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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4 are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 1400 second exchange unit.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are:
Transport mission apparatus in claim 1. Structures described in the specification include general cargo, artillery shells [See at least Par. 0014].
First exchange unit in claims 1 and 2. Structures described in the specification include a first fitting holder and first securing coupler on a lower surface of the main body [See at least Par. 0010].
Second exchange unit in claims 1 and 3. Structures described in the specification include a second fitting holder and second securing coupler on an upper surface of the payload (transport mission apparatus) [See at least Par. 0011].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 2020/0045229).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee et al. discloses:
An unmanned aerial vehicle provided with a detachable transport mission apparatus, [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numerals 100 (unmanned aerial vehicle) with 130 (detachable box); Par. 0001, 0028] the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a main body; [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 101 (main body); Par. 0030, 0031]
a transport mission apparatus detachably coupled to the main body to transport a certain item; [See at least Fig. 5, Ref. Numeral 130 (detachable box)]
a first exchange unit provided to a lower side of the main body to be coupled to or uncoupled from the transport mission apparatus; [See at least Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 112 and 110 (frame and locking portions to couple and uncouple from box 130] and
a second exchange unit provided to an upper side of the transport mission apparatus to be coupled to or uncoupled from the first exchange unit. [See at least Fig. 4, Ref. Numeral 131 (coupling ring)]
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2020/0045229) in view of SZ DJI Technology (DE 2020/14011083).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. discloses:
The device according to claim 1, wherein the first exchange unit comprises:
a first securing coupler disposed on the lower surface of the main body and comprising at least one first securing hole. [See at least Fig. 3, Ref. Numeral 110 (locking part, securing coupler) with securing hole]; Par. 0031-0034]
While Lee et al. discloses a removable payload for a drone with fitting and securing components, Lee et al. does not explicitly disclose the fitting and securing components as physically separate components with a second set of components for fitting separate from the securing components on each of the drone and payload. With respect to these limitations, SZ DJI Technology, directed to the same technology — unmanned aerial vehicles with interchangeable payloads — teaches:
a first fitting holder protruding from a lower surface of the main body; [See at least Figs. 1 and 11G, Ref. Numeral 110, 1100 (mounting platform, 1100 is details of 110), mounting base 1122 (Fig. 11G) attached to lower surface of drone main body as shown by 110 attached to 104 (Fig. 1); Par. 0001, 0016, 0038, 0056] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee et al. to incorporate the teachings of SZ DJI Technology and combine the second set of components for fitting separate from the securing components on each of the drone and payload with the removable payload for a drone with fitting and securing components of Lee et al. The second set of components for fitting separate from the securing components on each of the drone and payload of SZ DJI Technology allows independent alignment and adjustment of the fitting versus securing components, enabling increased adjustability and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the second set of components for fitting separate from the securing components on each of the drone and payload of SZ DJI Technology with the removable payload for a drone with fitting and securing components of Lee et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the removable payload for a drone with fitting and securing components of Lee et al. and the features of the second set of components for fitting separate from the securing components on each of the drone and payload of SZ DJI Technology would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of SZ DJI Technology because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (unmanned aerial vehicles with interchangeable payloads), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. discloses:
The device according to claim 2, wherein the second exchange unit comprises:
a second securing coupler disposed on the upper surface of the transport mission apparatus and comprising at least one second securing hole. [See at least Figs. 3 and 4, Ref. Numeral 131 (ring of payload box) with second securing hole; Par. 0034-0036]
SZ DJI Technology teaches what Lee et al. lacks:
a second fitting holder disposed on an upper surface of the transport mission apparatus and defining a fitting hole therein; [See at least Fig. 11G, Ref. Numeral 1120; Par. 0141] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee et al. to incorporate the teachings of SZ DJI Technology as discussed above, see claim 2.
For examination purposes, the cavity-tab characteristics (where the tab fits into/within the cavity) of the U or C-shaped fitting of Lee et al. have been construed as equivalent to the instant as a mere reversal of parts. Whether the tab portion is attached to the drone or the payload (or vice versa) has no effect on the fitting’s function, which is to couple the payload to the drone body via a tab and cavity configuration.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 2020/0045229) in view of SZ DJI Technology (DE 2020/14011083) and further in view of Morgan (US 2019/0276129).
Regarding claim 4, SZ DJI Technology teaches:
The unmanned aerial vehicle according to claim 3,
wherein the first fitting holder is inserted into the fitting hole formed in the second fitting holder, [See at least Fig. 11G, Ref. Numerals 1122 and 1120; Par. 0141] and
While Lee et al. and SZ DJI Technology teach fitting holders fitted together and securing couplers which lock, they do not teach the securing holes aligned colinearly. With respect to these limitations, Morgan, directed to the same technology — aerial vehicles with interchangeable payloads — teaches:
the first securing hole and the second securing hole are disposed to face each other such that a center of the first securing hole and a center of the second securing hole are collinearly located. [See at least Par. 0009, 0012]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee et al. and SZ DJI Technology to incorporate the teachings of Morgan and substitute the colinearly alignment into the securing couplers of Lee et al. Colinearly aligned holes for payload release (often with pins) are well-established and widely used in aircraft and aeronautics applications, with controllable alignment and connection points for a wide range of payloads.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to substitute the colinear alignment of Morgan into the securing couplers of Lee et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the colinear alignment of Morgan and the securing couplers of Lee et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Morgan because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (unmanned aerial vehicles with interchangeable payloads), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner's Note
High level of generality in the claims: Examiner notes, the claims as currently written present limitations at a high level of generality, while the drawings and specification illustrate specific configuration(s). Incorporation of explicit details of the configuration(s) with structural details and/or functions in the claims could provide additional details which may lead to distinguishing features over the prior art of record.
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 1000-2000 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights