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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2 “closable top” should be –a closable top--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Disclosing structure that is “preferably inside the vehicle” fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Thus, the metes-and-bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drones" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the driver" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-13, and 16 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. (USP 9,718,564) and further in view of Sekiya (USPGPUB 2017/0166309).
Regarding claim 1 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. disclose a hybrid integrated delivery system comprising:
a drivable delivery vehicle (140) having a cargo area (150 or 143A);
- a package handling robot (158) installed within the delivery vehicle and under control of a computer control system (240 or 242,244,246) also installed within the delivery vehicle (see column 14 lines 4-55), the package handling robot (158) being configured to search for, identify, pick, reorganize and transfer packages from one location to another location within the delivery vehicle (see Figures 1E-1F);
- one or more cribs (151A,151B or 451A,451B) removably installed in the delivery vehicle cargo area (150 or 143A), each crib containing packages (10-1-10-n) preloaded and stacked into a plurality of partitioned areas of the crib (see Figure 1B), the packages having been preloaded into the crib outside of the delivery vehicle in delivery route sequence (see column 28 lines 53-58);
- a flying delivery drone (170), the delivery drone (170) configured to transport the one or more packages (10-1-10-n) from a drone station (152) within the delivery vehicle to a package delivery location outside but proximate to the vehicle (see Figure 1J), and then return to the drone station (see column 5 lines 1-3); and
- at least one drone station (152), which is a structure or area located in the vehicle (140), preferably inside the vehicle (see Figure 1G), where the drones can wait for the next delivery (see Figures 1E-1H), while the drone station protects the driver from mechanical parts and from noise (see Figure 1A); and
wherein the computer control system (240 or 242,244,246) is configured to cause the package handling robot (158) to collect a package (10-1) needed for a delivery route stop from the crib (151A or 151B) during transit of the delivery vehicle (140) to the delivery route stop (see column 4 lines 30-67 to column 5 lines 1-3).
However, they do not disclose a flying delivery drone having a bin for holding one or more packages. Sekiya discloses a flying delivery drone (1) having a bin (4 or 40) for holding one or more packages (see Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. by including a flying delivery drone having a bin for holding one or more packages, as disclosed by Sekiya, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a transportation receptacle (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. disclose the system of claim 1, in which the computer control system is further configured to cause the package handling robot to deposit the package into either the delivery drone bin (see column 4 lines 17-29), or a driver bin within a cabin of the delivery vehicle and accessible to a driver of the delivery vehicle for manual transport to the delivery location.
Regarding claim 9 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1. Furthermore, Sekiya disclose a system wherein the delivery drone bin (4) comprises closable top, and a hinged lid (see Figure 5), which can be located on the front, rear or side of the delivery drone bin (see Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. by including a system wherein the delivery drone bin comprises closable top, and a hinged lid, which can be located on the front, rear or side of the delivery drone bin, as disclosed by Sekiya, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a transportation receptacle having a hatch and/or parachute housing (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 10 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1. Furthermore, Sekiya disclose a system wherein the delivery drone (1) comprises a plurality of propellers, each said propeller comprising a peripheral ring attached to tips of two or more blades (see Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. by including a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a plurality of propellers, each said propeller comprising a peripheral ring attached to tips of two or more blades, as disclosed by Sekiya, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing rotatable blades for “upward aerodynamic lift” (see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 11 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 10. Furthermore, Sekiya disclose a system wherein the two (see Figure 6) or more blades are oriented asymmetrically with uneven angular spacing therebetween (see two of the three blades “20” in Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. by including a system wherein the two or more blades are oriented asymmetrically with uneven angular spacing therebetween, as disclosed by Sekiya, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing rotatable blades for “upward aerodynamic lift” (see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 12 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 10. Furthermore, Sekiya disclose a system wherein the two (see Figure 6) or more blades are offset from one another axially (see two of the three blades “20” in Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. by including a system wherein the two or more blades are offset from one another axially, as disclosed by Sekiya, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing rotatable blades for “upward aerodynamic lift” (see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 13 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 10. Furthermore, Sekiya disclose a system wherein each propeller further comprises a radial support extending between a propeller hub and the peripheral ring (see the bar-like structure in all four rotors “2” of Figure 1), and a counterbalancing mass positioned where the radial support joins the peripheral ring (see the structure underneath the blades connected to the bar-like structure in all four rotors “2” of Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. by including a system wherein each propeller further comprises a radial support extending between a propeller hub and the peripheral ring, and a counterbalancing mass positioned where the radial support joins the peripheral ring, as disclosed by Sekiya, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing rotatable blades for “upward aerodynamic lift” (see paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 16 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. disclose the wherein the delivery vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (see column 24 lines 54-67 to column 25 lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 2 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. (USP 9,718,564) in view of Sekiya (USPGPUB 2017/0166309) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-13, and 16 above, and further in view of Pursifull et al. (USPGPUB 2023/0391318).
Regarding claim 2 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more solar panels to provide electrical power to the vehicle, wherein the package handling robot and delivery drone can be powered at least in part by the solar panels (see column 15 lines 4-7). However, they do not disclose a system further comprising one or more solar panels mounted on a roof of the delivery vehicle. Pursifull et al. disclose a system further comprising one or more solar panels mounted on a roof of the delivery vehicle (see Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya by including a system further comprising one or more solar panels mounted on a roof of the delivery vehicle, as disclosed by Pursifull et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle with a roof-mounted solar panel (see paragraph [0019]).
Claim(s) 3 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. (USP 9,718,564) in view of Sekiya (USPGPUB 2017/0166309) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-13, and 16 above, and further in view of Boomgaard et al. (USPGPUB 2024/0140629).
Regarding claim 3 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system in which the flying delivery drone comprises a plurality of lift propellers, and one or more rear propellers oriented horizontally. Boomgaard et al. disclose a system in which the flying delivery drone comprises a plurality of lift propellers, and one or more rear propellers oriented horizontally (see Figure 3F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya by including a system in which the flying delivery drone comprises a plurality of lift propellers, and one or more rear propellers oriented horizontally, as disclosed by Boomgaard et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a rear propulsion assembly for autonomous aircraft vehicle (see paragraphs [0060]-[0061]).
Claim(s) 8 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. (USP 9,718,564) in view of Sekiya (USPGPUB 2017/0166309) in view of Boomgaard et al. (USPGPUB 2024/0140629) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-13, and 16 above, and further in view of Helou, JR. (USPGPUB 2014/0217230).
Regarding claim 8 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya and further in view of Boomgaard et al. disclose the system of claim 3. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a set of wheels mounted on the underside of the delivery drone, and wherein the delivery drone may transit over a ground surface by rolling propelled at least in part by the one or more propellers or by exerting a traction directly on the wheels. Helou, JR. disclose a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a set of wheels mounted on the underside of the delivery drone, and wherein the delivery drone may transit over a ground surface by rolling propelled at least in part by the one or more propellers or by exerting a traction directly on the wheels (see Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya in view of Boomgaard et al. by including a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a set of wheels mounted on the underside of the delivery drone, and wherein the delivery drone may transit over a ground surface by rolling propelled at least in part by the one or more propellers or by exerting a traction directly on the wheels, as disclosed by Helou, JR., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a drone with a wheel assembly (see paragraph [0084]).
Claim(s) 5-6 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. (USP 9,718,564) in view of Sekiya (USPGPUB 2017/0166309) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-13, and 16 above, and further in view of Gil et al. (USP 10,730,626).
Regarding claim 5 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system in which the delivery drone is configured for manual wireless piloting from the delivery vehicle to the delivery location by a driver of the delivery vehicle. Gil et al. disclose a system in which the delivery drone is configured for manual wireless piloting from the delivery vehicle to the delivery location by a driver of the delivery vehicle (see column 79 lines 27-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya by including a system in which the delivery drone is configured for manual wireless piloting from the delivery vehicle to the delivery location by a driver of the delivery vehicle, as disclosed by Gil et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing manual control of UAV from a “delivery vehicle computing entity” (see column 79 lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 6 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the drone station comprises a retention mechanism configured to secure the delivery drone within the drone station while the delivery vehicle is traveling. Gil et al. disclose a system wherein the drone station comprises a retention mechanism configured to secure the delivery drone within the drone station while the delivery vehicle is traveling (see column 16 lines 9-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya by including a system wherein the drone station comprises a retention mechanism configured to secure the delivery drone within the drone station while the delivery vehicle is traveling, as disclosed by Gil et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a UAV support mechanism on a vehicle to secure a UAV during travel (see column 16 lines 9-16).
Claim(s) 7 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman et al. (USP 9,718,564) in view of Sekiya (USPGPUB 2017/0166309) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9-13, and 16 above, and further in view of Scherz (USPGPUB 2019/0016476).
Regarding claim 7 (AS BEST UNDERSTOOD), Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya disclose the system of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a rechargeable battery for powering the delivery drone during flight; and the drone station comprises a charging station for the drone. Scherz discloses a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a rechargeable battery for powering the delivery drone during flight; and the drone station comprises a charging station for the drone (see paragraph [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Beckman et al. in view of Sekiya by including a system wherein the delivery drone comprises a rechargeable battery for powering the delivery drone during flight; and the drone station comprises a charging station for the drone, as disclosed by Gil et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a battery charger “to charge a battery of the UAVs” (see paragraph [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: dependent claim 14 discloses, “wherein the hinged lid is configured for release during package delivery, the hinged lid rotating downward to serve as a ramp for offloading of a package from the delivery drone bin to the ground at the delivery spot” which, in combination with the rest of the claim language of claims 1, 9, and 14, teaches a system that is novel over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
M.K.C.
11/7/2025
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655