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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
“a landing gear,”
“a storage system,”
“a robotic arm housing,” and
“a counterweight housing.”
The structural cooperative relationships between “a landing gear,” “a storage system,” “a robotic arm housing,” and “a counterweight housing” are not clearly understood as to how each structural element is related to other structural element(s). Therefore, other depending claims are confusing and not clearly understood since the applicant fails to clearly define the structural cooperative relationships between “a landing gear,” “a storage system,” “a robotic arm housing,” and/or “a counterweight housing.”
For instance, the depending claim 13 further recites “the actuator is also coupled to the counterweight housing, whereby the actuator is configured to move the counterweight housing backwards when the robotic arm moves forwards.” The recitation of “the actuator is also coupled to the counterweight housing” is confusing and not clearly understood since claim 1 fails to clearly define the structural cooperative relationship between “a counterweight housing” and other element(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11-17 and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravanat (US 2022/0174932) in view of Gil et al. (US 2019/0161190).
RE claims 11 and 12, Ravanat (US 2022/0174932) discloses a mechanism for an unmanned aerial vehicle, the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising a body (see 32, 27, 33, 35 of Fig. 1 and paragraph [0055])) and at least four rotors (see para [0056-0064]) and Fig. 1) coupled to the body, the body comprising an upper side and a lower side opposite the upper side, the rotor configured to generate lift in an upward direction (see para [0006-0013]), the mechanism configured to mount to the lower side of the body, the mechanism comprising: a robotic arm housing (39); a counterweight housing (38 of Figs. 1, 9B, and 9C) (see para [0018], 0019], and [0055]); a robotic arm (61) (see Exhibit A) movably mounted to the robotic arm housing (39) (See Fig. 7A), the robotic arm (61) movable between a retracted position (see para [0077] of Fig. 7B) wherein the robotic arm is folded within the robotic arm housing and an extended position wherein the robotic arm is unfolded (see para [0076] of Fig. 7A) and a distal end of the robotic arm is spaced apart from the robotic arm housing in front of the robotic arm housing; an actuator coupled to the robotic arm to move the robotic arm between the retracted position and the extended position; and an end effector (62, 62) (see para [0076-0077]) coupled to the distal end of the robotic arm, the end effector comprising a gripper with a pair of opposing compressible elements for gripping an object between the pair of compressible elements wherein the robotic arm is configured to move from the retracted position to the extended position such that the distal end of the robotic arm moves along a single straight line (see Figs. 7Aand 7B).
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ravanat’s UAV (US 2022/0174932), as best understood, does not specifically show a landing gear and a storage system.
However, Figs. 4 and 5 of Gil et al. (US 2019/0161190) teach a UAV (100) having a landing gear (116) including skids (see para [0135]) and a parcel carrying mechanism and a housing (210) (see para [0137]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a landing gear and a parcel carrier mechanism and a storage system on the body of Ravanat (US 2022/0174932) as taught by Gil et al. (US 2019/0161190) to provide as a safe landing and stability and also to employ as an object or item to retrieve and hold it to a user.
RE claims 13 and 16, Ravanat’s UAV (US 2022/0174932) shows the actuator (70) is also coupled to the counterweight housing, whereby the actuator is configured to move the counterweight housing (38) backwards when the robotic arm moves forwards (see para [0055]).
RE claims 14-16, Figs. 1, 7A, 7B, 9B, and 9C of Ravanat’s UAV (US 2022/0174932) disclose the actuator (66) (See Fig. 7A) is coupled to the robotic arm (61) via an actuation mechanism wherein the actuation mechanism comprises frame assembly (84, 41, 65) which can be considered as a scotch yoke, wherein the actuator is also coupled to the counterweight housing (38) via the scotch yoke, whereby the actuator is configured to move the counterweight housing in a direction opposite the robotic arm (see para [0055]) when the robotic arm moves between the retracted position and the extended position.
RE claim 17, Fig. 7A of Ravanat’s UAV (US 2022/0174932) teaches a push rod (67), the compliant gripper (62, 62) configured to move from an open position to a closed position in response to pressure on the push rod.
RE claim 19, Figs. 7A and 7B of Ravanat’s UAV (US 2022/0174932) show the robotic arm comprises a linkage, and wherein each link in the linkage (61, 61) comprises an internal open web between the links.
Claim 18, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravanat (US 2022/0174932) and Gil et al. (US 2019/0161190) and further in view of Miyamoto (7,125,059).
Ravanat’s UAV (US 2022/0174932), as presented above, shows grippers (62, 62) powered by an electric motor (66), but does not specifically show a rack and pinion. However, Miyamoto (7,125,059) teaches gripping jaws (21, 21) powered by a rack and pinion (see Col. 7, lines 7-31). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rack and pinion on the actuator and grippers of Ravanat (US 2022/0174932) as taught by Miyamoto (7,125,059) to provide as a smooth gripping process to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deemyad; Taher ‘280 and Chundi; Venkata Rama Subba Rao ‘080 show a UAV equipped with scissor grippers.
Orol; Daniel ‘159 disclsoes a UAV and a gripper with a counterweight.
Other drones or UAV as cited in PTO-892 display a gripper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654