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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figs. 1-5) and claims 1-14, 17, 18, and 21-24 in the reply filed on 03-31-2026 is acknowledged.
However, claim 17 recites a package locker which is exclusive to non-elected Species III (Figs. 9-10) see package lockers 730,732, Species IV (Figs. 11-13) see package lockers 820,830, and Species V (Figs. 14-16) see package lockers 930,932. Likewise, claim 18 recites a magnetic centering mechanism which is exclusive to non-elected Species II (Figs. 6-8) see [0075], Species IV (Figs. 11-13) see [0098], and Species V (Figs. 14-16) see [0109].
Claims 17 and 18 are thus withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The five page information disclosure statement filed 03-27-2025 includes numerous previously cited documents denoted as “No” under the column “New Cite”. These redundant citations have been annotated with a line drawn therethrough. The remaining citations have been considered.
The twenty-five page information disclosure statement filed 08-26-2024 includes numerous previously cited U.S. documents. These redundant U.S. citations have been annotated with a line drawn therethrough. The remaining citations have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2-7, 11, 12, 8, 1, 1, and 1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1 and 24 of the instant application and claim 1 of the patent each recite a landing station guidance-and-security system; a parcel receiving device (claim 24 only); a first guide-and-security bar; a second guide-and-security bar; a third guide-and-security bar; and a fourth guide-and-security bar.
Claim 2 of the instant application reads on claim 1, line 4, of the related patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application reads on claim 1, lines 13-16, of the related patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application reads on claim 1, lines 9-12, of the related patent.
Claim 5 of the instant application reads on claim 1, line 1, of the related patent.
Claim 6 of the instant application reads on claim 1, line 1, of the related patent.
Claims 7-12 of the instant application clearly read on claims 2-7, respectively, of the related patent.
Claims 13-14 of the instant application clearly read on claims 11-12, respectively, of the related patent.
Claim 21 of the instant application clearly reads on claim 8 of the related patent.
Claim 1 of the related patent discloses all of the limitations of claim 22 of the instant application except for the material of the environmental cover being canvas. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the related patent such that the cover was made of canvas for the inherent material property advantages thereof as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 23 of the instant application reads on claim 1, lines 9-12, of the related patent.
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)(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.
Claims 1-8, 12, 13, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US#2021/0321810).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses a landing station guidance-and-security system 3 comprising four guide-and-security bars 323 (see Figs. 4-5) comprising: a first guide-and-security bar 323; a second guide-and-security bar 323; a third guide-and-security bar 323; and a fourth guide-and-security bar 323.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising an at least one environmental cover 33.
Regarding claim 3 wherein said first guide-and-security bar and said second guide-and-security bar run perpendicular to said third guide-and-security bar and said fourth guide-and- security bar (see Figs. 4-5). See tic-tac-toe bar pattern in Figs. 4-5 wherein a first pair of parallel bars resides directly above (different plane) a second pair of parallel bars which are perpendicular to the first pair.
Regarding claims 4 and 23, wherein said first guide-and-security bar and said second guide-and-security bar are on a first plane, and wherein said third guide-and-security bar and said fourth guide-and-security bar are on a second plane (see Figs. 4-5). See tic-tac-toe bar pattern in Figs. 4-5 wherein a first pair of parallel bars resides directly above (different plane) a second pair of parallel bars which are perpendicular to the first pair.
Regarding claim 5, wherein said landing station guidance-and-security system is integrated into a parcel-receiving device 1.
Regarding claim 6, wherein said landing station guidance-and-security system is configured to attach to a parcel-receiving device 1.
Regarding claim 7, further comprising: a housing (storage apparatus, [0059], lines 25-33) wherein said at least one environmental cover is configured to be retracted into said housing.
Regarding claim 8, wherein said at least one environmental cover is configured to create a slope (angled, see Fig. 1) when in a closed position.
Regarding claim 12, wherein said first guide-and- security bar comprises (i.e. is defined by) at least one “precision rod” (push rod 323 operated via transmission mechanism 322, [0057], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising: an at least one guide track defined by mounting frame 321, Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 24, Sun discloses a method of transferring a package (parcel) between a drone (abstract) and a parcel-receiving device 1), wherein said parcel-receiving device includes a landing station guidance-and-security system 3 comprising four guide-and-security bars 323 (see Figs. 4-5) comprising: a first guide-and-security bar 323; a second guide-and-security bar 323; a third guide-and-security bar 323; and a fourth guide-and-security bar 323.
Claims 1-4, 8, 12, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US#2022/0396373).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a landing station guidance-and-security system 2 comprising: a first guide-and-security bar 806; a second guide-and-security bar 807; a third guide-and-security bar 808; and a fourth guide-and-security bar 809.
Regarding claim 2, further comprising an at least one environmental cover 3.
Regarding claim 3, wherein said first guide-and-security bar and said second guide-and-security bar run perpendicular to said third guide-and-security bar and said fourth guide-and- security bar (Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 4 and 23, wherein said first guide-and-security bar and said second guide-and-security bar are on a first plane, and wherein said third guide-and-security bar and said fourth guide-and-security bar are on a second plane (Fig. 11) as the first plane is directly above the second plane (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, wherein said at least one environmental cover is configured to create a slope when in a closed position via its sloped top surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, wherein said first guide-and-security bar comprises (i.e. is defined by) at least one “precision rod” (connecting rod 806 operated via motorized transmission mechanism 801-805, [0124]).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising: an at least one guide track, namely the slots defined at top surface of landing station 2 guiding sliding movement of the ends of rods 806-809 (e.g. see Figs. 8 and 11).
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.
Claims 9, 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US#2021/0321810).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Sun fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one environmental cover and said first guide-and-security bar are made of metal. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun by utilizing metal for the inherent material properties thereof, such as strength of material, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Further, regarding claim 9, Sun fails to explicitly disclose if the cover is made of a unitary structure or a plurality of pieces (i.e. segmented). However, if not segmented, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun such that cover was segmented for assembly purposes, 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 21, as discussed above with respect to claim 12, Sun discloses wherein said first guide-and-security bar comprises (i.e. is defined by) at least one “precision rod” (push rod 323 operated via transmission mechanism 322, [0057], lines 1-3). Sun fails to disclose wherein said precision rod is made of a magnetic material. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun by such that the precision rod was made of a magnetic material for improved cooperation with the motorized transmission mechanism 322 and/or for improved drone securement, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Sun fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one environmental cover is made of canvas. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun by utilizing canvas for the inherent material properties thereof, such as lightweight and durability, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US#2021/0321810) in view of Cantrell et al. (US#2019/0233135).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sun fails to disclose the landing station guidance-and-security comprising a gutter with downspout. However, as evidenced by Cantrell, such a configuration is known in the landing station art, see [0031], lines 10-13, and the usage of gutters (with inherent downspouts) to guide liquids away from the landing station to a safe containment location. Therefore, as evidenced by Cantrell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun by including a gutter with downspout. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007)). The inclusion of a gutter with downspout would enhance the safety of the landing station.
Claims 9, 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US#2022/0396373).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one environmental cover and said first guide-and-security bar are made of metal. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang by utilizing metal for the inherent material properties thereof, such as strength of material, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Further, regarding claim 9, Wang discloses its cover is segmented as it is made of two cooperating segments 31 and 32.
Regarding claim 21, as discussed above with respect to claim 12, Wang discloses wherein said first guide-and-security bar comprises (i.e. is defined by) at least one “precision rod” (connecting rod 806 operated via motorized transmission mechanism 801-805, [0124]). Wang fails to disclose wherein said precision rod is made of a magnetic material. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang by such that the precision rod was made of a magnetic material for improved cooperation with the motorized transmission mechanism and/or for improved drone securement, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 22, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one environmental cover is made of canvas. However, it would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang by utilizing canvas for the inherent material properties thereof, such as lightweight and durability, as the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights