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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 recites the limitation, “…are configured as a transport containers.” which is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 9-10, 12, 14-16, & 18-19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Lytvynenko (WO 2020139307 A1) in view of applicant cited Chan et al. (US 20170203843 A1), hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 9, Lytvynenko discloses an aircraft (autonomous aircraft 1; fig. 16), comprising:
a transporting device (transporting device comprising cables 3, clutch means 4, winches 7, pulleys 9, & coupling frames 11; fig. 16); and
a plurality of articles (transport devices 2; fig. 16),
wherein the transporting device (3, 4, 7, 9, & 11) comprises a plurality of receiving devices (11),
wherein the articles (2) are releasably coupled to the receiving devices (11), wherein the receiving devices (11) can be moved into a transporting position (transporting position not explicitly shown but occurs when coupling frames 11 are attached to the autonomous aircraft 1 via clutch means 4, The coupling frame 11 can be connected to the autonomous aircraft 1 by means of the clutch 4. ; [Page 20 line 21]) and into a release position (release position shown in fig. 16),
wherein in a transporting position (when 11 are connected to 1 by means of 4) of the receiving devices (11), the articles (2) are secured on the receiving devices (1) and, in a release position (fig. 16), the articles (2) are separated from the receiving devices (11),
wherein in the transporting position (when 11 are connected to 1 by means of 4) of the receiving devices (11), the articles (2) are arranged on an underside of the aircraft (underside of aircraft 1) one behind another in a horizontal direction of flight (right to left as shown in fig. 16) of the aircraft (1).
Lytvynenko does not appear to specifically disclose the plurality of articles having different surface areas of their respective end faces,
wherein a sequence of the plurality of articles in an inflow direction opposite to the horizontal direction of flight is selected such that the articles are arranged with ascending surface areas of the respective end faces.
However, Chan in the field of payload management for aircraft (abstract) teaches the plurality of articles (pod segments Op, Oq, Or; figs. 29A & 29B) having different surface areas of their respective end faces (Op, Oq, & Or are different sized pod segments with different surface areas of their respective end faces as shown in figs. 29A & 29B),
wherein a sequence of the plurality of articles (Op, Oq, Or) in an inflow direction (right to left in fig. 29A) opposite to the horizontal direction of flight (Examiner notes the UAV is configured to fly in a left to right direction of flight as shown in fig. 29A) is selected such that the articles (Op, Oq, Or) are arranged with ascending surface areas of the respective end faces (Op, Oq, Or are shown arranged with ascending surface areas of their respective end faces as shown in fig. 29B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft disclosed by Lytvynenko with the article arrangement taught by Chan with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of enabling the aircraft to carry different sized articles in an efficient manner (…the pod segments (e.g. shown as segments Op and Oq and Or) of the containment system can be arranged in a wide variety of configurations as needed for a mission/delivery and/or to optimize aerodynamic and/or flight efficiency considerations for the combined aircraft and pod arrangement. ; [Chan 0125]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 9,
wherein in the transporting position (when 11 are connected to 1 by means of 4) of the receiving devices (11) the articles (Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan) are arranged along an arrangement axis (axis travelling through the center of both transport devices when in the transporting position) oriented parallel to the horizontal direction of flight (right to left in fig. 16) of the aircraft (1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 9, wherein the articles (Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan) are configured as a transport containers (Examiner notes Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan are pods that transport objects).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 9, wherein the transporting device (3, 4, 7, 9, & 11) comprises at least two cable winches (two 7s shown in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 14, wherein the at least two cable winches (7) are arranged within an aircraft fuselage (winches 7 shown inside the aircraft fuselage in fig 16).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 15, wherein the at least two cable winches (7) are arranged one behind another in the aircraft fuselage (fuselage of autonomous aircraft 1) in the horizontal direction of flight (right to left as shown in fig. 16).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 9 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein, in the transporting position of the receiving devices, the articles are suspended below an arcuately shaped fuselage of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to change the shape of the aircraft’s fuselage, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. The benefit of an arcuately shaped fuselage being improved aerodynamic performance.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 9,
wherein, in the transporting position of the receiving devices (11),
an upper surface of a rearmost one of the articles (Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan) is above an upper surface of a frontmost one of the articles (Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan), and the upper surface of the rearmost one of the articles (Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan) is closer to a fuselage of the aircraft (fuselage of 1) than the upper surface of the frontmost one of the articles (Op, Oq, Or taught by Chan. Examiner notes Chan fig. 29B illustrates this configuration).
Claim(s) 13 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant cited Lytvynenko (WO 2020139307 A1) in view of applicant cited Chan (US 20170203843 A1) and further in view of Grip et al. (US 11358787 B2), hereinafter Grip.
Regarding claim 13, Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft (1) according to claim 12 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the transport containers are in contact with each other in the transporting position.
However, Grip in the field of modular cargo containers (title) teaches wherein the transport containers (modular container 1200; fig. 12A) are in contact with each other in the transporting position (two containers are shown in contact with each other in fig. 12A with protrusion 1204 & recess 1206 maintaining contact between containers. Examiner notes each corner comprises connector elements meaning the containers are configured to be transported in contact with each other side by side).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the aircraft disclosed by modified Lytvynenko with the modular containers taught by Grip with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of ensuring the containers don’t damage each other during transport.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lytvynenko discloses the aircraft according to claim 13,
wherein the transport containers (1200 taught by Grip) each have recesses (1206 taught by Grip) and protrusions (1204 taught by Grip) that respectively engage with recesses (1206 taught by Grip) and protrusions (1204 taught by Grip) of a respective adjacent one of the transport containers (1200 taught by Grip),
whereby a relative position of two adjacent ones of the transport containers (1200 taught by Grip) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner notes that Chan is now relied upon to teach the amended subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 PETER ALBERT TARASCHI whose telephone number is (703)756-4727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM-6:30PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on (571) 270-5301. 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.
/P.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642