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 language/intended use language in the claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 1-12, 15, 17 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the term “during flight” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. Unclear whether the term means takeoff and landing or without takeoff and landing
Reference of prior art
Tamasato. (US 20200218286, OPERATION SYSTEM FOR WORKING MACHINE).
Shibata. (US 20190276162, AIRCRAFT PLATFORM).
Nishikawa et al. (US 20190106224, STORAGE SYSTEM FOR FLYING OBJECT).
Godzdanker et al. (US 20140124621, INTELLIGENT SELF-LEVELING DOCKING SYSTEM).
Ur. (US 20210279678, Drone Based Delivery System Using Vehicles).
Wankewycz et al. (US 20180245365, DRONE BOX).
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 1-3, 8, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamasato in view of Shibata .
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato discloses:
A moving device comprising: a main body device connected to a working device that is movable at one end and travels by a traveling device (18);
a takeoff and landing unit that is provided on the main body device and used by an unmanned aerial vehicle to take off and land on (16);
However Tamasato, fails to teach as disclosed by Shibata: a leveling unit including a table unit, wherein the leveling unit is provided in the takeoff and landing unit and in which an amount of inclination with respect to a vertical axis is adjustable (¶ 0029, 0036, figs. 3A, 5).
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 Shibata teachings of a leveling unit including a table unit, wherein the leveling unit is provided in the takeoff and landing unit and in which an amount of inclination with respect to a vertical axis is adjustable into the Tamasato, to provide landing pad that is supported on the base and a level sensor that is configured to detect an inclination angle of at least one of the landing pad and the base with respect to a level ground.
And a controller that controls the leveling unit during flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Shibata 82).
On the other hand Tamasato, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for from another end of the main body device toward the leveling unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include from another end of the main body device toward the leveling unit to use a safe area away from the take-off and landing area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato, as modified above, discloses: The moving device according to claim 1, comprising: a detection sensor that detects inclination of the takeoff and landing unit with respect to the vertical axis (Shibata ¶ 0027); wherein the controller controls the leveling unit according to a detection result of the detection sensor (Shibata ¶ 0036 and item 82).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato, as modified above, discloses: The moving device according to claim 2, wherein the controller controls the leveling unit in a case where the unmanned aerial vehicle takes off and lands on and determines whether to drive the leveling unit after landing of the unmanned aerial vehicle, depending on a path travelled by the traveling device (Shibata ¶ 0050, 0061 and item 82).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato, as modified above, discloses: The moving device according to claim 1, wherein the leveling unit is provided with a fluid supply unit that supplies a fluid to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Shibata ¶ 0026).
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato, as modified above, discloses: The moving device according to claim 1, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a rotor blade (Tamasato item 14, Shibata 66), and the controller controls the leveling unit in accordance with an air flow generated by the rotor blades (Shibata ¶ 0036 and item 82 in view of 112 rejection).
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato, as modified above, discloses: The moving device according to claim 1, wherein the working device comprises: a boom having a first end and a distal end, the first end is connected to the one end of the main body device, wherein the boom moves relative to the main body device; an arm rotatably connected to the distal end of the boom; and a working accessory connected to the arm (Tamasato see fig, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz in view of Tamasato in view of Shibata.
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wankewycz discloses: An unmanned aerial device, comprising: a flight device having a propeller (12); a sensor that emits electromagnetic waves to avoid collision (¶ 00318).
and an imaging device that includes a lens to capture an image of the leveling unit wherein the leveling unit is configured to incline a table unit of the leveling unit on which the flight device performs takeoff and landing (¶ 00318, the camera that includes a lens is capable of capturing an image of a leveling unit that inclines a table unit of the leveling unit when directed towards the leveling unit when sending the image to the controller 80, 82 of Shiba to adjust accordingly).
a working device that is connected to one end of a moving device that includes a leveling unit on which the flight device performs takeoff and landing;
(the above portion of Claim 13 is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 13 above is rejected under the same rationale as the above portion of Claim 1).
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wankewycz, as modified above, discloses: The unmanned aerial device according to claim 13, further comprising: a control device that includes a CPU to control a landing of the flight device using the imaging device (Shibata 80, 82, ¶ 0038, 0039, …The controller 80, 82 is operatively coupled to the components of the aircraft platform 26 as appropriate, in a conventional manner, and Wankewycz ¶ 0318).
On the other hand Wankewycz, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for from an other end of the main body device toward the leveling unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include from another end of the main body device toward the leveling unit to use the a safe area away from the take-off and landing area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wankewycz, as modified above, discloses: The unmanned aerial device according to claim 13, wherein the imaging device captures the image of the leveling unit during operation of the leveling unit (Wankewycz ¶ 00318, the camera is capable of capturing an image of a leveling unit during operation of the leveling unit).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamasato in view of Shibata and further in view of Nishikawa.
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Nishikawa: The moving device according to claim 2, wherein: the unmanned aerial vehicle includes an image capturing device that performs image capturing (315),
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 Nishikawa teachings of the unmanned aerial vehicle includes an image capturing device that performs image capturing into the Shibata, to provide an image of the takeoff and landing unit.
the controller prohibits driving of the leveling unit in a case where the image capturing device performs image capturing at the takeoff and landing unit (¶ 0068, … items 80, 82 controls the linear actuators 48R and 48L to level (for the takeoff and landing mode) or to periodically move, therefore the controller is capable of performing the limitation above for a steady and reliable picture).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Nishikawa: The moving device according to claim 1, wherein the leveling unit is provided with a power supply unit that supplies power to the unmanned aerial vehicle (¶ 0042).
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 Nishikawa teachings of the leveling table is provided with a power supply unit that supplies power to the unmanned aerial vehicle into the Shibata, to charge the battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, discloses: The moving device according to claim 5, wherein the table unit has an opening through which wiring of the power supply unit is routed (Nishikawa ¶ 0042, inherently, the leveling table has an opening through which wiring of the power supply unit is routed to the charging unites).
Claim(s) 7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamasato in view of Shibata in view of Nishikawa and further in view of Godzdanker.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Godzdanker: The moving device according to claim 5, wherein: the table unit is provided with a holding portion that holds the unmanned aerial vehicle (160),
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 Godzdanker teachings of the table unit is provided with a holding portion that holds the unmanned aerial vehicle into the Tamasato as modified above, to secure the unmanned aerial vehicle to the leveling table.
and a power reception device of the unmanned aerial vehicle is engaged with the power supply unit (Nishikawa ¶ 0042),
However Tamasato as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except before the holding portion holds the unmanned aerial vehicle. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include before the holding portion holds the unmanned aerial vehicle to shortens the charging time, since Applicant has not disclosed that a power reception device of the unmanned aerial vehicle is engaged with the power supply unit before the holding portion holds the unmanned aerial vehicle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as the invention disclosed by the instant application.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Godzdanker: The moving device according to claim 8, wherein: the table unit is provided with a holding portion that holds the unmanned aerial vehicle (160),
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 Godzdanker teachings of the leveling table is provided with a holding portion that holds the unmanned aerial vehicle into the Tamasato as modified above, to secure the unmanned aerial vehicle to the leveling table.
However Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Nishikawa: a fluid device of the unmanned aerial vehicle is engaged with the fluid supply unit (¶ 0026).
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 Nishikawa teachings of a fluid device of the unmanned aerial vehicle is engaged with the fluid supply unit into the Tamasato as modified above, to shortens the supply time.
On the other hand Tamasato as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except before the holding portion holds the unmanned aerial vehicle. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include before the holding portion holds the unmanned aerial vehicle to shortens the fluid supply time, since Applicant has not disclosed that a power reception device of the unmanned aerial vehicle is engaged with the fluid supply unit before the holding portion holds the unmanned aerial vehicle solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as the invention disclosed by the instant application.
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Nishikawa: The moving device according to claim 11, wherein the first engagement portion is provided with at least one of a power supply unit that supplies power to the unmanned aerial vehicle (¶ 0042).
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 Nishikawa teachings of the first engagement portion is provided with at least one of a power supply unit that supplies power to the unmanned aerial vehicle into the Tamasato as modified above, to charge the battery of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
or a fluid supply unit that supplies a fluid to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Shibata ¶ 0026).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamasato in view of Shibata in view of Godzdanker.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Godzdanker: The moving device according to claim 8, wherein the leveling unit has an opening through which a pipe of the fluid supply unit is routed (¶ 0026, … a refueling or recharging probe that extends from the landing surface to a receiver on the UAV).
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 Godzdanker teachings of the leveling table has an opening through which a pipe of the fluid supply unit is routed into the Tamasato as modified above, to deliver the fluid to the unmanned aerial vehicle.
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Godzdanker: The moving device according to claim 1, wherein: the leveling unit is provided with a first engagement portion engageable with the unmanned aerial vehicle, and the first engagement portion is provided in the leveling unit (115).
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 Godzdanker teachings of the leveling unit is provided with a first engagement portion engageable with the unmanned aerial vehicle, and the first engagement portion is provided in the leveling unit into the Tamasato as modified above, to contact the skids of the unmanned aerial vehicle and center the unmanned aerial vehicle in a predetermined location on the landing surface .
However Tamasato as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for an elastic member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an elastic member to provide soft material the does not cause any damage to the unmanned aerial vehicle, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamasato in view of Shibata in view of Ur.
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Tamasato as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Ur: The moving device according to claim 2, wherein the controller stops the traveling device when the unmanned aerial vehicle lands in the takeoff and landing unit (¶ 0047).
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 Ur teachings of the controller stops the travelling device when the unmanned aerial vehicle lands in the takeoff and landing unit into the Tamasato as modified above, to avoid unsafe performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant made the following arguments:
Examiner respectfully disagrees; Shibata discloses an aircraft platform control system 80 for controlling the aircraft platform 26 that is capable of controlling the leveling unit during flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle since the prior art does not preclude it, please note, Tamasato, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for from another end of the main body device toward the leveling unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include from another end of the main body device toward the leveling unit to use a safe area away from the take-off and landing area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Wankewycz discloses the camera that includes a lens is capable of capturing an image of a leveling unit that inclines a table unit of the leveling unit when directed towards the leveling unit when sending the image to the controller 80, 82 of Shiba to adjust accordingly; thus, the structural limitations of the claims have been met.
Conclusion
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 during office hours. 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