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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 appears to be missing a word after the comma: “…device according to claim 1, the catcher has a…”. Examiner has assumed Applicant intended to recite a word such as “wherein” after the comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “when the flight vehicle descends to the landing point, the catcher is brought close to the attachment from a lateral direction and is engaged with the attachment.” which is indefinite because a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen et al. (US 20210129729 A1), hereinafter Cohen.
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses a landing assist device comprising:
a cart (vehicle 120; fig. 1) that is movable on a landing point of a flight vehicle (120 is movable via its wheels on a landing point of drone 148; fig. 5); and
a catcher (base 141; fig. 5) that is disposed on the cart (120) and is engageable with an attachment (base 141 engages with the main body of drone 148 as shown in fig. 2) attached to the flight vehicle (148), wherein
when the flight vehicle (148) descends to the landing point (landing point as shown in fig. 2), the catcher (141) is brought close to the attachment from a lateral direction (141 is brought close to the main body of 148 by extending laterally as illustrated in figs. 1-2) and is engaged with the attachment (main body of 148).
Regarding claim 3, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1, comprising a sensor (The vehicle may include at least one sensor for sensing the drone while flying, and/or during takeoff and/or during landing and/or when positioned in any position, and/or when moved between the inside position and the outside position. The sensor may belong to the vehicle. A sensor may be included in the aerial unit. ; [0059]) that detects a positional relationship between the attachment (main body of 148) and the catcher (141).
Regarding claim 6, Cohen discloses a landing assist method comprising:
bringing a catcher (141) disposed on a cart (120) close to a flight vehicle (148) when the flight vehicle (148) descends to a landing point (landing point as shown in fig. 2); and
engaging the catcher (141) with an attachment (main body of 148) attached to the flight vehicle (148).
Regarding claim 7, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1, wherein the flight vehicle (148) comprises a drone (The aerial unit may be a drone… ; [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1, wherein a length of the catcher (141) is greater than a length of the attachment (fig. 2 shows 141 extending beyond either side of the main body of 148, meaning the length of 141 is greater than the main body of 148).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 3, wherein the sensor comprises an infrared sensor or a camera (The aerial unit may be a drone that is equipped with a payload that may include one or more sensors that can be used for observation… ; [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 4 & 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210129729 A1) in view of Ortiz et al. (US 20180354649 A1), hereinafter Ortiz.
Regarding claim 4, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose it comprising an extendable portion that moves the catcher in an upper-lower direction.
However, Ortiz in the field of drone recovery systems (title) teaches an extendable portion (hardware 205/206; fig. 4) that moves the catcher (retractable platform 204; fig. 4) in an upper-lower direction (A retractable platform 204 can he move to a position outside of the housing 201 via hardware 205/206, similar to the hardware discussed with respect to FIG. 1. In the present embodiment, the platform is provided in the form of a lift (up/down) rather than a sled (horizontal panel movement in/out). ; [0062]).
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 landing assist device disclosed by Cohen with the extendable portion taught by Ortiz with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of elevating the catcher above the rest of the cart to ensure the flight vehicle can safely land without impacting other structures of the cart.
Regarding claim 11, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose it further comprising an extendable portion capable of adjusting a height of the catcher that is disposed on the cart.
However, Ortiz teaches an extendable portion (205/206) capable of adjusting a height (A retractable platform 204 can he move to a position outside of the housing 201 via hardware 205/206, similar to the hardware discussed with respect to FIG. 1. In the present embodiment, the platform is provided in the form of a lift (up/down) rather than a sled (horizontal panel movement in/out). ; [0062]) of the catcher (204).
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 landing assist device disclosed by Cohen with the extendable portion taught by Ortiz with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of elevating the catcher above the rest of the cart to ensure the flight vehicle can safely land without impacting other structures of the cart.
Regarding claim 12, modified Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 11, wherein the extendable portion (205/206 taught by Ortiz) is disposed on the cart (120) and the catcher (141) is disposed on an upper portion of the extendable portion (As taught by Ortiz, the modification according to the rejection of claim 11 places the catcher on an upper portion of the extendable portion- see Ortiz fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 11, wherein the extendable portion (205/206 taught by Ortiz) comprises at least one of a hydraulic cylinder, a pneumatic cylinder, or an electric cylinder (Ortiz discloses hydraulic, pneumatic, or electromechanical methods of moving 205/206: Mechanical movement can be facilitated from the mechanical controller 106 by any one of, or a combination of, hydraulic, pneumatic, electromechanical, electromagnetic systems. ; [0051]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210129729 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the cart moves on a rail.
However, Cohen states “The vehicle may be any type of vehicle.” In [0071].
Cohen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the cart moves on a rail. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle to comprise a rail-mounted train car, since the equivalence of the illustrated vehicle 120 and a rail-mounted train car for their use in the landing assist device art and the selection of any known equivalents to vehicle 120 would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The benefit provided by a rail-mounted train car is improved fuel efficiency compared to a wheeled vehicle used on/off road.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20210129729 A1) in view of McGeer et al. (US 20130161447 A1), hereinafter McGeer.
Regarding claim 10, Cohen discloses the landing assist device according to claim 1 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the catcher has a comb-shaped structure.
However, McGeer in the field of apparatus for retrieval of a hovering aircraft (title) teaches wherein the catcher (rails 5; fig. 1) has a comb-shaped structure (rails 5 have a comb-shaped structure comprising teeth 8; fig. 1).
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 landing assist device disclosed by Cohen with the comb-shaped structure taught by McGeer with a reasonable expectation of success to provide the benefit of restraining the flight vehicle upon the catcher to ensure it does not fall off (When the aircraft's measured position and velocity are appropriate, the aircraft descends promptly, or the rails promptly rise, such that a wing or other spanwise component on the aircraft engages teeth or like restraints on the rails. The teeth restrain the aircraft in position and orientation, and the rails bring the aircraft to rest while complying sufficiently to prevent overstressing the aircraft or base apparatus. ; [0007])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant’s claimed invention. Specifically, with regard to claim 2, Cohen discloses a landing assist device comprising:
a cart (vehicle 120; fig. 1) that is movable on a landing point of a flight vehicle (120 is movable via its wheels on a landing point of drone 148; fig. 5); and
a catcher (base 141; fig. 5) that is disposed on the cart (120) and is engageable with an attachment (base 141 engages with the main body of drone 148 as shown in fig. 2) attached to the flight vehicle (148), wherein
when the flight vehicle (148) descends to the landing point (landing point as shown in fig. 2), the catcher (141) is brought close to the attachment from a lateral direction (141 is brought close to the main body of 148 by extending laterally as illustrated in figs. 1-2) and is engaged with the attachment (main body of 148).
However, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically wherein the catcher has a coil-spring shape, and engages the attachment between windings of a coil spring.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant' s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Kunz et al. (US 10513350 B1) discloses capture devices for unmanned aerial vehicles.
Shaw (US 11518511 B2) discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle recovery system including a cart.
Lowenberg et al. (US 20230131957 A1) discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle capture system including a cart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER ALBERT TARASCHI whose telephone number is (703)756-4727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM-6:30PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/P.A.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642