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 .
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
In line 3 of claim 14, “the battery” is lacking antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by NPL entitled “A UAV mechanism for autonomous landing and transportation of cargo” by Tryggvi, same author as applicant.
It is apparent that the structure that describes the landing and docking system of applicant’s claims 1-3 is clearly disclosed by Tryggvi. See for example paras. 3.2.4 with associated figure 3.6, and para. 3.8 with associated figure 3.2., where there is described and illustrated a ground base platform and docking unit exactly as in applicant’s claims 1 and 2. Said docking unit capable of being remotely controlled, para. 2.2.1. There is also disclosed an electronically controlled mechanism for locking and unlocking the clamping arms, comprising an electro permanent magnet, fig. 3.6. At least one sensor or camera is disclosed, fig. 3.6, for collecting image data, that would be relayed to an inherently existing guidance system as described in applicant’s claim 5. A dampener or suspension mechanism is described in para. 3.2. Further, the mechanism for tilting, as in applicant’s claim 12, is considered to be inherently disposed within any guidance system associated with docking aircraft. Additionally, given the fact that Tryggvi’s UAV is electrically powered, it is inherent that a battery and associated charger, as described in applicant’s claims 9 and 10, exists within its structural makeup.
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) 8, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tryggvi, as described above, in view of Hagan, WO 2020030919 and Erickson, US 20170355459, respectively.
With regard to claim 8, see para. 6, L11-19 or Hagan, where there is described a variety of commonly used image sensors that are obviously capable of being used within a docking system like that of Tryggvi’s.
With regard to claim 14, Erickson describes a similar commonly used energy regenerative arrangement that is obviously capable of being incorporated into a docking system like that of Tryggvi’s.
Therefore, these features do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6914. The examiner can normally be reached normal business hours.
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, Tim 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644