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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 05, 2026. Claims 1, 3-10, 15-20, 22-25 are pending. Claims 22-24 have been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections of said previous office action has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Regarding claim(s) 1. Applicant argues that the Examiner has not provided any reasoning as to why a person skilled in the art would modify Raptopoulo’s ground station system using Boccia's window-mounted air conditioner brace to arrive at a balcony-mounted parcel receptacle.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, using a window railing (e.g. bracket) system to mount a structure such as air conditioner or parcel receptacle on to a window is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art; therefore, one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 3 and 15 rejections of said previous office action has been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, rejections for claims 3 and 15 are withdrawn.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1, 4-10, 16-18, 20, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et al. US2014/0032034 (“Raptopoulos”) in view of Boccia et al. USPN: 8,167,260 (“Boccia”).
Regarding claim(s) 1. Raptopoulos discloses a drone delivery system comprising: a parcel receptacle (para. 32, UAV delivery system ) comprising:
a piece of parcel receptacle information; a door said parcel receptacle configured to open to a storage compartment configured to receive a parcel from a drone or deliver said parcel to said drone (para. 36, The system shown in FIG. 1 can be used to transport a package from ground station 120 to ground station 130. The user provides the package at ground station 120. The package can be placed in the ground station 130. Alternatively, the user can place the package on or in the UAV. In an embodiment, the user identifies himself with a code on his phone, a slot opens up in ground station 120.);
said drone containing a piece of drone information configured to deliver or pickup said parcel from said parcel receptacle; a status determination system (para. 36-para. 38, the unmanned aerial vehicle 110 arrives at destination ground station 130. The destination ground station can then assist the unmanned aerial vehicle in determining a precise location for landing. After the landing, the system can inform the recipient that a package is available. In an embodiment, the recipient receives a text that a package is waiting for collection. The recipient then arrives at the station 130 to pick up the package);
said parcel containing a piece of parcel information; and a central processor, wherein said status determination system communicates to said central processor (para. 90, A third component of the delivery network is also shown in FIG. 1. The logistics system and network 140 provides for several aspects of the delivery system. The logistics system and network 140 controls the delivery system and manages routing for the UAV 100 and its payload.).
Raptopoulos does not explicitly disclose a balcony mounting system, wherein said balcony mounting system comprises a balcony brace or a balcony mount and wherein said parcel receptacle is mounted on a balcony using said balcony mounting system.
Boccia teaches platform with a mounting system, wherein said balcony mounting system comprises a balcony brace or a balcony mount and an air conditioner is mounted on a balcony using said balcony mounting system (abstract, fig. 1, 2, 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Raptopoulos by incorporating the applied teaching of an adjustable mounting system as taught by Boccia to be used to mount a parcel receptable unit to enable the parcel receptacle to be mounted to a balcony/window since it merely a combination of old, well known elements of a mounting a structure to a building and as such and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 4. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said storage compartment is opened by a biometric identifier (para. 109, The package tracking module 434 can also provide status alerts to users associated with a package. For example, the package tracking module 434 can provide delivery exceptions, delivery completion notifications, package acceptance notification, or other suitable information for an end user. A user authenticates herself to the user authentication module 448 using a fingerprint scan.).
Regarding claim(s) 5. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches a smartphone, wherein said drone delivery system sends a notification to a recipient of a delivery (para. 121, The system can then communicate with user 690. For example, the system can send a text message, email, or other notification to user 690, informing that there is an object for him in the station. User 690 can alternatively receive updates from the system throughout the process, so that user 690 is kept up to date regarding the status of the delivery.).
Regarding claim(s) 6. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said parcel receptacle includes a scanner (para. 124, The user then can place the package on the UAV or receive the package from the UAV. The vehicle can optionally include a scanner to check for explosive or dangerous materials. If such materials are detected, the UAV can abort the mission. The user can then inform the logistics system that the UAV is ready to depart. The logistics system then sends a command for the UAV to take-off and fly to a known ground station.).
Regarding claim(s) 7. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said scanner is a Geiger counter, an explosives trace detector, or an X-ray scanner that detects a threat (para. 83, para. 124, The ground station can optionally include the capability to scan package contents. Such a scan can help ensure that the system is not being used to transport illegal or dangerous substances.).
Regarding claim(s) 8. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said drone delivery system alerts occupants of a building of said threat via an alarm (para. 105, The package tracking module 434 can provide, for example, the current location of the package, the movement history of the package, an estimated delivery time, physical information about the package (including the dimensions, weight, and content description), the planned route. The package tracking module 434 can also provide status alerts to users associated with a package.).
Regarding claim(s) 9. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said drone delivery system contacts local law enforcement (para. 107, This functionality provides one safeguard against illegal uses of the system. It can also be used to investigate tampering with part of the delivery system or stolen UAVs, for example. The database can also be used to determine if certain routes are repeated, particularly within suspect areas.).
Regarding claim(s) 10. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said drone delivery system locks said door based on said threat (para. 83, para. 107, If a package is found to contain illegal substances, such as prohibited narcotics, the user or users associated with the package can be identified. These steps can serve as deterrents to use of the delivery system for improper purposes.).
Regarding claim(s) 16. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches a display, wherein said display has a User Interface, wherein said User Interface displays a recommendation based on data from a previous order (para. 119, FIG. 6 shows a visual flow chart of an embodiment of the delivery system in use. In the example shown in FIG. 6, a first user uses the delivery system to send a package to a second user 690. The first user and second user 690 can be separated by a distance of kilometers, for example. To use the system to deliver an object, the first user walks to a ground station 640. The user identifies herself to the system with user interface 630 and places the object inside ground station 640 through an interface 620.).
Regarding claim(s) 17. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches a linked credit card, wherein said linked credit card is credited with a credit when said parcel receptacle acts as a charging station for said drone.
Bauer teaches another delivery system and method that linked credit card is credited with a credit when said parcel receptacle acts as a charging station (para. 38, para. 60-61, para. 65, . The ground stations also can serve as charging, refueling, or battery swapping locations for the UAV. Para 126-para. 127 ).
Regarding claim(s) 18. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said piece of parcel information is the dimensions of said parcel, wherein said piece of drone information is a current location of said drone and a current energy status of said drone, and wherein said piece of receptacle information is whether said parcel receptacle has a package, wherein said drone delivery system uses said parcel receptacle information, said drone information, and said parcel information in determining if said drone is capable of delivering said parcel to said parcel receptacle (para. 66-para. 69, the UAV and ground station can communicate to exchange data such as location, telemetry data, health monitoring, status, package information, energy output, remaining capacity, time, weather, route status, obstructions, or the like. These communications can be in real time during the flight, following the flight, or prior to the flight depending on the needs of the delivery system. For example, in an embodiment, the ground station provides firmware updates to a UAV.).
Regarding claim(s) 20. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said parcel receptacle includes a climate control mechanism, wherein said climate control mechanism is activated before said parcel is dropped off based on said piece of parcel information (para. 75, The power station can also include climate control. Multiple ground stations can be disposed adjacent to each other for increased capacity or the like.)
Regarding claim(s) 25. Raptopoulos in view of Boccia further teaches wherein said parcel receptacle is mounted on a railing of said balcony (Boccia: e.g. mounting brackets abstract, fig. 1, 2, 4.).)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights