim 7, further comprising the step of causing the latching mechanism to become decoupled from the latchable structure at the landing platform in anticipation of a subsequent take-off procedure by applying a force onto a dedicated implement that initiates additional forcible contact with the yielding element, whereby the shape of the yielding element is changed in response to the additional forcible contact until the yielding element ceases to encircle the at least one interconnecting bar”. (see col. 6, lines 1-60 and col. 10 ,lines 1-40 and claim 20)”.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2020/0406773 A1 to Lacaze that was filed in 2019 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20200346781A1 to BOSMA that was filed in 2020 and in view of United States Patent No.: US 9561852 B1 to Beaman that was filed in 2016 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: SU 2016/0144958A1 to Woodworth et al. filed in 2012.
PNG
media_image6.png
532
996
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
712
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
LACAZE discloses “...1. A system for latching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
a) a first UAV adapted to perform a mission, wherein the first UAV is configured with a latchable structure which comprises two spaced bars that downwardly extend from an undersurface of the first UAV and at least one interconnecting bar which is interconnected between an end of each of said two spaced bars; (see FIG 2 where a first drone includes a first latch member having a first box shaped female component with four surrounding members that extend down and a base that is interconnecting the walls and the second drone has a male component with four surrounding sides to interface with the first box shaped component)
PNG
media_image2.png
728
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
730
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
LACAZE is silent but BOSMA teaches “...b) a second UAV adapted to assist the first UAV in performing the mission, (see element 103)
upon being latched together with the first UAV,
wherein the second UAV is irremovably connected to a latching mechanism which is configured with a surrounding element and with an element in releasable contact with the surrounding element that yields and changes its shape from a first shape to a second shape upon being contacted by the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure to initiate a latching operation therewith; (see paragraph 70-75 and FIG. 6-8 where the first aircraft has a first and a second latching member 304 for gripping a second structure on the second aircraft for refueling and exposing the port 306)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BOSMA with the disclosure of LACAZE with a reasonable expectation of success since BOSMA teaches that a first aircraft can include a first and second member (blades) on the first aircraft and that can move from an extended configuration to a second collapsed configuration to grab a second seal member 404 on the second aircraft to move and reveal a seal member and move the seal on the second aircraft to reveal a port for refueling. See paragraph 83-87/
The primary reference is silent but Woodworth teaches “..c) a cable movably connected to a ground station that extends to, and powers, the second UAV; and”. (see abstract where the tethered drone can be provided power delivery by the tether)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of WOODWORTH with the disclosure of LACAZE with a reasonable expectation of success since WOODWORTH et al teaches that a drone can include a tether to receive electrical power from a station 306 and 304. When the tether is severed, then the drone can sense that the power is diminished and then reset and land automatically. See abstract and claims 1-8.
PNG
media_image5.png
804
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Beaman teaches “..d) a controller operable to dispatch the second UAV upwardly from the ground station toward the first UAV and to command latching of the latching mechanism connected to the second UAV with the latchable structure of the first UAV in midair while the second UAV is located below, or horizontally spaced from, the first UAV during the latching operation, (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)
wherein, following the latching operation, the yielding element assumes the first shape and is configured to, together with the surrounding element, to encircle the at least one interconnecting bar of the latchable structure and to be freely displaceable along a length of at least one interconnecting bar. (see FIG. 4 where a first drone can connect with a second drone via connector 228 and 244 to command the second drone to latch on the package in midair and Col 6, lines 10-50 and where the latch can be used or as electromagnet device in col. 10, lines 1-2)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BEAMAN with the disclosure of LACAZE with a reasonable expectation of success since BEAMAN et al assigned to IBM teaches that a first drone can include an arm with a connector and a second drone can include a second arm with a second connector and the connector and the second connector can mate with each other via a clamp device. This can provide a midair transfer of an article from one drone to a second drone using a tether device. This can provide a midair transfer using the arm and the second arm. This can be performed without landing the drones. See paragraph 87-101.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights