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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burks et al (11,111,033), hereinafter Burks in view of Resnick (2020/0231054).
With respect to claim 1, Burks teaches a charging and communication system between an unmanned aerial vehicle UAV to a landing platform (recharging station/platform for a UAV and also a communication module: figures 16 and 20, column 10, lines 45-54 and column 13, line 35 – column 14, line 3), comprising: a charging system that is designed to charge a battery of the UAV by a power supply source (recharging station, charging pads (530A-C), power supply, charge sensor (532): figures 16-22, column 10, line 45 – column 15, line 8), and a communication system that is deigned to electrically connect a computing unit in the landing platform with a controller of the UAV (communication module establishing communication with the UAV and remote station: figure 20, column 13, line 35 – column 14, line 3),
wherein the charging system comprises a positive outlet charging connector a negative outlet charging connector, a positive inlet charging connector, a negative outlet charging connector (charging pad on the landing platform functions as the outlet charging connector and polarized contacts located on the UAV that electrically couple for charging: figures 16-20, column 10, line 45 – column 15, line 8), wherein the positive outlet charging connector corresponds with the positive inlet charging connector and the negative outlet charging connector corresponds with the negative inlet charging connector (the charge sensor detects the polarity of the UAV contacts and appropriate charging pad to the positive terminal and the appropriate charging pad to the negative terminal of the power supply (figure 22, column 10, line 45 – column 15, line 8 and column 14, line 4 – column 15, line 25); wherein the positive inlet charging connector is assembled on a first landing gear of the UAV and the negative inlet charging connector is assembled on the first landing gear or on a second landing gear of the UAV (polarized contacts mounted to the UAV landing skids on opposite skids; figures 16, 18, 19, and column 11, lines 27-40 and column 12, line 31 – column 13, line 34).
Burks’ teachings discussed above fail to specifically teach a positioning mechanism including first and second pushers that position the UAV on the landing platform prior to charging.
With respect to claim 1, Resnick teaches the positioning mechanism including first and second pushers that position the UAV on the landing platform prior to charging (paragraph 0107 discloses a drone coupling module comprising actuators designed to position the drone within the base station to facilitate charging and data transfer; paragraph 0169 discloses first and second pushers, paragraph 0187 discloses the positioning mechanism positioning the UAV on the landing platform in a predetermined position, and paragraph 0172 teaches after positioning, the charger arms extend, electrodes contact recharging terminals, and electrical connection is established).
In view of Resnick’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Burks to include the positioning mechanism taught by Resnick. One would be motivated to include the specific positioning mechanism in order to accurately position the UAV on the landing platform prior to charging, thereby improving alignment of the charging connector and increasing the reliability of the electrical connection.
4. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burks in combination with Resnick and in further view of Augugliaro et al (2020/0165007), hereinafter Augugliaro.
Burks’ teachings in combination with the teachings of Resnick are discussed above, including limitations set forth in claim 3. The combination however fails to specifically teach with respect to claims 2 and 3, the particular charging and communication connector arrangement, including spring-biased conductive connector elements and communication connectors configured to establish a reliable electrical connection after positioning of the UAV. The combination further fails to teach an Ethernet communication interface (regarding claim 3).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Augugliaro teaches charging terminals and connectors, conductive leaf-springs, conductive pins, and conductive magnets (paragraph 0030), spring-biased connectors (paragraph 0051), charging connectors, communication connector, and leaf-spring contacts (paragraph 0057), wired communication interface (paragraph 0070).
With respect to claim 3, see above with regards to claims 1 and 2. Augugliaro further teaches in paragraph 0127, using Ethernet for the communication interface.
In view of Augugliaro’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Burks modified by Resnick to incorporate the charging and communication connector arrangement taught by Augugliaro. One would be motivated to incorporate the charging and communication connector in order to provide a more reliable electrical and communication connection between the UAV and the landing platform and further to provide a wired Ethernet communication interface for reliable communication between the UAV and the landing platform.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See attached PTO form 892, Refence Cited.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allyson N. Trail whose telephone number is (571) 272-2406. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00PM Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached on (571) 272-3689. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [allyson.trail@uspto.gov].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALLYSON N TRAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights