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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 14-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all claim the same novel arm folding arrangement, etc.
Claims 1-13 and 14-21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,696,414. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all claim the same novel arm folding arrangement, etc.
Claims 1-13 and 14-21 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,530,047. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all claim the same novel arm folding arrangement, etc.
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.
Claim 4 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are unclear with regards to whether the whole landing gear is releasably coupled to the housing or just a portion of the landing gear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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) 1-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang US20200079495 in view of Harris US20160159468.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a housing comprising: a first side; and a second side located opposite the first side (figures 13-14);
a first front arm, located on the first side, with an end being at a first elevational plane when in a closed position; a first back arm, located on the first side, with an end being at a second elevational plane when in the closed position, the second elevational plane higher than the first elevational plane to provide an offset, wherein the first front arm and the first back arm are substantially parallel and nested in the closed position (21s and 23s in figure 19);
a second front arm, located on the second side, with an end being at the first elevational plane when in the closed position; a second back arm, located on the second side, with an end being at the second elevational plane when in the closed position, the second elevational plane higher than the first elevational plane to provide the offset, wherein second front arm and the second back arm are substantially parallel and nested in the closed position (figure 16);
but does not specify and a folding landing gear.
Harris; however, does teach folding landing gear (102/104 of figure 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide folding landing gear, in order to enable the system of Yang to reduce damage to the system during a landing phase.
Regarding claim 2, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1, wherein Yang further teaches the offset allows a portion of the first back arm and a portion of the second back arm to overlap a portion of the first front arm and a portion of the second front arm, respectively, when in the closed position (figure 16).
Regarding claim 3, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1, wherein Yang further teaches each of the first front arm, the first back arm, the second front arm, and second back arm includes a respective motor (as shown in the figures and described in the description).
Regarding claim 4, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1, wherein Harris further teaches the folding landing gear is releasably coupled to an underside of the housing at a location between the first side and the second side (figure 10 shows a portion of the landing gear releasably coupled to an underside of the housing between a first and second side, as best understood by the Examiner).
Regarding claim 5, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1, but do not specify wherein each of the first front arm, the first back arm, the second front arm, and the second back arm are removably coupled to the housing.
However, the arms are inherently “removable” by way of being connected in the first place. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide removable couplers, in order to allow a user to more easily maintain the arms; since even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, because if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 6, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1, wherein Harris further teaches the folding landing gear comprises a plurality of foldable legs (figure 10).
Regarding claim 7, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 6, wherein Harris further teaches the folding landing gear is movable into a landing gear closed position where the plurality of foldable legs are retracted towards an underside of the housing (represented in figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first front arm, the first back arm, the second front arm, and the second back arm are folded against the housing of the unmanned aerial vehicle when in the closed position (figures 18-19).
Regarding claim 9, the references teach an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising: a housing comprising: a first side; and a second side located opposite the first side; a motor system comprising motors; a pair of front arms rotatably coupled to the housing; a pair of rear arms rotatably coupled to the housing, the pair of rear arms being at a height higher than the pair of front arms when in a closed position to provide an offset allowing a portion of the pair of rear arms to overlap a portion of the pair of front arms when in the closed position, wherein the pair of front arms and the pair of back arms are substantially parallel and nested in the closed position, and wherein one of the motors is located on the pair of front arms and another of the motors is located on the pair of rear arms; and a folding landing gear (see previous rejections);
but do not specify a camera system.
However, camera systems are well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a camera, in order to enhance mission capabilities of the system; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 9, but does not specify wherein the camera system includes a camera located at a front of the housing.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a camera as recited, in order to accommodate various mission preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 10, wherein the camera is located between arms in the pair of front arms (see claim 10 rejection).
Regarding claim 12, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 10, but do not specify further comprising: a gimbal that connects the camera to the housing.
However, gimbaled connections are well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a connection, in order to meet mission preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 9, wherein the folding landing gear comprises legs that are movable into a landing gear closed position (see previous rejections).
Claim(s) 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olm US8292215 in view of Harris.
Regarding claim 15, Olm teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a housing comprising: a first side; and a second side located opposite the first side (figure 13);
a first front arm that is movable between an open position and a closed position, connects to the housing at a first end, and includes a motor at a second end (520LF of figures 13-14), wherein the motor is located at a first height in both the open position and the closed position (such as “top” motor best represented at 245 in figure 3);
a first back arm that is movable between the open position and the closed position, connects to the housing at a first end, and includes a motor at a second end (520LR of figures 13-14), wherein the motor is located at a second height in the open position and the closed position (such as “bottom” motor best represented at 245 in figure 3) so that the first front arm and the first back arm are offset relative to one another in the open position (figure 15) and substantially parallel and nested in the closed position (figure 14);
a second front arm that is movable between the open position and the closed position, connects to the housing at a first end, and includes a motor at a second end, wherein the motor is located at the first height in both the open position and the closed position (520RF);
a second back arm that is movable between the open position and the closed position, connects to the housing at a first end, and includes a motor at a second end, wherein the motor is located at the second height in the open position and the closed position (520RR) so that the second front arm and the second back arm are offset relative to one another in the open position (figure 15) and substantially parallel and nested in the closed position (figure 14);
but does not specify and a folding landing gear.
Harris; however, does teach folding landing gear (102/104 of figure 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide folding landing gear, in order to enable the system of Olm to reduce damage to the system during a landing phase.
Regarding claim 16, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 15, further comprising: a camera located between the first front arm and the second front arm (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 17, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 16, further comprising: a gimbal connecting the camera to the housing (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 18, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 15, but do not specify wherein the first back arm and the second back arm rotate in a direction towards a front of the housing.
However, “front” is relative and the rotating axes of Olm clearly comprise the capability to rotation either direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specify such fronts and backs/rotate either direction, as a matter of obvious design choice; since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 15, wherein Olm further teaches the motor on the first back arm and the motor on the second back arm have a same orientation in the open position and the closed position (figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 20, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 15, wherein Olm further teaches the first front arm and the second front arm rotate about an axis so that when moving between the closed position and the open position, the first front arm and the second front arm move around the axis (figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 21, the references teach the unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 15, wherein Harris further teaches the folding landing gear comprises: a plurality of foldable legs that are configured to fold into a recessed cavity (218 of figure 10) within a bottom of the housing so that the foldable legs in a folded position are substantially flush with the bottom of the housing (figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an arrangement, in order to enhance aerodynamic parameters of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644