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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/28/2025 has been entered.
This Action is responsive to the RCE filed 08/28/2025. Claims 1-7 have been canceled. Claims 8-27 are pending. Claims 8 and 18 have been written in independent form.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 11 line 14 – It appears that word “lading” is a typographical error, and, perhaps, should be the word “landing” instead.
Page 18 line 7 – There appears to be a typographical error in that the reference character “112” should perhaps be the reference character “1102” instead, because reference character 1102 is designated as standard box camera on page 28 in the specification and in FIG. 11, which illustrates a bottom side of the standard box, as camera.
Page 20 line 8 – The phrase “in the FIGS. 14A” is incorrect, because there is only one FIG. 14A. The phrase would be clearer if it were amended to read “in FIG. 14A” instead.
Page 21 lines 10-11 – The sentence in lines 10-11 reads as follows: “The platform docking pin 505 is protruded or returned to its an original position by rotating the motor 1503.” The phrase “to its an original position” is grammatically incorrect. A grammatically correct sentence would either read “The platform docking pin 505 is protruded or returned to its
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 USC § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-27 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites "a package box sensing unit configured to detect a specific landing place distinct from the second location and to generate a sensing signal corresponding to the detected landing place" in lines 8-10. Specifically, "detect a specific landing place distinct from the second location" [emphasis Examiner’s] is not expressly or explicitly disclosed in the initially filed specification in the manner as set forth in the instant claim. Owing to differences between the specification and claim, it is not clear that the claim is supported.
Claim 8 recites "wherein the sensing signal is used to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of the package box relative to the specific landing place" in lines 13-14. This limitation is not expressly or explicitly disclosed in the initially filed specification in the manner as set forth in the instant claim. Owing to differences between the specification and claim, it is not clear that the claim is supported.
Verbatim disclosure is not required, however it must be made clear on the record how the claim language is supported by the original disclosure, by explicitly identifying the relevant portions of the original disclosure.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations or by amending the claim to clearly supported recitations in the original disclosure [emphasis Examiner’s].
In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure.
For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
Additionally, dependent claims 9-17 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 18 recites "detecting a specific landing place distinct from the second location using a package box sensing unit and generating a sensing signal corresponding to the detected landing place" in lines 6-8-10. Specifically, "detecting a specific landing place distinct from the second location" [emphasis Examiner’s] is not expressly or explicitly disclosed in the initially filed specification in the manner as set forth in the instant claim. Owing to differences between the specification and claim, it is not clear that the claim is supported.
Claim 18 recites "using the sensing signal to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of the package box relative to the specific landing place" in lines 9-10. This limitation is not expressly or explicitly disclosed in the initially filed specification in the manner as set forth in the instant claim. Owing to differences between the specification and claim, it is not clear that the claim is supported.
Verbatim disclosure is not required, however it must be made clear on the record how the claim language is supported by the original disclosure, by explicitly identifying the relevant portions of the original disclosure.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations or by amending the claim to clearly supported recitations in the original disclosure [emphasis Examiner’s].
In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure.
For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be interpreted as best understood.
Additionally, dependent claims 19-27 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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 8-27 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the detected landing place" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, dependent claims 9-17 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The drone delivery system of claim 3" in line 1. This claim limitation is vague and indefinite. Claim 3 has been canceled; therefore, it is not clear upon which claim, claim 11 should depend. For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood. Additionally, in order to promote compact prosecution, the claim will be examined, again as best understood, as if it depends from claim 8.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the door" in line 2. As best understood, claim 11 is being examined as if depends from claim 8. Consequently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the detected landing place" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, dependent claims 19-27 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 12-18, and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burgess et al., U.S. Patent 9,174,733 B1 (hereinafter called Burgess).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Burgess teaches drone delivery system comprising:
a drone (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1C & 7 elements 100, 700) configured to transport a package (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7) from a first location (See e.g., FIG. 1A) to a second location (See e.g., FIG. 1C) and to detachably couple (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7; column 16 lines 53-60) with a package box (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7; column 16 lines 53-60);
the package box comprising:
a package enclosure configured to contain the package (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7; column 16 lines 53-60);
a package box communication unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 128) configured to communicate with a drone communication unit;
a package box sensing unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 150; column 13 lines 39-57; column 19 lines 48-52) configured to detect a specific landing place (See e.g., column 13 line 58-column 14 line 6; column 14 lines 42-48) distinct from the second location and to generate a sensing signal corresponding to the detected landing place (See e.g., column 19 lines 43-67);
a package box power unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 132) configured to supply power to the package box communication unit and the package box sensing unit;
wherein the sensing signal is used to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of the package box relative to the specific landing place (See e.g., FIG. 1D elements 150, 152; column 13 line 39-column 14 line 6; column 14 lines 58-62; column 15 lines 40-67, where, for example, element 150 includes the inertial motion sensor (IMU) 152 (e.g., accelerometers and/or gyroscopes), and by definition, an IMU detects both vertical and horizontal motion, and as disclosed in column 14 lines 58-62, the determination that the device 106 is at or near the ground may be based on one or more factors, including sensor data from position sensors on the device 106 (e.g., accelerometer and/or altimeter data) [emphasis Examiner’s], and as disclosed in column 13 lines 41-45, the IMU 152 functions to generate data indicative of translation motion of the pay-release device 106, and by definition translation motion also detects both vertical and horizontal motion, and column 15 lines 39-51 and 55-58, and 61-63, disclose how the translational motion is used to direct the descending payload-release device 106 toward the predetermined path of descent, and as disclosed in column 13 lines 58-61, element 150 may additionally or alternatively include imaging system(s) that function capture image data or video from a camera mounted on the payload-release device 106, and as disclosed in column 14 lines 1-4, the sensor(s) 150 can function to generate sensor data indicative of the various parameters they are configured to measure [emphasis Examiner’s], and the sensor data can then be provided to the UAV 100, all of these characteristics and functions of the position sensor(s) 150, including 152, of element 106 together teach the sensing signal is used to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of the package box relative to the specific landing place), and the package box is configured to be placed on the specific landing place with the package enclosed therein (See e.g., column 16 lines 53-59); and
wherein the drone comprises:
the drone communication unit (See e.g., FIG. 7 element 710) configured to communicate with the package box communication unit;
a drone sensing unit (See e.g., FIG. 7 element 704) configured to determine the first location and the second location; and
a drone power unit (See e.g., FIG. 7 element 724) configured to provide power to the drone communication unit and drone sensing unit.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the drone and the package box are configured to communicate with each other during placement of the package box on the specific landing place (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 130; column 8 lines 57-62).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the package box power unit comprises a rechargeable battery (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 134) including a charging terminal (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 135).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the charging terminal is configured to receive power from the drone when coupled thereto (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 135).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the package box communication unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 128) is further configured to transmit landing status information to the drone.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the landing status information comprises confirmation that the package box has been placed on the specific landing place (See e.g., column 8 line 57-59; column 13 lines 58-63; column 14 lines 4-5, 42-48, 56-58, and 42-67).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the drone sensing unit comprises a GPS receiver (See e.g., FIG. 7 element 706) configured to determine the first location and the second location.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Burgess teaches a method for delivering a package using a drone delivery system comprising a drone (See e.g., FIGS. 1A-1C & 7 elements 100 & 700) and a detachable package box (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7; column 16 lines 53-60), the method comprising:
loading the package (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7) into the package box at a first location (See e.g., FIG. 1A);
attaching the package box to the drone (See e.g., FIG. 1A; column 5 lines 11-12 and 66-67; column 16 lines 19-24);
flying the drone with the package box to a second location (See e.g., FIG. 1C);
detecting a specific landing place distinct from the second location (See e.g., column 13 line 58-column 14 line 6; column 14 lines 42-48) using a package box sensing unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 150) and generating a sensing signal corresponding to the detected landing place (See e.g., column 19 lines 43-67);
using the sensing signal to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of the package box relative to the specific landing place (See e.g., FIG. 1D elements 150, 152; column 13 line 39-column 14 line 6; column 14 lines 58-62; column 15 lines 40-67, where, for example, element 150 includes the inertial motion sensor (IMU) 152 (e.g., accelerometers and/or gyroscopes), and by definition, an IMU detects both vertical and horizontal motion, and as disclosed in column 14 lines 58-62, the determination that the device 106 is at or near the ground may be based on one or more factors, including sensor data from position sensors on the device 106 (e.g., accelerometer and/or altimeter data) [emphasis Examiner’s], and as disclosed in column 13 lines 41-45, the IMU 152 functions to generate data indicative of translation motion of the pay-release device 106, and by definition translation motion also detects both vertical and horizontal motion, and column 15 lines 39-51 and 55-58, and 61-63, disclose how the translational motion is used to direct the descending payload-release device 106 toward the predetermined path of descent, and as disclosed in column 13 lines 58-61, element 150 may additionally or alternatively include imaging system(s) that function capture image data or video from a camera mounted on the payload-release device 106, and as disclosed in column 14 lines 1-4, the sensor(s) 150 can function to generate sensor data indicative of the various parameters they are configured to measure [emphasis Examiner’s], and the sensor data can then be provided to the UAV 100, all of these characteristics and functions of the position sensor(s) 150, including 152, of element 106 together teach using the sensing signal to adjust a vertical and horizontal position of the package box relative to the specific landing place); and
placing the package box with the package enclosed therein on the specific landing place based on the adjustment (See e.g., column 16 lines 53-59).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Burgess teaches further comprising communicating between the drone and the package box during placement of the package box on the specific landing place (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 130; column 8 lines 57-62).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Burgess teaches further comprising supplying power (See e.g., column 9 lines 21-35) to a power unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 132) of the package box, the power unit comprising a rechargeable battery (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 134) including a charging terminal (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 135).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the charging terminal is configured to receive power from the drone when coupled thereto (See e.g., column 9 lines 21-35).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Burgess teaches further comprising transmitting landing status information from the package box communication unit (See e.g., FIG. 1D element 128) to the drone (See e.g., column 8 line 57-59; column 13 lines 58-63; column 14 lines 4-5, 42-48, 56-58, and 42-67).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Burgess teaches wherein the landing status information comprises confirmation that the package box has been placed on the specific landing place (See e.g., column 8 line 57-59; column 13 lines 58-63; column 14 lines 4-5, 42-48, 56-58, and 42-67).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Burgess teaches further comprising determining the first location and the second location with a GPS (See e.g., FIG. 7 element 706) receiver included in the drone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Burgess further teaches wherein the package box sensing unit comprises an image sensor and a proximity sensor configured to jointly detect the specific landing place (See e.g., column 13 lines 58-66).
And, while not specifically stated that the package box sensing unit, i.e., camera or sensors (See e.g., column 13 lines 58-66) is disposed on a bottom side of the package box, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the sensing unit at a bottom side of the package box, so that it would be easier and clearer to see the target location beneath the package box, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Burgess further teaches wherein the package box sensing unit comprises an image sensor and a proximity sensor configured to jointly detect the specific landing place (See e.g., column 13 lines 58-66).
And, while not specifically stated that the package box sensing unit, i.e., camera or sensors (See e.g., column 13 lines 58-66) is disposed on a bottom side of the package box, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to install the sensing unit at a bottom side of the package box, so that it would be easier and clearer to see the target location beneath the package box, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess as, and further in view of Kimchi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0120094 A1 (hereinafter called Kimchi).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Burgess teaches the package box further comprises a door (See e.g., column 16 lines 54-60) forming at least part of an outer wall of the package box.
But Burgess does not explicitly teach an electrically operable door.
However, Kimchi teaches an electrically operable door (See e.g., FIG. 3D element 359B; FIG. 14; ¶s [0051]-[0052], [0147] & [0151], where the pivot is controlled by a motor 320, such as a servo motor, and the servo motor is controlled by the UAV control system 210 and together they cause element 359B, i.e., electrically operable door to pivot in order to release inventory, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation).
Accordingly, because Burgess and Kimchi teach analogous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) delivery systems, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Burgess and Kimchi before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drone delivery system of Burgess to incorporate an electrically operable door, as taught in the analogous art of Kimchi. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing a simple, effective, and unobtrusive manner in which to safely release a package from inside a storage container.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Burgess, teaches the package box (See e.g., column 6 lines 4-7; column 16 lines 53-60) further comprises the door (See e.g., column 16 lines 54-60).
But Burgess does not teach a door driving unit configured to open the door when a predetermined condition is satisfied.
However, Kimchi teaches a door driving unit configured to open the door of the package box when a predetermined condition is satisfied (See e.g., FIG. 14 element 1412; ¶ [0151], where the inventory engagement mechanism 1412, i.e., a door driving unit communicates with the motor(s) (e.g., a servo motor) used to engage and/or disengage inventory, and provides an instruction to a motor that controls the inventory engagement mechanism, i.e., a door driving unit to cause element 359B, i.e., the door to pivot to release inventory).
Accordingly, because Burgess and Kimchi teach analogous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) delivery systems, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the prior art of Burgess and Kimchi before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drone delivery system of Burgess to incorporate a door driving unit configured to open the door when a predetermined condition is satisfied, as taught in the analogous art of Kimchi. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing a simple, effective, and unobtrusive manner in which to timely and safely release a package from inside a storage container.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Burgess teaches opening a door (See e.g., column 16 lines 54-60) forming at least part of an outer wall of the package box after the package box has been placed on the specific landing place.
But Burgess does not explicitly teach electrically opening a door.
However, Kimchi teaches electrically opening a door (See e.g., FIG. 3D element 359B; FIG. 14; ¶s [0051]-[0052], [0147] & [0151], where the pivot is controlled by a motor 320, such as a servo motor, and the servo motor is controlled by the UAV control system 210 and together they cause element 359B, i.e., a door to pivot in order to release inventory, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation).
Accordingly, because Burgess and Kimchi teach analogous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) delivery systems, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in the art, having the art of Burgess and Kimchi before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Burgess to incorporate electrically opening a door, as taught in the analogous art of Kimchi. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing a simple, effective, and unobtrusive manner in which to safely release a package from inside a storage container.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Burgess, as modified by Kimchi in the rejection of claim 20 hereinabove, further teaches wherein opening the door (Burgess See e.g., column 16 lines 54-60; Kimchi FIG. 3D element 359B) is performed by a door driving unit when a predetermined condition is satisfied (Kimchi See e.g., FIG. 14 element 1412; ¶ [0151], where the inventory engagement mechanism 1412, i.e., a door driving unit communicates with the motor(s) (e.g., a servo motor) used to engage and/or disengage inventory, and provides an instruction to a motor, i.e., a predetermined condition is satisfied that controls the inventory engagement mechanism, i.e., a door driving unit to cause element 359B, i.e., the door to pivot to release inventory).
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM EST.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
29 September 2025
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644