DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 11/20/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/20/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that no change is needed to the sentence “Information processing performed by package delivery system” on page 39 of the specification because it is intended to be a descriptive title (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The text is neither formatted nor suggestive of representing a descriptive title, therefore, it appears to merely duplicate the lines of text that immediately follow it. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that interpreting the limitation “a package control apparatus that is able to perform communication” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is improper because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize sufficiently definite structure to perform the recited function or operation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A package control apparatus is not a term of art and does not inherently define a specific structure capable of performing communication, therefore, the package control apparatus is interpreted to be one or more computer servers, and equivalents thereof, in accordance with paragraph 22 of the Applicant’s specification. See claim interpretation below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Michalik does not disclose the recipient of the goods directly operating the drone using their portable device (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 22; pp. 26-27; p. 30), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the user and/or recipient directly operating the drone using a portable device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding the user and/or recipient operating the drone using their portable device (i.e. the terminal apparatus), it is noted that the claims recite granting a right to the terminal apparatus to finely adjust a position and receiving information indicating operation of finely adjusting the designated delivery location, however, the claims do not explicitly disclose that the information indicating operation of finely adjusting the designated delivery location is sent in response to the user’s and/or recipient’s actions. Regarding the user directly operating the drone, it is noted that the claims recite granting a right to the terminal apparatus to finely adjust a position to finely adjust the designated delivery location, and receiving information that indicates finely adjusting the designated delivery location. Michalik, in paragraphs 39-40, discloses once the delivery drone is within communication range of the package recipient, the recipient can use their portable electronic device to direct the drone to drop the goods at a particular pinpointed location by either designating the location on a map or placing the portable device on the ground at the desired location. Therefore, Michalik similarly discloses the recipient of the goods operates the drone by finely-adjusting the delivery location. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Michalik does not disclose releasing the goods without landing (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 22; p. 27; p. 30), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., releasing the package without landing) are not recited in the rejected independent claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Michalik; in paragraph 40, discloses directing the drone to drop the goods at a particular pinpointed location. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Michalik does not disclose fine-tuning the position of the drone before performing the release operation (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 22-23; p. 27; pp. 30-31), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Michalik, in paragraphs 39-40, discloses once the delivery drone is within communication range of the package recipient, the recipient can use their portable electronic device to direct the drone to drop the goods at a particular pinpointed location by either designating the location on a map or placing the portable device on the ground at the desired location. Therefore, Michalik discloses fine-tuning the position of the drone before it releases the package at the pinpointed delivery location. See rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/20/2025 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract and specification were received on 11/20/2025.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 9, line 23, “a camera that capture a video” should read “a camera that captures a video”. This appears to be a typographical error.
On page 39, lines 12-13, the descriptive title “Information processing by package delivery system” should be formatted or amended to make it clear that is a heading. The descriptive title appears to be a typographical error because it is formatted identically to, and duplicates, the subsequent text in lines 14-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, “arrives at the destination” should read “arrives at a destination” to provide sufficient antecedent basis for the destination in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1 and 9, lines 4 and 1-2, respectively, “a package delivery control apparatus that is able to perform communication”. Page 22, lines 8-9, disclose the package delivery control apparatus is a server apparatus, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the package delivery control apparatus is one or more computer servers and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 4-7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, line 20, the limitation “finely adjust the designated delivery location” renders the claim indefinite because the designated delivery location lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim which makes it unclear if it is the destination recited in line 9. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the destination is the designated delivery location.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9, lines 25, 26 and 19, respectively, the limitation “finely adjust a position” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the position is the designated delivery location recited adopted in claim 1, line 2, claim 5, line 13, or the destination recited in claim 9, line 9. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that finely adjusting a position includes finely adjusting the delivery location/destination.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michalik (US 2016/0342934).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9, as best understood, Michalik discloses a package delivery system that includes: a drone that delivers a package by adopting a designated delivery location of the package as a destination (Michalik; para. 31: the system initiates movement in the drone so that the drone can then move to the location for delivery and deliver the goods to that location); and a package delivery control apparatus that is able to perform communication with the drone and a terminal apparatus (Michalik; para. 29: FIG. 6 shows the process for communicating between a drone, a data network, a handheld electronic device. The drone could be drone 30, the data network to be named data network 40, comprising at least application server 110, and database server 120. The handheld electronic device could be in the form of phone or portable handheld device 130. For example, the system starts in step S201 where the user logs in to a server) that is designated by an orderer of the package (Michalik; para. 32: in step S210, the user presents his or her portable handheld device), the package delivery system comprising a processor configured to transmit a delivery code of the package to the terminal apparatus when receiving an order for delivery of the package (Michalik; para. 30: in step 204a the system could generate a private authentication key. This private authentication key could be in the form of a hexadecimal number, or electronic or digital code. Next, in step 204b the key could be stored in the drone's memory such as memory 232. Next, in step 204c the key could be sent to the smartphone application and then downloaded to the smartphone); cause the drone to emit light in which the delivery code is superimposed when the drone arrives at the destination (Michalik; para. 33: in step 211a this key is transmitted to the drone's camera via the user's smartphone flashlight, display another visible or invisible light based communication method. This signal is compared with the stored key. This short range or short-term signal in step S211 a could be in the form of any type of suitable signal but in at least one embodiment is in the form of a light. The light could be in the form of a strobe or pulsing light which is pulsing in a pattern that is sufficient to identify the user, and the landing location or at least the user's handheld electronic device. As indicated above, this pattern is created using the user's smartphone flash or display; para. 39: visible light can be projected either from the drone 30 or from the user's portable device 130 so that the other object can identify the location of the other object as well as authenticate the identity of the user.); when the delivery code that the terminal apparatus has acquired by transmission from the processor and the delivery code that the terminal apparatus has acquired by receiving light emitted from the drone match with each other, grant a release right to the terminal apparatus to instruct the drone to perform operation of releasing the package (Michalik; para. 37: if there is a connection between the smartphone and the drone and received key is identical with stored key then the drone lands with the goods), and instruct the drone to release the package based on information that indicates operation of releasing the package via the terminal apparatus; and when receiving, from the package delivery control apparatus, information that indicates operation of releasing the package, perform control so as to perform operation of releasing the package (Michalik; para. 38: the drone could then in step S213 deliver these goods), wherein, when the delivery code that the terminal apparatus has acquired by transmission from the processor and the delivery code that the terminal apparatus has acquired by receiving light emitted from the drone match with each other (Michalik; para. 33: in step 211a this key is transmitted to the drone's camera via the user's smartphone flashlight, display another visible or invisible light based communication method. This signal is compared with the stored key. This short range or short-term signal in step S211 a could be in the form of any type of suitable signal but in at least one embodiment is in the form of a light. The light could be in the form of a strobe or pulsing light which is pulsing in a pattern that is sufficient to identify the user, and the landing location or at least the user's handheld electronic device. As indicated above, this pattern is created using the user's smartphone flash or display; para. 39: visible light can be projected either from the drone 30 or from the user's portable device 130 so that the other object can identify the location of the other object as well as authenticate the identity of the user.), the processor approves the terminal apparatus to perform operation to finely adjust the designated delivery location of the package via the drone (Michalik; para. 40: once both devices are co-located, the user can then take control of the region to have the goods delivered in step S706. For example, the user can provide a guidance location via his portable device 130 to direct the drone to drop the goods at a particular pinpointed location either shown in a map or by locating the portable device 130 and laying it on the ground), and the processor, when receiving information that indicates operation of finely adjusting the delivery position, performs control so as to perform release operation after finely adjusting the designated delivery location of the package via the terminal apparatus (Michalik; para. 40: Now that the drone has a handshake co-location communication with the electronic device, this drone can then immediately spot the device and land the drone on the portable electronic device.).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalik in view of Tebay (US 2016/0356574).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Michalik discloses the processor is further configured to: enable the drone to acquires flight altitude information (Michalik; para. 27: through this sensor, the drone is constantly measuring the distance to the ground).
Michalik does not explicitly disclose changing an altitude at which the light is emitted, based on a weight of the package.
Tebay, in the same field of endeavor (aerial delivery systems), discloses a control unit changes an altitude at which operation of releasing a package is enabled, based on a weight of the package (Tebay; paras. 226-227: the processor 12 acquires values for the mass of the payload … using some or all of the information acquired by the processor 12 at steps s118-s122, the processor 12 determines a location and a velocity, which are hereinafter referred to as the “payload release location” and “payload release velocity” respectively. The payload release location may be specified by a geolocation and an altitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to initiate releasing the package at an altitude determined using its weight, as disclosed by Tebay, in the drone microprocessor of Michalik, to yield the predictable result of accurately and efficiently delivering the package to the delivery location. Michalik, as modified, discloses the light-based authentication process occurs after the drone arrives at the user’s location but before starting the delivery operation, therefore, Michalik, as modified, also discloses the irradiation control unit changes the altitude at which the light is emitted, based on the weight of the package.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Michalik discloses the processor is further configured to: enable the drone to acquire flight altitude information (Michalik; para. 27: through this sensor, the drone is constantly measuring the distance to the ground).
Michalik does not explicitly disclose changing an altitude at which operation of releasing the package is enabled, based on a weight of the package.
Tebay discloses a control unit changes an altitude at which operation of releasing a package is enabled, based on a weight of the package (Tebay; paras. 226-227: the processor 12 acquires values for the mass of the payload … using some or all of the information acquired by the processor 12 at steps s118-s122, the processor 12 determines a location and a velocity, which are hereinafter referred to as the “payload release location” and “payload release velocity” respectively. The payload release location may be specified by a geolocation and an altitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to initiate releasing the package at an altitude determined using its weight, as disclosed by Tebay, in the drone microprocessor of Michalik, to yield the predictable result of accurately and efficiently delivering the package to the delivery location.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Michalik discloses the processor is further configured to: acquire flight altitude information on the drone (Michalik; para. 27: If the distance to the ground obtained from the drone's GPS is showing rapidly higher values that the distance measurement obtained from the separate measurement system then the drone will correct the drone's flight level height from the separate measurement system including a sensor 242 and alarm signal [i.e., information about a flight altitude mismatch] is sent to flight's supervisor; Claim 18: said at least one data network [para. 29: the data network to be named data network 40, comprising at least application server 110, and database server 120] in combination with the system is configured to determine a location of said drone via at least one of the following methods: triangulation of a user's device via cellular communication, via GPS location [GPS trilateration includes latitude, longitude, and altitude], via WIFI location, and via visible light location).
Michalik does not explicitly disclose changing an altitude at which the light is emitted, based on a weight of the package.
Tebay discloses a control unit changes an altitude at which operation of releasing a package is enabled, based on a weight of the package (Tebay; paras. 226-227: the processor 12 acquires values for the mass of the payload … using some or all of the information acquired by the processor 12 at steps s118-s122, the processor 12 determines a location and a velocity, which are hereinafter referred to as the “payload release location” and “payload release velocity” respectively. The payload release location may be specified by a geolocation and an altitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to initiate releasing the package at an altitude determined using its weight, as disclosed by Tebay, in the application server of Michalik, to yield the predictable result of accurately and efficiently delivering the package to the delivery location. Michalik, as modified, discloses the light-based authentication process occurs after the drone arrives at the user’s location but before starting the delivery operation, therefore, Michalik, as modified, also discloses the irradiation control unit changes the altitude at which the light is emitted, based on the weight of the package.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Michalik discloses the processor is further configured to: acquire flight altitude information on the drone (Michalik; para. 27: If the distance to the ground obtained from the drone's GPS is showing rapidly higher values that the distance measurement obtained from the separate measurement system then the drone will correct the drone's flight level height from the separate measurement system including a sensor 242 and alarm signal [i.e., information about a flight altitude mismatch] is sent to flight's supervisor; Claim 18: said at least one data network [para. 29: the data network to be named data network 40, comprising at least application server 110, and database server 120] in combination with the system is configured to determine a location of said drone via at least one of the following methods: triangulation of a user's device via cellular communication, via GPS location [GPS trilateration includes latitude, longitude, and altitude], via WIFI location, and via visible light location).
Michalik does not explicitly disclose changing an altitude at which operation of releasing the package is enabled, based on a weight of the package.
Tebay discloses a control unit changes an altitude at which operation of releasing a package is enabled, based on a weight of the package (Tebay; paras. 226-227: the processor 12 acquires values for the mass of the payload … using some or all of the information acquired by the processor 12 at steps s118-s122, the processor 12 determines a location and a velocity, which are hereinafter referred to as the “payload release location” and “payload release velocity” respectively. The payload release location may be specified by a geolocation and an altitude).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to initiate releasing the package at an altitude determined using its weight, as disclosed by Tebay, in the application server of Michalik, to yield the predictable result of accurately and efficiently delivering the package to the delivery location.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665