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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The amendment filed 11-25-2025 has been entered.
Claims 2, 3, 5-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are pending.
The terminal disclaimer filed 08-25-2025 respecting Patent No. 11,814,170 has been approved.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 3, change “of” to --operably associated with--.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
In claim 22, line 2, “the apparatus” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (US#2016/0257423).
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses an apparatus comprising: a secure container 108; a landing tray that includes an opening, the landing tray collectively defined by four landing tray portions 118 arranged to define an opening therebetween and in communication with an opening at the top of the container (see Fig. 5A and drone 102 landing on tray 118 with package 126 passing through the defined opening); a package tray 116 ; and a rail assembly (see Figs. 3-4, two parallel vertical rails) that moves the package tray in a vertical direction between the secure container and an area below the landing tray (see Figs. 5).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the rail assembly is configured to move the package tray into an internal area of the secure container (see Figs. 5).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the landing tray is positioned above the package tray and is configured to locate a drone over the opening (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the package tray is disposed below the landing tray and is configured to receive a package that passes through the opening of the landing tray (see Figs. 5).
Regarding claim 12, further comprising: a control unit that sends a notification to a user associated with the secure container that a package has been delivered when the package tray receives the package (see [0014] and [0077]).
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gil et al. (US#2020/0180880).
Regarding claim 2, Gil discloses an apparatus 700 (Figs. 27-29) comprising: a secure container 708, 710, 712; a landing tray 706 that includes an opening; a package tray 705; and a single vertical rail assembly that moves the package tray in a vertical direction between the secure container and an area below the landing tray (see Figs. 27-29).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the landing tray is positioned at least partially above the package tray and is configured to locate a drone 702 over the opening (see Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the package tray is disposed at least partially below the landing tray and is configured to receive a package that passes through the opening of the landing tray (see Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the landing tray includes a force sensor (scale, [0057]) that determines a drone delivering a package to the secure container has landed on the landing tray.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the package tray includes a force sensor that determines a package have been received ([0118], last sentence).
Regarding claim 12, further comprising: a control unit 1200 (Fig. 41) that sends a notification via network 110 to a user associated with the secure container that a package has been delivered when the package tray receives the package.
Regarding claim 13, further comprising: a control unit 1200 (Fig. 41) that sends a notification via network 110 that a package has been delivered when a camera ([0103]) of the apparatus captures an image of the package disposed on the package tray.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US#2016/0257423) in view of Svirsky et al. (US#11352148).
Regarding claim 7, Martin fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes one or more infrared beacons that facilitate a drone to align with the opening when landing on the landing tray. However, as evidenced by Svirsky, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see col. 5, lines 50-57, and apparatus 100 including infrared beacons. Therefore, as evidenced by Svirsky, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin such that the landing tray included one or more infrared beacons that facilitate the drone to align with the opening when landing on the landing tray. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the landing tray including one or more infrared beacons that facilitate the drone to align with the opening when landing on the landing tray would enhance safety and accuracy of operation.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US#2016/0257423) in view of O’Toole (US#2022/0055770).
Regarding claim 8, Martin fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes a QR code associated with an address of the secure container that is captured by a drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of a package. However, as evidenced by O’Toole, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see [0074], lines 25-30, and apparatus 131 including QR code 108. Therefore, as evidenced by O’Toole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin such that the landing tray included a QR code associated with an address of the house that is captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the landing tray including a QR code associated with an address of the house that is captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages would enhance safety and accuracy of operation.
Regarding claim 9, Martin fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes a radio frequency (RF) component associated with an address of the secure container that sends an RF signal to be captured by a drone in order for a drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of a package. However, as evidenced by O’Toole, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see [0074], lines 25-30, and apparatus 131 including RF component 108. Therefore, as evidenced by O’Toole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin such that the landing tray included a radio frequency (RF) component associated with an address of the house that sends an RF signal to be captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the landing tray including a radio frequency (RF) component associated with an address of the house that sends an RF signal to be captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages would enhance safety and accuracy of operation.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US#2016/0257423) in view of Gil et al. (US#2020/0180880).
Regarding claim 10, Martin fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes a force sensor that determines a drone delivering a package to the secure container has landed on the landing tray. However, as evidenced by Gil, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see force sensor (scale, [0057], lines 16-18) for landing/package tray 210 ([0050], lines 1-8). Therefore, as evidenced by Gil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin by including a force sensor for the landing tray that determines a drone delivering a package to the secure container has landed on the landing tray. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the force sensor for the landing tray would improve the automated operational notifications of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Martin fails to disclose wherein the package tray includes a force sensor that determines a package have been received. However, as evidenced by Gil, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see force sensor (scale, [0057], lines 16-18) for landing/package tray 210 ([0050], lines 1-8). Therefore, as evidenced by Gil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin by including a force sensor that determines a package have been received. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the force sensor for the package tray would improve the automated operational notifications of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, although Martin as discussed above with respect to claim 12 includes a control unit that sends a notification that a package has been delivered, Martin fails to disclose sending the notification when a camera of the apparatus captures an image of the package disposed on the package tray. However, as evidenced by Gil, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see control unit 1200 (Fig. 41) that sends a notification via network 110 that the packages have been delivered when a camera 232 of the apparatus captures an image of the packages disposed within the package tray ([0057]). Therefore, as evidenced by Gil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin by including a camera such that the control unit sends notification that a package has been delivered when the camera captures an image of the package disposed on the package tray. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the camera would enhance the notification accuracy of delivery.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (US#2020/0180880) in view of Svirsky et al. (US#11352148).
Regarding claim 7, Gil fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes one or more infrared beacons that facilitate a drone to align with the opening when landing on the landing tray. However, as evidenced by Svirsky, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see col. 5, lines 50-57, and apparatus 100 including infrared beacons. Therefore, as evidenced by Svirsky, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gil such that the landing tray included one or more infrared beacons that facilitate the drone to align with the opening when landing on the landing tray. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the landing tray including one or more infrared beacons that facilitate the drone to align with the opening when landing on the landing tray would enhance safety and accuracy of operation.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (US#2020/0180880) in view of O’Toole (US#2022/0055770).
Regarding claim 8, Gil fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes a QR code associated with an address of the secure container that is captured by a drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of a package. However, as evidenced by O’Toole, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see [0074], lines 25-30, and apparatus 131 including QR code 108. Therefore, as evidenced by O’Toole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gil such that the landing tray included a QR code associated with an address of the house that is captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the landing tray including a QR code associated with an address of the house that is captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages would enhance safety and accuracy of operation.
Regarding claim 9, Gil fails to disclose wherein the landing tray includes a radio frequency (RF) component associated with an address of the secure container that sends an RF signal to be captured by a drone in order for a drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of a package. However, as evidenced by O’Toole, such a configuration is known in the drone package delivery art, see [0074], lines 25-30, and apparatus 131 including RF component 108. Therefore, as evidenced by O’Toole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gil such that the landing tray included a radio frequency (RF) component associated with an address of the house that sends an RF signal to be captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the landing tray including a radio frequency (RF) component associated with an address of the house that sends an RF signal to be captured by the drone in order for the drone to confirm a correct address for delivery of the packages would enhance safety and accuracy of operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 are allowed.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 14 and 21, Martin (US#2016/0257423) fails to disclose or suggest its package tray 116 moves out of the secure container 108.
Regarding claim 14, Gil et al. (US#2020/0180880) discloses an apparatus, comprising: a secure container 600 that stores packages 618 delivered by a drone (UAV); a landing tray (delivery platform, [0096]) disposed outside of the secure container and configured to support the drone; wherein the landing tray includes an inherent opening for cooperating with elevating surface 620 (see Figs. 23-26 and the single vertical rail from which elevating surface 620 translates vertically relative to the delivery platform); a package tray 604 disposed within the secure container (Fig. 23) and configured to move out of the secure container and receive the package delivered by the drone (Figs. 24-25); and a rail assembly 612 that moves the package tray in a horizontal, not vertical, direction between the secure container and an area below the landing tray. Thus, Gil fails to disclose or suggest the apparatus as claimed in detail, specifically wherein the rail assembly moves the package tray in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 21, Gil et al. (US#2020/0180880) discloses a method, performed by a package delivery container 600, of receiving a package 618 from a drone (UAV), the method comprising: receiving an indication (via landing tray sensor, [0035]) that a drone has landed on a landing tray (delivery platform, [0096]) operably associated with the package delivery container, wherein the landing tray includes an inherent opening for cooperating with elevating surface 620 (see Figs. 23-26 and the single vertical rail from which elevating surface 620 translates vertically relative to the delivery platform); and moving a package tray 604 out of the package delivery container (Figs. 24-25) and in a horizontal, not vertical, direction to an area “proximate” to (vertically aligned with and below) the landing tray to receive the package from the drone that has landed on the landing tray via vertical translation of the elevating surface 620 relative to the landing tray. Thus, Gil fails to disclose or suggest the method as claimed in detail, specifically moving the package tray in a vertical direction.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues the following, “The Applicants have amended the independent claims to incorporate the subject matter of previously presented claim 16, which is indicated as being allowable in the Office Action. Thus, for at least these reasons, the Applicants respectfully submit that the claims are allowable over the cited references.” This argument is only persuasive in-part as previously dependent claim 16 depended directly from independent claim 14, not independent claims 1 and 21. Therefore, currently amended independent claims 1 and 21 each represent a new combination of limitations. Claim 1 remains rejected above, while claim 21 has been indicated as allowable for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677