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.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous, 35 USC 103(a) rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
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.
Reference of prior art
Gil et al. (US 20180155032, METHODS FOR PICKING UP A PARCEL VIA AN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE).
Curlander et al. (US 20170175413, MULTI-LEVEL FULFILLMENT CENTER FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES).
Gillett. (US 20190369641, ROBOT AND DRONE ARRAY).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-15, 20, 23, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gil.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
A drone (or unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV) port comprising:
(a) one or more mobile or transport robot(s) (or rovers) (figs. 1, 30 and 32 items 500, 612);
(b) a drone/UAV landing, take-off or drop-off (LTD) area or zone (¶ 0010, 0011);
(c) optionally, one or more lifts(s) (¶ 0217-0219);
(d) one or more corridor(s) or transport channels and/or a (multi-level) network (fig. 30, item 502) optionally comprising:
(i) one or more substantially vertical channels (such as a lift shaft) suitable for transport of a drone, preferably to a garaging, charging and/or LTD area (¶ 0233);
(ii) a storage area or zone (such as a locker space), suitable for storing one or more (such as incoming and/or outgoing) parcels (or payloads or packages) (¶ 0233);
(e) a computer and/or collaboration server suitable for communication with one or more robots, corridors and/or drones (¶ 0159, fig. 46, items 802, 800);
and/or (f) one or more processors and/or sensors, suitable for location, identification and/or tracking of one or more parcel (s) and/or one or more drone (s) (¶ 0327 and 0231).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 comprising one or more UAV loading and/or unloading zones or areas (fig. 39 depicts the limitation).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port claim according to claim 1 [[or 2]] comprising one or more storage areas for storing one or more parcels and/or one or more drones (fig. 39 depicts the limitation). .
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 which additionally comprises one or more charging areas or zones or one or more drones (fig. 39 depicts the limitation). .
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 wherein the corridors are substantially horizontal and/or substantially vertical (fig. 30, item 502).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 which comprises a building (¶ 0115, 0204).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 wherein the one or more robot and/or drone are substantially automated and/or collaborate with each other (¶ 0217-0225).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 additionally comprising one or more sensors and/or processors, suitable to locate, identify and/or track one or more parcel (s) and/or one or more drone (s) (¶ 0327 and 0231). .
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone (or UAV) port comprising at least one transport robot (or rover) that is capable of loading and/or unloading a parcel (or package or payload) onto or from a drone (or UAV) and capable of transporting or moving a drone (or UAV) to and/or from a landing/take-off/drop-off (LTD) zone or area.
(Claim 11 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 11 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 11 wherein the one or more robot(s) and/or drone(s) collaborate with each other and/or are automated (¶ 0217-0222).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 11 additionally comprising a computer and/or processor that is able to locate, identify and/or track one or more robot(s) and/or one or more drone (s) (¶ 0327 and 0231). .
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 11 additionally comprising a storage area for one or more parcel(s) and/or a storage area for one or more drone (s) (fig. 39 depicts the limitation). .
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1additionally comprising one or more re-charging stations (for the one or more robot(s) which is able to transport one or more parcel(s) to and/or from a storage area or UAV), optionally with an (electrical) power source (fig. 39 depicts the limitation).
Re claim 23 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 22 wherein the communication system is wireless (fig. 46 depicts the limitation).
Re claim 24 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 22 comprising a visual marker and/or transmitting/receiving system to allow location and/or orientation of the one or more robots to be determined (¶ 0214).
Re claim 26 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 22 additionally comprising means to contact, lift or elevate a drone (fig. 30, items 500, 502).
Re claim 27 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 comprising at least one conveyer means adapted to push, pull or otherwise move a parcel, either towards or away from the one or more robots and/or towards or away from a drone (¶ 0217-0222).
Re claim 28 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1, wherein the corridors are lift shafts (fig. 30, 32 items 502, 612, 610 and ¶ 0225).
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) 9, 10, 12, 16-19 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil and further in view of Curlander.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 1 wherein at least one robot is able to transport a drone to and/or from a landing/take-off/drop-off (LTD) zone or area (¶ 0038 and figs. 1B, 1C).
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 Curlander teachings of at least one robot is able to transport a drone to and/or from a landing/take-off/drop-off (LTD) zone or area into the Gil, to assist human operators and/or operate autonomously to perform at least some tasks.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 1 wherein the one or more robots are adapted to load and/or unload (or remove) a parcel from a drone/UAV (¶ 0030, 0031 and figs. 1B, 1C).
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 Curlander teachings of a robot is adapted to load and/or unload (or remove) a parcel from a drone/UAV into the Gil, to assist human operators and/or operate autonomously to perform at least some tasks.
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 11 wherein the one or more robot(s) and/or drone(s) are housed or located in a building (figs. 1A, 1B, items 108, 124).
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 Curlander teachings of t the one or more robot(s) and/or drone(s) are housed or located in a building into the Gil, to provide safe and secured environment for the robot(s) and/or drones.
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 11 additionally comprising the one or more robot(s) which is able to transport one or more parcel(s) to and/or from a storage area (¶ 0038 and figs. 1B, 1C).
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 Curlander teachings of the one or more robot(s) which is able to transport one or more parcel(s) to and/or from a storage area into the Gil, to provide safe and secured environment for the robot(s) and/or drones.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 11 which additionally comprises a drone landing, take- off and/or drop-off (LTD) zone (figs. 1A, 1B, items 106).
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 Curlander teachings of a drone landing, take- off and/or drop-off (LTD) zone into the Gil, to provide convenient a drone landing, take- off and/or drop-off (LTD) zone in the drone port.
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 1 which is modular and/or capable of expansion (¶ 0062, … the movable UAV platforms 802).
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 Curlander teachings of which is modular and/or capable of expansion into the Gil, to provide convenient location on the drone port according to the needs of operation.
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port according to claim 1 wherein the one or more robot(s) which is able to transport one or more parcel(s) to and/or from a storage area are automated, collaborate and/or the port is scalable (¶ 0225, 0286).
However Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: the port is scalable (¶ 0062, … the movable UAV platforms 802).
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 Curlander teachings of which is modular and/or capable of expansion into the Gil, to provide convenient location on the drone port according to the needs of operation.
Re claim 25 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Curlander: The drone port according to claim 22 wherein at least one robot is able to load and/or unload a UAV and/or transport a parcel (or package or payload) (¶ 0030, 0031 and figs. 1B, 1C).
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 Curlander teachings of a drone landing, take- off and/or drop-off (LTD) zone into the Gil, to provide safe and secured environment for the robot(s) and/or drones.
Claim(s) 21, 22 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil and further in view of Gillett.
Re claim 21 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Gillett: The drone port according to claim 1 wherein the one or more robot(s) which is able to transport one or more parcel(s) to and/or from a storage area robot(s) are artificially intelligent and/or are able to learn and/or train themselves (¶ 0045, 0051, 0066 and 0070).
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 Gillett teachings of the one or more robot(s) which is able to transport one or more parcel(s) to and/or from a storage area robot(s) are artificially intelligent and/or are able to learn and/or train themselves into the Gil, to have a level of artificial intelligence to accomplish the handling objectives pertaining to complex tasks and to interactively work for users.
Re claim 22 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil discloses:
The drone port comprising one or more robot(s), wherein the or each robot is able to service a drone (or UAV) and/or transport a parcel (or package or payload) and comprises:(a) a chassis, suitably with one or more wheels and/or motors;(c) a sensor;(d) a battery or electrical supply; and/or (e) a communication system.
(Claim 22 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 22 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
However Gil fails to teach as disclosed by Gillett: a camera (abstract and ¶ 0056)
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 Gillett teachings of a camera into the Gil, for scanning surrounding objects in an environment to improve the delivery process.
Re claim 29 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description Gil, as modified above, discloses: The drone port according to claim 22, wherein the sensor is a visual sensor (Gil ¶ 0153).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; Gil discloses the transport robot 612, 500 that can be independently movable of other features of the drone port as seen in figs. 30, 32, however the word independently not in the claims.
The prior art in the rejection uses loading robot(s), a robot controller including at least one processor and at least one memory including program code, the at least one memory and the program code configured to, with the processor, cause the loading robot to at least engage a parcel carrier coupled to a UAV positioned above the return portal, remove the parcel carrier from a UAV chassis of the UAV, move the parcel carrier from the return portal to a rack positioned in the interior compartment, and engage the parcel carrier with the rack of the interior compartment as recited in the Gil reference, …the parcel delivery vehicle 10 may be autonomous and …An automated parcel/parcel carrier connection system 600 (¶0225).
All the structural limitations of the claims have been met.
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