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 .
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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
The examiner is aware of the functional/intended use language in the claims.
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 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) is/are:
“a plurality of ground engaging members, an open-air operator area, a group management master controller”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Reference of prior art
Shibata. (US 20190276162, AIRCRAFT PLATFORM).
Araujo et al. (US 20240241520, DRONE-ASSISTED VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM).
Iwase et al. (US 20230221728 , Automatic Travel System For Work Vehicle).
Sekiguchi et al. (US 20250108943, Moving Device And Unmanned Aerial Device).
Tsugawa et al. (US 20200062395, TAKEOFF AND LANDING DEVICE, TAKEOFF AND LANDING SYSTEM, AND UNMANNED DELIVERY SYSTEM).
Getman. (US 20220392672, METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ELECTRICALLY INSULATING A POWER LINE).
Bry et al. (US 20210214068, Image Stabilization For Autonomous Aerial Vehicles).
Bradley. (US 20240111305, UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE EVENT RESPONSE SYSTEM AND METHOD).
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) 1, 2, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata discloses:
A vehicle for use with a drone (item 10), the vehicle comprising:
a plurality of ground engaging members (¶ 0024 and items 16 and 18);
a frame assembly supported by the plurality of ground engaging members (items 14 and 26);
a powertrain operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of ground engaging members (¶ 0024);
a docking station supported the frame assembly and adapted to couple to the drone (¶ 0027).
;and an operator panel coupled with the frame assembly, the operator panel includes: a display (¶ 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Araujo teachings of an operator panel coupled with the frame assembly, the operator panel includes: a display into the Shibata, to provide drone control panels to the operator.
and a group management master controller, the group management master controller configured to: instruct the drone to follow a predetermined path at a distance relative to the vehicle (Araujo ¶ 0032); and receive at least one of video or images from the drone following the predetermined path, the at least one of video or images displayed by the display. (Araujo ¶ ¶ 0046, ¶ 0052, 0057, 0074 and ¶ 0083).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 1, further comprising an open-air operator area supported by the frame including an operator seat and a passenger seat in a side-by-side relationship (Shibata ¶ 0024).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 1, wherein the operator panel includes at least one input which alters a characteristic of the drone (Shibata item 10 and Araujo ¶ 0032, 0033).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 13, wherein the characteristic of the drone is a change in the predetermined path (Araujo ¶ 0032-0034).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo in view of Iwase.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Iwase: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 1, wherein the powertrain further comprises a continuously variable transmission (¶ 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Iwase teachings of the docking station configured to secure the drone thereto and charge the drone when in the home position, wherein the vehicle is in communication with the drone such that the drone selectively lands on the docking station into the Shibata, as modified above, to ensures the best power range for any situation, boosting fuel efficiency, eliminates the need to shift gears when climbing hills and optimize engine power.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo in view of Sekiguchi.
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 1, wherein the docking station in a home position is releasably coupled to the drone (fig. 3A, items H and 10),
However Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Sekiguchi: the docking station configured to secure the drone and charge the drone when in the home position (¶ 0074), wherein the vehicle is in communication with the drone such that the drone selectively lands on the docking station (¶ 0057 and 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Sekiguchi teachings of the docking station configured to secure the drone thereto and charge the drone when in the home position, wherein the vehicle is in communication with the drone such that the drone selectively lands on the docking station into the Shibata, as modified above, to charge the drone securely.
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 4, wherein the docking station includes a first connector and the drone includes a second connector, the first connector and the second connector cooperating to charge the drone when the drone is in the home position (Sekiguchi ¶ 0048, items 103 and 50).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 4, wherein the docking station includes an inductive charger and the drone receives power from the inductive charger when in the home position (Sekiguchi ¶ 0048).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo in view of Sekiguchi in view of Tsugawa.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Tsugawa: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 4, wherein the docking station includes at least one actuator and at least one retainer coupled to the actuator, the at least one retainer engaging a portion of the drone in a locked position to secure the drone to the docking station in the home position (¶ 0047, items 55, 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Tsugawa teachings of the docking station includes at least one actuator and at least one retainer coupled to the actuator, the at least one retainer engaging a portion of the drone in a locked position to secure the drone to the docking station in the home position into the Shibata, as modified above, to secure the drone to the docking station.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 7, wherein the actuator is configured to move the at least one retainer to the unlocked position to release the drone from the docking station (Tsugawa ¶ 0047).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo in view of Sekiguchi in view of Tsugawa in view of Bry.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Bry: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim for use with the drone, wherein the drone further comprises a light and the drone is configured to illuminate a predetermined portion of a path of the vehicle with the light (¶ 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bry teachings of the drone further comprises a light and the drone is configured to illuminate a predetermined portion of a path of the vehicle with the light into the Shibata, as modified above, to reflect off objects in the surrounding physical environment thereby improving the quality of images captured of the surrounding physical environment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo further of in view of Getman.
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The vehicle for use with the drone of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of body panels supported by the frame assembly, wherein the plurality of body panels includes a hood (Shibata fig. 1, unnumbered pert of item 12).
However Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Getman: the docking station is positioned on the hood (¶ 0220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Getman teachings of the docking station is positioned on the hood into the Shibata, as modified above, to provide additional docking station for multiple drones.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18-20, 22-24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo.
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: A system comprising: a first vehicle comprising: a plurality of ground engaging members; a frame assembly supported by the plurality of ground engaging members; a powertrain operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of ground engaging members; a docking station supported by the frame assembly; an operator panel including a display; and a group management master controller operatively in communication to the display of the operator panel; at least one drone operatively coupled to the group management master controller, the at least one drone is configured to: follow a predetermined path away from the first vehicle; and relay at least one of video or images from the drone following the predetermined path, the at least one of video or images displayed by the display.
providing an indication of a position of the drone relative to the first vehicle to the group management master controller, the position of the drone being displayed on the display of the operator panel, the at least one drone configured to selectively dock onto the docking station of the first vehicle.
(Claim 15 is similar in scope to Claims 1 and 12; therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1 and 12).
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 15, wherein the docking station is configured to charge the drone when the drone is coupled with the docking station (Araujo ¶ 0015).
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 15, further comprising a second vehicle operatively coupled to the group management master controller, a position of the second vehicle displayed on the display of the operator panel of the first vehicle (Araujo ¶ 0028, …integrating unmanned aerial drones).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 15, wherein the group management master controller is supported by the plurality of ground engaging members of the first vehicle (Araujo ¶ 0032, items 100, 123).
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: A method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle, the vehicle including a plurality of ground engaging members, a frame assembly supported by the plurality of ground engaging members, at least one controller supported by the frame wherein the drone is operatively coupled to the controller, and an operator panel supported by the frame, the method comprising: releasing the drone from a docking station, the docking station supported by the frame of the vehicle and configured to charge the drone; instructing the drone to follow to a predetermined path, the predetermined path at a predetermined distance relative to the vehicle; and receiving, via the controller, at least one of video or images from the drone, the at least one of video or images displayed by the operator panel of the vehicle.
(Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
Claim(s) 21 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo in view of Bry.
Re claims 21 and 29 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Bry: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 20, further comprising instructing the drone to illuminate a at least a portion of a path of the vehicle (¶ 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bry teachings of comprising instructing the drone to illuminate a at least a portion of a path of the vehicle into the Shibata, as modified above, to reflect off objects in the surrounding physical environment thereby improving the quality of images captured of the surrounding physical environment.
Re claim 22 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses:. A method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of manually controlling usage of a drone with a vehicle, the vehicle including a plurality of ground engaging members, a frame assembly supported by the plurality of ground engaging members, and an operator panel supported by the frame, the method comprising: instructing the drone to move relative to the vehicle using one or more inputs of the operator panel of the vehicle; receiving, via a controller of the vehicle, at least one of video or images from the drone; and displaying with the operator panel of the vehicle the at least one of video or images.
(Claim 22 is similar in scope to Claim 20; therefore, Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 20).
Re claim 23 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 22, further comprising the step of coupling the drone to a docking station, the docking station being supported by the frame of the vehicle (Shibata ¶ 0027).
Re claim 24 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 23, further comprising the step of charging the drone while coupled to the docking station (Araujo ¶ 0015).
Re claim 26 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 22, wherein at least one of a direction and a speed of the drone is controlled through the one or more inputs of the operator panel (Araujo ¶ 0033).
Re claim 27 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 22, further comprising instructing the drone to follow the vehicle (Araujo ¶ 0078, 0081, …the drone returns to its dock).
Re claim 28 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, discloses: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 22, further comprising instructing the drone to scout a path for the vehicle (Araujo ¶ 0030).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Araujo in view of Bradly.
Re claim 25 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Shibata, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Bradly: The method of facilitating usage of a drone with a vehicle of claim 22, wherein the operator panel includes a graphical user interface and at least one of the one or more inputs of the operator panel are part of the graphical user interface (¶ 0125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bradly teachings of an operator panel supported by the frame, the operator panel including a display, the operator panel displaying information collected by the drone into the Shibata, as modified above, to view and/or listen in real-time to things being seen by UAV.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642