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 .
Response to the applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim 21 and all independent claims are amended to and the primary reference is silent but Blake teaches the amendments of “...the landing pad comprising a landing surface and a moveable member, and having a first position
on a first side of the landing pad and a second position on a second, opposite side of the landing
pad; and
in response to determining that the landing event likely occurred, communicating a
message to cause the landing pad to move the moveable member laterally from the first position
across the landing surface and in a direction approximately parallel to the landing surface toward
the second position to secure the drone”. (see FIG. 1-8 where the drone can land on the landing pad and the landing pad includes a conveyor belt type device to move the drone when it lands laterally into a housing to secure the drone within the housing and see paragraph 75-81 where the drone is moved in a direction into the housing for charging the drone and safe keeping the drones)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of REZVANI with the teachings of BLAKE with a reasonable expectation of success since BLAKE teaches that the landing pad can be a conveyor belt type device. See FIG. 1-8. The drone can be detected as landing and them moved laterally or in a circular manner to provide the drone for protection in the housing and for recharging without being exposed to the elements. See paragraph 75-86 and the abstract of Blake.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210122495A1 to Rezvani et al that was filed in 2020 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190383052A1 to Blake filed in 2019.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 21, and 29 and 37, REZVANI discloses “...21. (New) A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: (see FIG. 4 where the sign is an RFID or magnetic sign being placed on the dock and the sign can provide an indication of where to land and the orientation of the drone when it is docked and the correct way of facing)
PNG
media_image2.png
772
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining whether a landing event between a drone and a landing pad likely occurred; and (see FIG. 6 where the drone is determined to be landing at the ground station in block 602 and then a magnetic field is provided to generate the magnetic field 606 and in paragraph 102 the drone is rotated in the ground station by sequentially operating the magnetic forces on the landing station; see paragraph 21 where the drone is detected as landing on the landing pad and then is rotated so the camera is facing the wall closes to the drone for privacy concerns)
PNG
media_image3.png
492
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in response to determining that the landing event likely occurred, communicating a message to cause the landing pad to secure the drone. (see paragraph 28-32 and 39; FIG. 4 where the drone has a sensor to capture an image of the RFID sensor and then it understands the location to land and can rotate itself before landing and see paragraph 4 where the magnetic is activated to secure the drone on the landing pad so the drone can be localized in position and claims 1-2)
PNG
media_image4.png
656
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 is amended to and the primary reference is silent but Blake teaches the amendments of “...the landing pad comprising a landing surface and a moveable member, and having a first position
on a first side of the landing pad and a second position on a second, opposite side of the landing
pad; and
in response to determining that the landing event likely occurred, communicating a
message to cause the landing pad to move the moveable member laterally from the first position
across the landing surface and in a direction approximately parallel to the landing surface toward
the second position to secure the drone”. (see FIG. 1-8 where the drone can land on the landing pad and the landing pad includes a conveyor belt type device to move the drone when it lands laterally into a housing to secure the drone within the housing and see paragraph 75-81 where the drone is moved in a direction into the housing for charging the drone and safe keeping the drones)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of REZVANI with the teachings of BLAKE with a reasonable expectation of success since BLAKE teaches that the landing pad can be a conveyor belt type device. See FIG. 1-8. The drone can be detected as landing and them moved laterally or in a circular manner to provide the drone for protection in the housing and for recharging without being exposed to the elements. See paragraph 75-86 and the abstract of Blake.
In regard to claim 22 and 30 and 39, REZVANI discloses “..22. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein:
determining whether the landing event between the drone and the landing pad likely occurred comprises determining whether a change in sensor data for the landing event satisfies a change threshold; (see paragraph 28-29 where the approach angle is made for the drone ) and
communicating the message to cause the landing pad to secure the drone is responsive to determining that the change in the sensor data for the landing event satisfies the change threshold. (see FIG. 6 where the drone is determined to be landing at the ground station in block 602 and then a magnetic field is provided to generate the magnetic field 606 and in paragraph 102 the drone is rotated in the ground station by sequentially operating the magnetic forces on the landing station; see paragraph 21 where the drone is detected as landing on the landing pad and then is rotated so the camera is facing the wall closes to the drone for privacy concerns)”.
In regard to claim 23 and 31 and 40, REZVANI discloses “..23. (New) The system of claim 22, wherein determining whether the change in sensor data for the landing event satisfies the change threshold comprises:
determining, using sensor data captured by the drone, whether the change in sensor data satisfies the change threshold. (see FIG. 6 where the drone is determined to be landing at the ground station in block 602 and then a magnetic field is provided to generate the magnetic field 606 and in paragraph 102 the drone is rotated in the ground station by sequentially operating the magnetic forces on the landing station; see paragraph 21 where the drone is detected as landing on the landing pad and then is rotated so the camera is facing the wall closes to the drone for privacy concerns)
In regard to claim 24 and 32, REZVANI discloses “..24. (New) The system of claim 22, wherein determining whether the change in sensor data for the landing event satisfies the change threshold comprises:
determining, using sensor data captured by the landing pad, whether the change in sensor data satisfies the change threshold. (see FIG. 6 where the drone is determined to be landing at the ground station in block 602 and then a magnetic field is provided to generate the magnetic field 606 and in paragraph 102 the drone is rotated in the ground station by sequentially operating the magnetic forces on the landing station; see paragraph 21 where the drone is detected as landing on the landing pad and then is rotated so the camera is facing the wall closes to the drone for privacy concerns)
In regard to claim 25 and 33, REZVANI discloses “..25. (New) The system of claim 21, the operations comprising:
determining whether the drone has engaged charging contacts included in the landing pad; and (see paragraphs 26-30 where the drone can be charged with the contacts on the ground station)
in response to determining that the drone has engaged the charging contacts included in the landing pad, communicating a second message to stop securing the drone. (see paragraph 101 where the charging is completed and the drone can then be repelled using the magnetic devices to spring the drone off the landing pad rather than be attracted and secured to the landing pad)
In regard to claim 26 and 34, REZVANI discloses “..26. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the message to cause the landing pad to secure the drone comprises:
instructions to move a moveable member of the landing pad to secure the drone. (see paragraph 101-102 where the landing pad is secured by the magnets and then is rotated using the magnetic elements)
Claim 26 is amended to and the primary reference is silent but Blake teaches the amendments of “... secure the drone in a second area different than the landing surface”. (see FIG. 1-8 where the drone can land on the landing pad and the landing pad includes a conveyor belt type device to move the drone when it lands laterally into a housing to secure the drone within the housing and see paragraph 75-81 where the drone is moved in a direction into the housing for charging the drone and safe keeping the drones)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of REZVANI with the teachings of BLAKE with a reasonable expectation of success since BLAKE teaches that the landing pad can be a conveyor belt type device. See FIG. 1-8. The drone can be detected as landing and them moved laterally or in a circular manner to provide the drone for protection in the housing and for recharging without being exposed to the elements. See paragraph 75-86 and the abstract of Blake.
In regard to claim 27 and 35, Rezvani discloses “...27. (New) The system of claim 26, wherein the instructions to move a moveable member of the landing pad to secure the drone comprise:
instructions to engage at least a portion of the drone at least partially between the moveable member and at least a portion of the landing pad. (see paragraph 101-102 where the landing pad is secured by the magnets and then is rotated using the magnetic elements to face a wall and then the drone can engage a first and a second charging contact of the ground station in claims 1-7)
In regard to claim 28 and 36, Rezvani discloses “...28. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the system comprises the drone. (see paragraph 101-102 where the landing pad is secured by the magnets and then the drone is rotated using the magnetic elements)
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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights