DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “and wherein said plane is positioned in an oblique angle such that the first portion is in higher level than said second portion”. This limitation is awkwardly and unclear (i.e. “an oblique angle” with respect to what? What is being claimed by “in higher level”? Level of what?). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 9 are objected to as depending from a base claim with an objection.
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 6-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a first portion of said plane extending outwardly from a first side of the door and sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion, wherein a second portion of said plane extending outwardly from a second side of the door and sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion”. This limitation is unclear, as it is unclear how the “second portion of said plane” is “sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion” (i.e. how does the second portion of the plane accommodate the drone when the drone parks on the first portion of the plane? What exactly is Applicant claiming with this limitation?).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kajgana (US 10,588,440)
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kajgana discloses a drone portal integral to a door [for a drone to transit through the portal]* comprising: an opening in the door, [shaped and sized to allow a transit of a drone through the opening]*; and a channel comprising: a flat plane (Figure 7, element 7) attached to a lower side of the opening, wherein a first portion of said plane extending outwardly from a first side of the door (considered left side of door as viewed from Figure 7, Examiner notes the door as shown includes numerous “sides”) and [sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion]*, wherein a second portion of said plane extending outwardly from a second side of the door (considered interior side of door) and [sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion]*, and wherein said plane is positioned in an oblique angle (See Figure 7) such that the first portion is in higher level than said second portion [allowing the drone to slide by gravity along said channel and through the opening]*; wherein the portal has no moving parts (Examiner notes that element 5 is a sliding lid that is separate and distinct from the “portal”).
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the door disclosed by Kajgana is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 7, Kajgana discloses wherein the two or more levels includes the one or more shelf, each of the one or more shelves is adjacent to the opening and each shelf having walls extending upwardly the shelves. Examiner notes that the structure of Figure 3 of Kajgana includes “one or more shelf” in the same way as Applicant.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kajgana discloses wherein at least a portion of the portal is covered with a material that is one or more of sound proofing, cushioning, a woven fabric, and a flexible tufted fiber. Examiner notes the material used for construction of element 1 is necessarily capable of “sound proofing” to an undisclosed extent.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid et al. (US 4,969,292) (hereinafter Reid).
Regarding claim 1, Reid discloses a drone portal integral to a door [for a drone to transit through]* the portal comprising: an opening in the door (See Figure 8), [shaped and sized to allow a transit of a drone through the opening]*; and a channel in said opening (See Figure 8) comprising a first shelf (See Figure 1 below) extending from a first side of the door, adjacent to, and in a first level lower than a lower side of the opening, and sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first shelf; a second shelf (See Figure 1 below) extending from a second side of the door, adjacent to, and in a second level lower than the lower side of the opening, [and sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said second shelf]*. Although the embodiment of the portal shown in Figure 8 includes a movable “flap-securing mechanism 46”, Reid discloses portal configurations without a movable locking feature (See at least Figures 3 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a portal integral to a door, as shown in Figure 8, without the “flap-securing mechanism 46”, since a portal as shown in Figure 8 without a latching feature would be desirable to particular users and applications where a lock is not needed or desired, and since it is prima facie obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of results (MPEP 2143(E)), and simply removing the latching device of Figure 8 would have been a predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of results. Examiner additionally notes that flap (See Figure 1 below) is considered sperate and distinct from the “portal” (i.e. “doorway” or “entrance”, See definition for “portal” below), since the “flap” is considered to be a device that covers or blocks the “portal” and is therefore not part of the “portal” itself, and therefore the portal of Reid includes no moving parts
PNG
media_image1.png
296
126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Reid et al. (US 4,969,292), Figure 8 (Examiner Amended))][AltContent: textbox (First Shelf)][AltContent: textbox (Second Shelf)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flap)][AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: textbox (Elevated Portion)]
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the door disclosed by Reid is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
por·tal
(pôr′tl)
n.
1. A doorway, entrance, or gate, especially one that is large and imposing.
2. An entrance or a means of entrance:
3. The portal vein.
4. A website considered as an entry point to other websites, often by being or providing access to a search engine.
adj.
1. Of or relating to the portal vein or the portal system.
2. Of or relating to a point of entrance to an organ, especially the transverse fissure of the liver, through which the blood vessels enter.
Source: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/portal
Regarding claim 2, Reid discloses wherein each of the first shelf and the second shelf having a wall extending upwardly from a distal end of the respective shelf (See Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Reid discloses wherein the channel has at least one higher levated portion, dividing the channel between the first shelf and the second shelf (See Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, [wherein the opening is shaped and sized to allow the drone to transit through said opening with activated rotor for moving through the opening]*. Examiner notes that the portal of Reid is capable of this intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Reid discloses wherein at least a portion of the portal is covered with a material that is one or more of sound proofing, cushioning, a woven fabric, and a flexible tufted fiber. Examiner notes the “portal” of Reid is at least partially covered by a separate flap (element 43) which is necessarily made from a material used capable of “sound proofing” to an undisclosed extent.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanjohi (US 2014/0190081) in view of Percy (US 2,027,491).
Regarding claim 1, Wanjohi discloses a drone portal integral to a door for a drone to transit through the portal comprising: an opening in the door, [shaped and sized to allow a transit of a drone through the opening]*; and a channel in said opening (considered open path through open top of element 24 and through opening of element 10) comprising a first shelf (considered bottom surface of element 24, See at least Figures 4 and 6) extending from a first side of the door, adjacent to, and in a first level lower than a lower side of the opening (See at least Figures 4 and 6), and [sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first shelf]*; wherein the portal has no moving parts (Examiner notes that the portal has no moving parts. Examiner further notes that sliding panel and lock are explicitly indicated as being optional, See at least paragraph [0025], “A panel 18 may be attached and slide along the slot 12 of the frame 10. A securing device may be connected to the frame 10 and the panel 18”).
Although Wanjohi does not explicitly illustrate a second shelf extending from a second side of the door, adjacent to, and in a second level lower than the lower side of the opening, [and sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said second shelf]*, Examiner notes that Percy teaches that it is known in the art to configure a portal integral to a barrier that includes a first shelf extending from a first side of the barrier, and a second shelf extending from a second side of the barrier (Figure 1, elements 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the portal of Wanjohi such that it includes a duplicate second shelf, similar to the first shelf but mounted to the reverse side of the door, as taught by Percy, since it would be desirable and beneficial for particular applications of the system to include a “receptacle” feature (element 24) on both exterior and interior sides of the door (i.e. in the event that it is desired to have a pick-up and a drop-off receptacle), and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the door disclosed by Wanjohi is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, Wanjohi as modified for claim 1 above teaches wherein each of the first shelf and the second shelf having a wall extending upwardly from a distal end of the respective shelf (See Figure 4, considered cage portion extending upward from the base of element 24).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Wanjohi as modified for claim 1 above teaches wherein the channel has at least one higher elevated portion, dividing the channel between the first shelf and the second shelf (See Figure 6, considered portion of element 10 located directly above lower element 26, as shown in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, [wherein the opening is shaped and sized to allow the drone to transit through said opening with activated rotor for moving through the opening]*. Examiner notes that the opening of Wanjohi is entire capable of the intended use statement above.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Wanjohi discloses wherein at least a portion of the portal is covered with a material that is one or more of sound proofing, cushioning (See paragraph [0029], “the receptacle 24 may be made of plastic, metal with rubber coating or the like”), a woven fabric, and a flexible tufted fiber.
Claims 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over High et al. (US 2019/0300202) (hereinafter High) in view of Wanjohi (US 2014/0190081).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, High discloses a drone portal integral to a barrier [for a drone to transit through the portal]* comprising: an opening (area of elements 25 and 32) in the barrier, [shaped and sized to allow a transit of a drone through the opening]*; and a channel comprising: a flat plane (Figure 1B, at least element 30) attached to a lower side of the opening, wherein a first portion of said plane extending outwardly from a first side of the barrier (considered portion of “a chute or slide system” on side including element 12, see at least paragraph [0015]) and [sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion]*, wherein a second portion of said plane extending outwardly from a second side of the door (portion of element 30 on side of barrier opposite element 12) and [sized to accommodate the drone while parking on said first portion]*, and wherein said plane is positioned in an oblique angle (See Figure 1B) such that the first portion is in higher level than said second portion [allowing the drone to slide by gravity along said channel and through the opening]*; wherein the portal has no moving parts (Examiner notes that the “portal” is considered the “a chute or slide system” that traverses through the barrier. Examiner notes that the “portal” is stationary and any “moving parts” (i.e. trap door 24, etc.) are considered separate from the “portal” which is considered simply the “doorway” or “entrance”. The device blocking the “doorway” or “entrance” is considered separate from the “doorway” or “entrance” itself. See definition for “portal” above).
Although the portal of High is shown for use with a wall of a building rather than a door, Wanjohi teaches that it is known in the art to configure a package delivery system for use with a door including a portal integral to the door, the portal comprising: an opening in each of the side of the door facing the inside of the door and the side facing the outside of the door; a channel (considered open path through open top of element 24 and through opening of element 10) between the openings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the portal of High such that it is mounted on a door rather than a wall, since a door mounted system would be less invasive than alteration of an exterior wall, which would be preferable for some users, and since the system of High would function as intended when configured for use with a door. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Examiner’s note: *The above/below statements in brackets are examples of an intended use statement that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to the structure of a door, the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the door disclosed by High is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 7, High discloses wherein the first portion has a wall extending upwardly from a distal end of the first portion (see Figures 1A and 1B, considered side portions of element 12 as shown. Although the second portion (area of element 30 as shown in Figure 1B) does not illustrate a wall extending upwardly from a distal end of the second portion, Examiner notes that Wanjohi teaches that it is known in the art to configure a package delivery system that includes a wall extending upwardly from a distal end of an interior portion of a side surface (See at least Figure 1, element 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the area of element 30 of High such that the distal end of element 30, as shown in Figure 1B, includes a wall extending upwardly, as taught by Wanjohi, as this would retain the delivered package, and prevent the package from falling off the “chute or slide”, which could potentially prevent the delivered package from incurring damage, which would be desirable to both the deliverer and receiver of the package. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, or substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 9, High discloses wherein at least a portion of the portal is covered with a material that is one or more of sound proofing, cushioning, a woven fabric, and a flexible tufted fiber (See paragraph [0013], “For example, the receiving structure 12 can be constructed from any building material, including, but not limited to, concrete, wood, metal, plastic, a composite material, or any combination of these materials”. Examiner notes that any of “concrete, wood, metal, plastic, a composite material” are considered to provide some amount of “sound proofing”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Wanjohi's receptacle is not part of the opening itself and does not form a channel through which a drone transits”. Examiner disagrees. See rejection for claim 1 above. Examiner additionally notes that “a channel through which a drone transits” is an intended use limitation, and the prior art must only be capable of meeting the structural recitation in order to be applicable, and in this case, the examiner maintains that the door disclosed by Wanjohi is entirely capable of the intended use statement. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding the argument “Most importantly, Wanjohi affirmatively teaches away from a structure having "no moving parts."”. Examiner disagrees and notes that Wanjohi explicitly states that the panel 18 is not required (See at least paragraph [0025], “A panel 18 may be attached and slide along the slot 12 of the frame 10. A securing device may be connected to the frame 10 and the panel 18). Additionally. Panel 18 is not considered to be part of the “drone portal integral to a door” as applied in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, the panel 18 is not considered to be part of the “portal” (i.e. “doorway” or “entrance”. See definition for “portal” above), but rather a cover for the portal that is separate, distinct, and optional.
Regarding the argument “There is no articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would modify Wanjohi's secure, movable delivery door by incorporating High's drone-related teachings in a manner that would remove Wanjohi's core moving components”. Examiner notes that this argument is entirely unclear as Wanjohi is not modified by High, but rather High is modified by Wanjohi in both Non-Final Rejection filed 10/01/2025 and above.
Regarding the argument “Kajgana relates to drone landing stations and docking structures, typically separate from doors, that are designed for controlled landing, charging, or storage of drones.”. This argument is entirely unclear. Kajgana does not relate to drone landing stations and docking structures, typically separate from doors, that are designed for controlled landing, charging, or storage of drones. Kajgana is directed to a “delivery box built in garage door” such that the “housing of the delivery box has an optionally sloped floor” as is recited in the Abstract and explicitly illustrated in the Figures.
Regarding the argument “Kajgana does not disclose a gravity-driven transit plane integrated into a door opening,”. Examiner disagrees. Figure 7 of Kajgana explicitly illustrates “a gravity-driven transit plane integrated into a door opening”. See column 3, lines 23-27, “the garage door 2, with the housing 1 with a floor 7 sloped towards the output opening E for delivering packages 9 into the collection box 10”.
Regarding the argument “Reid contains no disclosure of shelves extending from both sides of a door opening, nor any structure adapted to support an unmanned aerial vehicle on either side of the door.”. Examiner disagrees. See rejections of claims 1-5 above.
Regarding the argument “Reid likewise relies on movable closure elements, such as doors, flaps, or panels, that selectively open and close an aperture”. Examiner disagrees. See rejections of claims 1-5 above.
Regarding the argument “Reid does not contemplate bidirectional drone parking on opposed sides of a door, nor does it address drone transit at all”. Examiner notes that all limitations directed to “bidirectional drone parking” and “drone transit” are intended use and functional, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
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 JUSTIN B REPHANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/JUSTIN B REPHANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights