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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18080072, filed on 02/08/2023.
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “controlling the power supply drone to take off based on the power supply drone coupling to the UAM device” appears to be circular in logic with the limitation requiring the drone to take off based on coupling the drone to the UAM. This does not appear to be how the invention works based on the examiner’s review of the disclosure. How is it that the drone does not take off until it is coupled to the UAM (which is flying)? Reviewing ¶111 of the specification seems to suggest that applicant may intend to claim that the drone takes
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Burgess (US 9580173 B1) or in the alternative over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Thantharate (US 11611937 B1) and Burgess (US 9580173 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Carmack (US 9630712 B1) discloses a method for supplying power to an urban air mobility (UAM) device, the method comprising:
receiving an external power supply request signal from the UAM device in a sky (Carmack, figure 8, item 802, col 3 line 63- col 4 line 10, antennas send signals used to determine when a fixed wing aircraft comes for charging); and
coupling a power supply drone to the UAM device based on reception of the external power supply request signal from the UAM device (Carmack, figure 8, multirotor lifter coupled to the drone after the aircraft is determined to come in for charging);
supplying power to the UAM device by the power supply drone (Carmack, figure 8, item 816, replace power supply); and
a power cable connected to a charging station (Carmack, figure 3, items 308 and 308, col 4 lines 41-44, tether can provide power from a station)
except:
supplying power to the UAM device by the power supply drone through a power cable.
Alternatively, Thantharate (US 11611937 B1) teaches receiving an external power supply request signal from the device in a sky (Thantharate, figure 4, item 410, col 8 lines 39-47, signal from UAV requesting recharging is received).
Carmack and Thantharate are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft recharging. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Carmack with the step of receiving an external power supply request from a flying vehicle of Thantharate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for scheduling and preparations (such as pre-flight checks for the drone) to be performed before the UAM arrives.
Burgess (US 9580173 B1) teaches supplying power to a device by the power supply drone through a power cable (Burgess, col 9, lines 31-51).
Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of UAV charging. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Carmack as modified by Thantharate with the step of supplying power to of Burgess with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the drone weight and allow for more energy to be delivered to the UAM device.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Burgess (US 9580173 B1) or in the alternative over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Thantharate (US 11611937 B1) and Burgess (US 9580173 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagan (US 20210347500 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein coupling the power supply drone to the UAM device comprises the UAM device in the sky (Carmack, figure 8, UAM device in the sky), except:
wherein coupling the power supply drone to the UAM device comprises applying electromagnetic force between the power supply drone and the UAM device in the sky.
Hagan (US 20210347500 A1) teaches coupling a power supply drone to a device including applying electromagnetic force between the power supply drone and the device in the sky (Hagan, ¶75, electromagnetic force applied between the drone and UAM device for aligning the drone while docking).
Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess and Hagan are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft recharging. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess with the electromagnetic docking/coupling system to of Hagan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to correct any docking errors (Hagan, ¶75).
Regarding claim 4, Carmack as modified by Thantharate, Burgess, and Hagan teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein coupling the power supply drone to the UAM device comprises:
aligning a position of the power supply drone with respect to the UAM device by adjusting a magnitude of the electromagnetic force to a first magnitude based on a distance from the power supply drone to the UAM device corresponding to a first distance (Hagan, abstract, ¶75 and claim 39, field strength in electromagnets is varied based on the relative position of the drone to algin the drone); and
bringing the power supply drone into contact with the UAM device by adjusting the magnitude of the electromagnetic force to a second magnitude based on the distance from the power supply drone to the UAM device becoming a second distance that is less than the first distance (Hagan, ¶23, ¶27, and ¶75, field strength in electromagnets is varied based on the relative position of the drone including when docking; field strength at a closer distance would hence be varied; also may be inherent as the electromagnetic force between magnets is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between magnets and the second distance is less than the first distance).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Burgess (US 9580173 B1) or in the alternative over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Thantharate (US 11611937 B1) and Burgess (US 9580173 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yates (US 20160031564 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprises:
controlling the power supply drone to take off based on the power supply drone coupling to the UAM device (Carmack, figure 8, items 808-814, col 12 line 54 - col 13 line 11); and
separating the power supply drone from the UAM device (Carmack, figure 8, item 816, release fixed wing aircraft), except:
separating the power supply drone from the UAM device based on a completion of charging of the UAM device.
Yates (US 20160031564 A1) teaches separating the power supply drone from the UAM device based on a completion of charging of the UAM device (Yates, ¶91).
Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess and Yates are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft recharging. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess with the step of separating the power supply drone from the UAM device based on a completion of charging of the UAM device to of Yates with a reasonable expectation of success in order to charge the UAM and increase the UAM travel range.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Burgess (US 9580173 B1) and Yates (US 20160031564 A1) or in the alternative over Carmack (US 9630712 B1) in view of Thantharate (US 11611937 B1), Burgess (US 9580173 B1), and Yates (US 20160031564 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (US 11459100 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess teaches the method according to claim 3, except:
wherein separating the power supply drone from the UAM device also comprises
controlling at least one of a first electromagnet disposed at the UAM device or a second electromagnet disposed at the power supply drone to thereby arrange same polarities of the first and second electromagnets to face each other.
Lee (US 11459100 B2) teaches wherein separating a drone from a device comprises controlling at least one of a first electromagnet disposed at the device (Lee, figure 7, item 440) or a second electromagnet disposed at the drone (Lee, figure 7, item 340) to thereby arrange same polarities of the first and second electromagnets to face each other (Lee, col 8, lines 30-36, when separating from the landing platform, the electromagnets are controlled to have the same polarities creating a repulsion force).
Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess and Lee are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft recharging. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Carmack as modified by Thantharate and Burgess with the arrangement of electromagnets and the step of controlling the electromagnets to arrange the same polarities to face each other as in Lee with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the rate of separation and avoid a collision between the UAM and the drone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sperber (DE 102020200194 A1) teaches a drone that rendezvous with a secondary drone; a tether provides power to secondary drone
Smith (US 20210354821 A1) teaches a drone that rendezvous with a secondary drone; a tether provides power to secondary drone – tether is attached to a boat rather than a station
Ricci (US 20170136897 A1) teaches a car which can request recharging from a recharging station (¶130)
Miller (US 20190344679 A1) teaches a method using drones to recharge a car when a car sends a signal requesting a recharge
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 Michener can be reached at (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 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights