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 .
Note
Claims 5-6 are labeled withdrawn by Applicant. This appears to be an error. The claims are considered canceled via the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 26 and 29 are objected to because of informalities. Examiner suggests correction in the rejected claims via strike through and underline. Correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Written Description/New Matter
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof since the is not supported by the original disclosure filed 10/26/2024. The original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a designer of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of the design now claimed at the time the application was filed. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for claims 4, 10, 12, 27 and 31, i.e.,
Wherein the high-voltage module is located more proximal to a fuselage of the UAV than the end-effector.
A carbon fiber structure that is configured to resiliently deform in response to an impact force applied in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of an upper arm portion, thereby absorbing at least a portion of the impact energy.
An upper arm portion, lower arm portion or a material selected from the group consisting of: foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3-D printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight structure, that is configured to exhibit an elastic deformation range exceeding that of a solid aluminum structure of identical dimensions, such that the arm portion resiliently deflects and returns to a neutral position in response to a displacement that would cause permeant plastic deformation in said solid aluminum structure.
A beam-like structural section formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3-D printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight structure.
A cable comprising a non-metallic material.
In addition to original claim 10 and 12, what was disclosed in 10/26/2024 is on the specification page numbered 4, in paragraph 2; and the page numbered 7, in paragraph 3, each reproduced here:
In some embodiments, the robotic arm 100 may be constructed as a single, integrated piece with a living hinge incorporated therein. This living hinge may be formed by a flexible section or joint within the arm structure, allowing for articulation between the upper and lower portions of the arm. The living hinge may provide inherent antagonistic actuation, where the flexibility of the material itself acts as a spring, returning the arm to a neutral position after actuation. A cable and actuator system may be used to bend the arm at the living hinge, enabling controlled movement in a vertical plane. This design could offer advantages in terms of simplicity, reduced part count, and potentially lower weight.
The robotic arm 100 could be constructed from various lightweight materials, such as foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, or 3D-printed expanded filament. The use of these materials may help to minimize the weight of the arm, which could be crucial for maintaining the UAV's flight performance.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate (by means of argument or evidence) that the original disclosure establishes that the inventor had possession of the amended claim, or amend the claims to remove the new matter.
Enablement
Claims 10, 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite a carbon fiber structure that is configured to resiliently deform in response to an impact force applied in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of an upper arm portion, thereby absorbing at least a portion of the impact energy, a material selected from the group consisting of: foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3-D printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight structure, that is configured to exhibit an elastic deformation range exceeding that of a solid aluminum structure of identical dimensions, such that the arm portion resiliently deflects and returns to a neutral position in response to a displacement that would cause permeant plastic deformation in said solid aluminum structure; and a material selected from the group consisting of: foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3-D printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight structure.
However, the disclosure does not provide any detail regarding having the specific claimed materials comprising the specific deformation, resilient, deflection properties claimed. Accordingly, the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of such arrangement(s). Particularly because, by definition, many of the materials would not possess the claimed properties, e.g., carbon fiber is designed for stiffness and strength not elasticity and deflection, and balsa wood is not considered suitable for repeated bending cycles and is known to crack and /or permanently deform under large strains.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites a carbon fiber structure configured to resiliently deform. This is indefinite as by definition, carbon fiber is designed for stiffness and strength not elasticity and deflection. It is unclear how exactly the structure is made from carbon fiber and configured to resiliently deform. Correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 21-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gwin (US 10,766,617 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gwin discloses a UAV (Fig. 2) comprising:
a. at least four propellers defining a substantially horizontal plane, the UAV being configured to operate without thrust vectoring (Examiner notes propellers in Fig. 2; the propellers are not configured to tilt; the UAV does not comprise a controller that supports thrust vectoring);
b. a robotic arm having an upper arm portion and a lower arm portion, wherein said upper arm portion and said lower arm portion are configured to articulate relative to each other in a substantially vertical plane (arm 114, Fig. 2; having upper arm portion 118 and lower arm portion 120; Note: lower arm portion comprises 120 and 112 for at least claims 10 and 12),
c. wherein said articulation is remotely actuated (via gripper operator 320 and arm controller 332) and a volumetric intersection of the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion with a union of cylindrical volumes defined by a rotation of the at least four propellers and extending orthogonally downwards from said substantially horizontal plane is empty for at least one configuration of the arm where a distal end of the lower arm portion is at a maximum lateral reach relative to a geometric centroid of the UAV (Examiner notes in the configuration in Fig. 2 the intersection of the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion, i.e., at actuator 136, is outside of the a cylindrical volume defined by the rotation of the at least four of the propellers, and all of the propellers, when the distal end of the lower arm portion is at a maximum lateral reach relative to a geometric ceroid of the UAV, as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 1, wherein the articulation between the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion is configured to be actuated remotely by an actuator through a cable-drive system, cable, or mechanical linkage (the upper arm 118 and the lower arm 120 is configured to be actuated remotely by actuator, i.e., arm controller 322 and gripper operator 320 via mechanical linkage(s) 128, 130, 132, Figs. 2-3), wherein an actuator is positioned:
a. on the proximal half of the upper arm portion, or (134, Fig. 2), or
b. at a base of the upper arm portion (136, Fig. 2), or
c. on or within a fuselage of the UAV on or within a fuselage of the UAV (322, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 2, further comprising a second actuator configured to actuate angular positioning of said upper arm portion in a vertical plane relative to a frame of the UAV (actuator 134; page 11, col. 4, reproduced below).
Regarding claim 7, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim2, further comprising a third actuator configured to actuate angular positioning of said upper arm portion in a horizontal plane relative to a frame of the UAV (Examiner notes the UAV comprises an actuator configured to actuate angular positioning of the upper arm portion in a horizontal plane relative to the frame of the UAV as is evidenced by pg. 11, col. 4, lines 56-67: The first and second and actuators 134, 136 may be actuated to move the first and second arm links 118, 120 and, thus, move the gripper 112 to a desired position. In some examples, the arm 114 includes an additional joint and/or actuator at the second end 128 of the second arm link 120 to rotate the gripper 112 relative to the second arm link 128, thereby providing an additional degree of freedom. In some examples, in addition to being rotatable about the first joint 130 (e.g., a horizontal axis), the first arm link 118 may also be rotatable about an axis extending through the UAV 100 (e.g., a vertical axis) to enable the arm 114 to spin).
Regarding claim 9, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 1, further comprising:
a. an end-effector (gripper 112); and
b. a stereo-imaging system configured to obtain depth information of a target object in the UAV’s surroundings, the stereo-imaging system comprising at least one camera sensor (the system comprising camera system 304, having one or more cameras and sensor system 306 including one or more sensors; pg. 13, col. 7, ln. 33); and
c. a control system configured to position the end-effector in proximity to a detected target object to enable manipulation of said target object (324).
Regarding claim 11, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 2, further comprising an end-effector (gripper 112) configured to be positioned outside the wake of the propellers by adjusting said articulation to an appropriate angle (page 12, col. 5, ln. 14-23: In the illustrated example, the arm 114 has a length such that when the arm 114 is fully extended in a horizontal
direction, the gripper 112 is disposed outside of a circumference of the rotor blades 106. In some examples, disposing the gripper 112 outside of the circumference of the rotor blades 106 ensures the rotor blades 106 are spaced from the object being grasped by the gripper 112. In other examples, the first and/or second arm links 118, 120 may be longer or shorter such that the gripper 112 is disposed closer to or further from the body 102).
Regarding claim 13, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 2, wherein said robotic arm comprises an upper arm linkage and a lower arm linkage connected by a hinge (first joint 132, e.g., a hinge; pg. 11, col. 4, ln. 48), and
wherein said upper arm portion and said lower arm portion are respectively said upper arm linkage and said lower arm linkage (118, 120; Fig. 2), and
wherein said hinge facilitates articulation of said upper arm linkage and said lower arm linkage in a vertical plane (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 21, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 2, further comprising an antagonistic actuation mechanism configured to provide an opposing force to the actuator and to bias the articulation toward a default position, the antagonistic actuation mechanism comprising a member selected from the group consisting of a spring, a rubber band, a flexible material element (i.e., active material), a servo, and a magnet, the member being located either proximate to the joint or at a remote location (Examiner notes an antagonistic actuation mechanism, i.e., an active material that undergoes a change in modulus in response to an activation signal. Depending on the particular type of material to change shape, e.g., deform. The activation signal may be, for example, application of electric current or voltage, a temperature change, UC light, a magnetic field, a mechanical loading or stressing, etc., see column 3, beginning line 16).
Regarding claim 22, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 9, wherein the stereo-imaging system comprises a camera sensor configured to obtain a direct image and a reflected image of a target object, the two images being used to determine depth information about the target object (pg. 13, col. 8, ln. 20: the object detector 328 determines the location of an object based on data from the camera system 304. Additionally or alternatively, the object detector 328 may determine the location of an object based on data from one or more other detection devices on the UAV 100, such as an infrared camera, a photoelectric sensor, etc.).
Regarding claim 23, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 1, further comprising a power-management system including a battery (300) and a controller (remote control for UAV, pg. 13, col. 7, ln. 28) configured to detect a low-power condition of the battery and to initiate an autonomous docking and recharging routine with a docking station (the controller is configured for the limitation via the transceiver 302, as is evidenced by at least pg. 12, col. 6, beginning ln. 30).
Regarding claim 24, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 2, further comprising a power-management system including a battery (300) and a controller configured to detect a low-power condition of the battery and to initiate an autonomous docking and recharging routine with a docking station (Examiner notes the UAV comprises a controller as is evidenced by at least pg. 13, col. 7, beginning ln. 20: the UAV comprises a transceiver 302, operating as a transmitter and receiver, to communicate with another electrical device, such as a remote controller; the controller of the UAV that is configured to detect a low-power condition via the system manager 326 to conserve battery power; see pg. 18, col. 18, ln. 39 ln. 23; Examiner notes pg. 13, col. 7, ln. 23 indicates the battery 300 is rechargeable while connected to the UAV).
Regarding claim 25, Gwin discloses a UAV (Fig. 2) comprising:
a. at least four propellers defining a substantially horizontal plane, the UAV being configured to operate without thrust vectoring (Examiner notes propellers in Fig. 2; the propellers are not configured to tilt; the UAV does not comprise a controller that supports thrust vectoring); and
b. a robotic arm having an upper arm portion and a lower arm portion, the upper and lower arm portions being configured to articulate relative to each other in a substantially vertical plane (arm 114, Fig. 2);
c. wherein at least one of the upper arm portion or the lower arm portion has a thin profile, the term “thin profile” meaning that a side-projected width of the arm or arm portion is not greater than twice its top-projected width, such that aerodynamic drag and propeller-wake interference are minimized (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 25, wherein said articulation is configured to be actuated remotely by an actuator through a cable-drive system, cable, or mechanical linkage (the upper arm 118 and the lower arm 120 is configured to be actuated remotely by an actuator, i.e., arm controller 322 and gripper operator 320 via mechanical linkage(s) 128, 130, 132, Figs. 2-3), wherein the actuator is positioned:
a. on a proximal portion of the upper arm portion (134, Fig. 2), or
b. at a base of the upper arm portion (136, Fig. 2), or
c. on or within a fuselage of the UAV (322, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Gwin discloses a UAV (Fig. 2) comprising:
a. a strut or arm (arm 114, Fig. 2); and
b. an end-effector located at a distal end of the strut or arm (gripper 112, Fig. 2);
wherein the strut or arm is configured to be compliant such that impact forces applied to the strut, arm, or end-effector are transmitted less to the UAV, thereby preventing destabilization (Fig. 3); and
wherein an attachment point of the strut or arm is located:
i. above a plane defined by the propellers, or
ii. laterally to either side of any line connecting two adjacent propellers, or
iii. beneath the plane defined by the propellers (Fig. 2), the propellers being spaced apart such that at least one substantially wake-free region is present beneath the surface defined by the propellers (Examiner notes at least one substantially wake-free region is present beneath the surface defined by the propellers).
Regarding claim 29, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 28, further comprising an articulation point wherein said articulation is configured to be actuated remotely by an actuator through a cable-drive system, cable, or mechanical linkage (the upper arm 118 and the lower arm 120 is configured to be actuated remotely by actuator, i.e., arm controller 322 and gripper operator 320 via mechanical linkage(s) 128, 130, 132, Figs. 2-3; the articulation points being identified at the rotation axis of the respective linkage), wherein the actuator is positioned:
a. on a proximal half portion of the strut or arm (134, Fig.2), or
b. at a base of the strut or arm (136, Fig. 2), or
c. on or within a fuselage of the UAV (322, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 30, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 28, further comprising:
a. a stereo-imaging system configured to obtain depth information of a target object in the UAV’s surroundings, the stereo-imaging system comprising at least one camera sensor (the system comprising camera system 304, having one or more cameras and sensor system 306 including one or more sensors; pg. 13, col. 7, ln. 33); and
b. a control system configured to position the end-effector in proximity to a detected target object to enable manipulation of said target object (324);
wherein the stereo-imaging system comprises a camera sensor configured to obtain a direct image and a reflected image of a target object, the two images being used to determine depth information about the target object (pg. 13, col. 8, ln. 20: the object detector 328 determines the location of an object based on data from the camera system 304. Additionally or alternatively, the object detector 328 may determine the location of an object based on data from one or more other detection devices on the UAV 100, such as an infrared camera, a photoelectric sensor, etc.).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwin, as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of in view of Benedek et al. (US 2021/0251209 A1), previously presented.
Regarding claim 4, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 1, wherein said lower arm portion has an end-effector (112) and the UAV further comprises a high-voltage module,
the high-voltage module being configured to generate a high-voltage potential that is transferred to the end-effector via at least one electrically conducting wire guided along the arm (Examiner notes the UAV comprises a high-voltage module configured to generate a high-voltage potential that is transferred to the end effector via least one electrically conducting wire guided along the guide arm, as is evidenced by the ability to apply an electric current or voltage to the end effector 112, see col. 3, beginning line 20), but does not appear to specifically disclose an end effector configured to kill target insects by means of electrocution or wherein the high-voltage module is located more proximal to a fuselage of the UAV than the end-effector.
However, Benedek teaches a UAV in the same field of endeavor specifically comprising an end effector specifically configured to kill target insects (426 - movable member to eliminate the insect using electrical methods to kill an insect, specifically electrocute per §[0103]; and handling tool 526 may include an electrifying element by which to electrocute the insect, §[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the end effector disclosed by Gwin, with the end effector specifically configured to kill target insects as taught by Benedek, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the lower arm portion has the end effector configured to kill target insects. The benefit being a UAV that may be used to eliminate and/or otherwise handle target insects (Benedek, §[0161]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the UAV so that the high- voltage module is located more proximal the UAV than the end effector, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being a compact and functional design.
Claims 10, 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwin, as applied to claims 1 and 25.
Regarding claim 10, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 1, wherein at least one of said upper arm portion and said lower arm portion comprises structure configured to resiliently deform in response to an impact force applied in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of said arm portion, thereby absorbing at least a portion of the impact energy (Examiner notes active materials 602 and 606 on the lower portion of the arm 112; if Applicant argues against this citation of structure; Examiner alternatively notes deflecting and returning to neutral is inherent to an arm of a UAV, to some degree, and the recitation is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the apparatus, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed given the material of the arm as disclosed), but does not appear to disclose wherein the structure is specifically carbon fiber.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used carbon fiber for at least one of the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The benefit being the ability to choose a material having the predictable benefits of being light-weight, strong, and/or durable and best suited for the intended use of the claimed UAV.
Regarding claim 12, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 1, wherein at least one of said upper arm portion and said lower arm portion is made from a material (Fig. 2),
wherein said arm portion is configured to exhibit an elastic deformation range exceeding that of a solid aluminum structure of identical dimensions, such that the arm portion resiliently deflects and returns to a neutral position in response to a displacement that would cause permanent plastic deformation in said solid aluminum structure (Examiner notes active materials 602 and 606, on the lower portion of the arm 112, configured to exhibit an elastic deformation range exceeding that of a solid aluminum structure of identical dimensions, such that the arm portion resiliently deflects and returns to a neutral position in response to a displacement that would cause permanent plastic deformation in the solid aluminum structure; if Applicant argues against this citation of structure; Examiner alternatively notes deflecting and returning to neutral is inherent to an arm of a UAV, to some degree, and the recitation is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the apparatus, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed given the material of the arm as disclosed), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3D-printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight lattice structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used a material form the group consisting of foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3D-printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight lattice structures. for at least one of the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The benefit being the ability to choose a material having the predictable benefits of being light-weight, strong, and/or durable and best suited for the intended use of the claimed UAV.
Regarding claim 27, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 25, wherein at least one of the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion includes a beam-like structural section formed from a material (118; and 120 with 112) such that the arm exhibits impact-reducing and compliant behavior that prevents destabilization of the UAV (Examiner notes the arm exhibits impact-reducing and compliant behaviors as prevention of destabilization of the UAV during utilization particularly with the arm is inherent for the function of the disclosed UAV), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3D-printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight lattice structures.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used a material form the group consisting of foam board, foamed plastic, polystyrene, 3D-printed expanded filament, expanded polypropylene (EPP), expanded polyethylene (EPE), polyurethane foam, balsa wood, cork, and 3D-printed lightweight lattice structures. for at least one of the upper arm portion and the lower arm portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The benefit being the ability to choose a material having the predictable benefits of being light-weight, strong, and/or durable and best suited for the intended use of the claimed UAV.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwin, as applied to claim 30, and further, in view of in view of Goossen (US 2009/0050750 A1), previously presented.
Regarding claim 31, Gwin discloses the UAV of claim 30, but does not appear to specifically disclose a cable-drive system, wherein the cable-drive system includes a cable, said cable being made from a flexible, non-metallic material.
However, Goossen discloses a UAV in the same field of endeavor including a cable-drive system that inherently comprises a flexible cable (§[0041]: Each of the connections between portions of the manipulator arm 1 may be controllably moved by sending commands to a controller of the manipulator arm 1. The controller may be integrated into the avionics module, or may be a separate controller. The manipulator joints may be driven by servos located at the hinge point, a cable system, pneumatic, or hydraulic pressure. Methods of controlling connections of a manipulator arm 1 are known in the art and not illustrated in FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the UAV disclosed by Gwin with the cable-drive system as taught by, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the UAV comprises a cable-drive system, wherein the cable-drive system includes a cable, said cable being made from a flexible, non-metallic material. The benefit being incorporating a method of driving a manipulator joint that is reliably known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
The claim objections and drawing objections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Examiner notes new instances of claim objection and 112 rejection introduced via the claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642