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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract relates to a system and method for autonomous robotic surgery, not the claimed method and apparatus. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 21-34 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.
Claim 21 recites “a rescue device” in line 4, despite previously introducing “a rescue device” in the preamble. It is unclear if this recitation in line 4 intends to reference the previous recitation in the Abstract, or intends to introduce a new, additional “rescue device.” For purposes of examination, this recitation in line 4 is interpreted as “the rescue device.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 22-34 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: attaching the person to be rescued to the rescue device. Claims 22-34 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 23 recites “launching the unmanned aerial vehicle horizontally”. This is indefinite because the scope of “launching…horizontally” is unclear. Is “launching” meant to reference “taking off from the ground,” or can the launching occur in flight, for example? Is the launching required to be strictly horizontal, or a combination of horizontal and vertical movement? For purposes of examination, this limitation is broadly interpreted as any horizontal movement of the vehicle enroute to the location of the person to be rescued. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites “a predefined location”, despite previously introducing “a location” in Claim 21. It is unclear if this recitation in claim 24 intends to reference the previous recitation in Claim 21, or intends to introduce a new, additional “location.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites “optimizing contact with the person…”. This is indefinite because the term “optimizing contact” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimizing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered “optimized” contact with the person? Are the at least two foldable arms required to be in a certain position in order to created optimized contact, for example? Appropriate correction is required. Claim 27 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 34 recites “a person”, despite previously introducing “a person to be rescued” in Claim 21. It is unclear if this recitation in claim 34 intends to reference the previous recitation in Claim 21, or intends to introduce a new, additional “person.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 21-25, 28-29, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Westbrook (US 20140353422 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Westbrook discloses a method for transporting a rescue device (106, 107, 108, 109, Fig. 1) by an unmanned aerial vehicle (remotely-controlled aerial vehicle 100, Fig. 1) to a person to be rescued (Fig. 8), the method comprising:
launching the unmanned aerial vehicle (810, Fig. 8 and para. [0060]), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a rescue device releasably coupled to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Fig. 1, 109 is releasably coupled to 100, para. [0029], “removably connected”);
approaching the person to be rescued by the unmanned aerial vehicle at a location to enable the person to be rescued to reach the rescue device (812, Fig. 8 and para. [0061]);
extending the rescue device from the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the person to be rescued (814, Fig. 8 and para. [0062], and Claim 1 “lower the cable”); and
once the person to be rescued is safely attached to the rescue device, removing the person to be rescued from the location with the unmanned aerial vehicle (816, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 22, Westbrook teaches the method of claim 21, wherein extending the rescue device from the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the person to be rescued further comprises lowering the rescue device toward the person to be rescued using an attachment mechanism extending between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the rescue device (cable 108, and Claim 1, “lower the cable”).
Regarding Claim 23, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 21, wherein launching the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises launching the unmanned aerial vehicle horizontally (para. [0060], examiner notes launching the vehicle and “enabling it to travel to the location of the endangered person” clearly includes launching horizontally in order for the vehicle to perform its travel, additionally see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 24, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 21, wherein approaching the person to be rescued by the unmanned aerial vehicle further comprises moving autonomously to a predefined location of the person to be rescued after the unmanned aerial vehicle is launched (para. [0061], “…fly from the launch site to the location of the endangered person without operator guidance…”).
Regarding Claim 25, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 21, wherein an end portion of the rescue device is attached to the unmanned aerial vehicle at least at first and second points on the unmanned aerial vehicle (Fig. 1, the top of 107 is attached to 101 on a forward end and an aft end of 107, for example).
Regarding Claim 28, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the rescue device is configured to provide support to the person to be rescued during transport of the person to be rescued (handle 109, Fig. 1, examiner notes a handle can inherently provide support to a person).
Regarding Claim 29, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 28, wherein extending the rescue device from the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the person to be rescued further comprises lowering the rescue device from the unmanned aerial vehicle using a rope, a wire, or a telescoping body (via 108, Fig. 1 and Claim 1 “lower the cable”).
Regarding Claim 33, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 21, wherein extending the rescue device from the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the person to be rescued comprises remotely controlling the rescue device (Abstract, “remotely-controlled aerial vehicle”, examiner notes all functions of the vehicle are remotely controlled, including the rescue device).
Regarding Claim 34, Westbrook discloses he method of claim 21, wherein the rescue device comprises a flexible buoy configured to support a person in water (para. [0033], “deployable floatation devices”) .
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) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westbrook as applied above, in further view of Gabriel (US 5826825 A).
Regarding Claim 26, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 25.
Westbrook is silent about wherein the rescue device comprises at least two foldable arms, and wherein the method further comprises:
extending the at least two foldable arms toward the person to be rescued; and
optimizing contact with the person to be rescued by adjusting a position of the at least two foldable arms.
Gabriel teaches a rescue device comprising at least two foldable arms (64’ and 65, Fig. 17), and wherein the method further comprises:
extending the at least two foldable arms toward the person to be rescued (examiner notes as the rescue device is extended, see claim 21 rejection above, the foldable arms are also extended toward the person, for example); and
optimizing contact with the person to be rescued by adjusting a position of the at least two foldable arms (position of 64 and 65 in Fig. 19, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Westbrook with the rescue device comprising at least two foldable arms, as taught by Gabriel, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the claimed elements, i.e., the aircraft having a rescue device and a rescue device comprising at least two foldable arms, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the rescue device comprising at least two foldable arms, taught by Gabriel, for the rescue device of Westbrook, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results and ensure the rescued person is secured in place during rescue, and allow for rescuing incapacitated people (Gabriel, Col. 1, lines 52-66). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Westbrook as applied above, in further view of Shi et al. (US 20190106206 A1), hereafter Shi.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Westbrook teaches the method of claim 26, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is launched with the at least two foldable arms in a folded position (Gabriel, position of 64 and 65 before picking up payload 42 may be considered a folded position, for example, Fig. 15).
Modified Westbrook is silent about one or more wings in an unfolded position.
Shi teaches one or more wings in an unfolded position (210, Fig. 3D and para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unmanned aerial vehicle of modified Westbrook with one or more wings capable of being folded, as taught by Shi, whereby the unmanned aerial vehicle is launched with the one or more wings in an unfolded position, with the benefit of allowing the vehicle to take advantage of the lift properties of an air foil that allows for longer and more efficient flights (Shi, para. [0046]).
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westbrook as applied above, in further view of Okumura (US 4138077 A).
Regarding Claim 30, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 29.
Westbrook does not specifically teach retracting the rope, the wire, or the telescoping body to bring the person to be rescued closer to the unmanned aerial vehicle prior to removing the person to be rescued from the location.
Okumura teaches retracting a similar rope, the wire, or telescoping body to bring a person to be rescued closer to the unmanned aerial vehicle prior to removing the person to be rescued from the location (Col. 14, lines 33-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Westbrook with retracting the rope, wire, or telescoping body to bring the person to be rescued closed to the unmanned aerial vehicle prior to removing the person to be rescued from the location, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to raise the person a safe distance above the ground or any nearby obstacles, thereby enhancing the safety of the person, before leaving the location.
Claim(s) 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westbrook as applied above, in further view of Frye (US 4564161 A).
Regarding Claim 31, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 21.
Westbrook is silent about wherein the rescue device is configured as one of a seat, a sledge, a basket, a harness, or a flotation device.
Frye teaches a rescue device configured as a basket (10, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rescue device of Westbrook to be a rescue basket, as taught by Frye, in order to facilitate water rescues, for example, see Frye’s Abstract.
Regarding Claim 32, Westbrook discloses the method of claim 31, wherein the rescue device is configured to be collapsible (Frye, Abstract, “collapsible”).
Claim(s) 35 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 20160340006 A1) in further view of Shi et al. (US 20190106206 A1), hereafter Shi.
Regarding Claim 35, Tang discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (804, Fig. 8) for transporting a rescue device (806, Fig. 8) to a person to be rescued (examiner notes 804 is capable of this function), the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a body portion (body of drone 804, Fig. 8), the body portion comprising:
a connection portion configured to attach the rescue device to the unmanned aerial vehicle (812, Fig. 8).
Tang is silent about one or more wings coupled to the body portion;
wherein the one or more wings are configured to move between a first closed configuration and a second deployed configuration in which the wings are extended from the body portion.
Shi teaches one or more wings (210, Fig. 3D);
wherein the one or more wings are configured to move between a first closed configuration and a second deployed configuration in which the wings are extended from the body portion (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the unmanned aerial vehicle of Tang with one or more wings capable of being folded and extended, as taught by Shi, with the benefit of allowing the vehicle to take advantage of the lift properties of an air foil that allows for longer and more efficient flights (Shi, para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Tang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 35, the unmanned aerial vehicle configured to:
be launched with the rescue device (examiner notes modified Tang is clearly capable of this function, see Fig. 8); autonomously approach the person to be rescued at a location to enable the person to be rescued to reach the rescue device (examiner notes modified Tang is clearly capable of this function, para. [0061], “flight is controlled…autonomously”);
extend the rescue device from the connection portion of the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the person to be rescued (Tang, para. [0126], movement as depicted in Fig. 8, 816); and
once the person to be rescued is safely attached to the rescue device, transport the person to be rescued from the location (Examiner notes modified Tang is clearly capable of this function).
Modified Tang does not specifically teach the rescue device is releasably attached at the connection portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to make the rescue device releasably attached, in order to facilitate maintenance, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 40, modified Tang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 35, further comprising one or more propulsion mechanisms (Tang, rotors depicted for drone 804, Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tang as applied above, in further view of Culver (US 20210269149 A1).
Regarding Claim 36, modified Tang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 35, wherein the rescue device comprises a plurality of clasping legs extending from the connection portion (Tang, 822A-B and 828A-B), the connection portion positioned on a bottom surface of the body portion (Tang, Fig. 8), the plurality of clasping legs configured to be moved relative to one another to grasp and release (para. [0124]).
Modified Tang does not specifically teach using the clasping legs to grasp and release the person to be rescued, and instead teaches using the clasping legs to grasp and release a life vest (Fig. 8).
Culver teaches using a similar rescue device with clasping legs to grasp and release a person to be rescued (para. [0089] and Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the clasping legs of modified Tang to grasp and release a person to be rescued, as taught by Culver, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the capabilities of modified Tang’s clasping legs for lifesaving missions.
Regarding Claim 37, modified Tang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 36, wherein each leg of the plurality of clasping legs comprises a plurality of movable segments (Tang, 822A-B and 828A-B, Fig. 8), each of the movable segments pivotably movable relative to an adjacent movable segment (Tang, Fig. 8 and para. 126).
Regarding Claim 38, modified Tang teaches the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 36, wherein a first leg of the plurality of clasping legs is configured to be attached to the connection portion at a first position (Tang, 822B is attached at 818B, Fig. 8) and a second leg of the plurality of clasping legs is configured to be attached to the connection portion at a second position (Tang, 822A is attached at 818A, Fig. 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ahmad et al. (US 11066169 B2) teaches a drone with an extendable forklift attachment.
Chundi (US 20190389080 A1) teaches an extendable scissor arm for a drone.
Sills et al. (US 10336543 B1) teaches retrieval of objects using a tether and hoist.
Herlocker (US 20180244389 A1) teaches a detachable capture tool on a drone.
Li et al. (CN 207389544 U) teaches a grabbing attachment for a drone.
Peeters et al. (US 9051043 B1) teaches emergency medical services using unmanned aerial vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 at 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642