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 (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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14, 16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “An aerial vehicle capture device”, “A combination”, and “A method” should read “[[An]] The aerial vehicle capture device”, “[[A]] The combination”, and “[[A]] The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “2 to 12”, and the claim also recites “2 to 8” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1-5, 9-10, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gury et al. (US 2021/0240207 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gury teaches
an aerial vehicle capture device (Figs. 11A-13, “top-mounted net assembly”, 1120; discussed in Paras. [0112]-[0134]),
the capture device comprising a capture mechanism comprising at least one restraining arm (Figs. 11a-13, “upright frame members”, 1122a-d),
which is deployed on contact of an associated capture trigger with the target aerial vehicle (“FIG. 13 illustrates control circuits 1384 that include detection circuits 1386, which are configured to detect such a triggering event. Detection circuits 1386 may be formed by dedicated circuits or may be formed by circuits that are configured by firmware or software to perform certain functions. For example, detection circuits may be formed in a flight controller (e.g. flight controller 211) in an AI controller (e.g. AI controller 330) or some other controller in a UAV. Detection circuits 1386 receive signals from one or more cameras 1388, one or more strain gauges 1390, one or more optical sensors 1392, and one or more other sensors (e.g. acoustic sensors, radar, lidar) 1394, which may be attached to a net assembly and/or UAV. Detection circuits 1386 use one or more of these signals to determine when a target drone is intercepted. When this determination is positive (interception is determined to have occurred) one or more actuators 1398 are triggered (e.g. when they receive a predetermined input, they change to from the extended position to the retracted position).”, Para. [0131]), and
in which the at least one restraining arm is deployed from a nominal condition to a capture condition on contact of the associated capture trigger with the target aerial vehicle to restrain the target aerial vehicle (See Para. [0131] above).
Regarding claim 2, Gury teaches in which the capture trigger is associated with the capture device or with a host drone or other host aerial vehicle to which the capture device is connected (As described in Para. [0131] above and shown in Fig. 11A-J).
Regarding claim 3, Gury teaches in which the capture trigger is mechanically actuated by impact with the target aerial vehicle, to deploy the at least one arm to a capture condition (As described in Para. [0131], “actuators 1398”, above and shown in Fig. 11A-J).
Regarding claim 4, Gury teaches in which the capture trigger includes a proximity sensor which causes deployment of the at least one arm to a capture condition when the target is detected (As described in Para. [0131] above and shown in Fig. 11A-J).
Regarding claim 5, Gury teaches in which the capture trigger can be actuated remotely by a user (“FIG. 3 shows an example of an autonomous drone 301 (autonomous quadcopter in this example), which is different to drone 201 in that it is configured for autonomous operation, instead of, or in addition to receiving commands from a remote user.”, Para. [0025]) to deploy the at least one arm to a target aerial capture condition (“FIG. 11G shows electromechanical actuator 1130 that is extended so that arm 1132 extends outwards from the body of electromechanical actuator 1130 to maintain upright frame member 1122b in the open position… Electromechanical actuator 1130 may maintain this position until a signal is received causing electromechanical actuator 1130 to retract arm 1132, thereby allowing elastic component 1126b and other elastic components to rotate the top of upright frame member 1122b inwards about articulating joint 1124b.”, Para. [0126]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Gury teaches comprising 2 to 12, preferably 2-8 arms (Fig. 11A-11J, “upright frame members”, 1122a-d).
Regarding claim 10, Gury teaches in which the arms are formed to inhibit release of a captured aerial vehicle (Best seen in Fig. 11D).
Regarding claim 15, Gury teaches a combination of an aerial vehicle capture device according to claim 1 (Fig. 5a, 550; also see claim 1 above) and a host drone or other host aerial vehicle (Fig. 5a, 101).
Regarding claim 17, Gury teaches a method of capturing a target aerial vehicle (Fig. 5a, 103), the method comprising providing a combination according to claim 15 (See claim 15 above), the method comprising bringing the combination into contact with the target aerial vehicle whereby the capture trigger is actuated to deploy the at least one restraining arm from a nominal condition to a captive condition to restrain the target aerial vehicle (Fig. 11I to Fig. 11J; further described: “FIG. 13 illustrates control circuits 1384 that include detection circuits 1386, which are configured to detect such a triggering event. Detection circuits 1386 may be formed by dedicated circuits or may be formed by circuits that are configured by firmware or software to perform certain functions. For example, detection circuits may be formed in a flight controller (e.g. flight controller 211) in an AI controller (e.g. AI controller 330) or some other controller in a UAV. Detection circuits 1386 receive signals from one or more cameras 1388, one or more strain gauges 1390, one or more optical sensors 1392, and one or more other sensors (e.g. acoustic sensors, radar, lidar) 1394, which may be attached to a net assembly and/or UAV. Detection circuits 1386 use one or more of these signals to determine when a target drone is intercepted. When this determination is positive (interception is determined to have occurred) one or more actuators 1398 are triggered (e.g. when they receive a predetermined input, they change to from the extended position to the retracted position).”, Para. [0131]).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8, 11, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gury et al. (US 2021/0240207 A1) in view of Wypyszynski et al. (US 2018/0105271 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gury teaches in which the capture device is connected with a host drone or other host aerial vehicle (Figs. 11A-11J), but does not expressly disclose in which the actuation of the capture trigger triggers separation of the capture device and the restrained target aerial vehicle from a host drone or other host aerial vehicle to which the capture device is connected.
However, in an analogous drone capturing device art, Wypyszynski discloses in which the actuation of the capture trigger triggers separation of the capture device and the restrained target aerial vehicle from a host drone or other host aerial vehicle to which the capture device is connected (Fig. 5(a) to Fig. 6 wherein the captured drone is released from the host aerial vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gury in which the actuation of the capture trigger triggers separation of the capture device and the restrained target aerial vehicle from a host drone or other host aerial vehicle to which the capture device is connected, as taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a “configuration may optionally be used if the interceptor 100 is unable (or it is not desired) to carry the threat UAS after intercept”, as discussed by Wypyszynski, Para. [0112].
Regarding claim 7, Gury does not expressly disclose which comprises a parachute which is deployed after the aerial vehicle to be captured is restrained, to slow the descent of a captured target aerial vehicle and the capture device.
However, Wypyszynski further teaches which comprises a parachute which is deployed after the aerial vehicle to be captured is restrained, to slow the descent of a captured target aerial vehicle and the capture device (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gury which comprises a parachute which is deployed after the aerial vehicle to be captured is restrained, to slow the descent of a captured target aerial vehicle and the capture device, as further taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a “configuration may optionally be used if the interceptor 100 is unable (or it is not desired) to carry the threat UAS after intercept”, as discussed by Wypyszynski, Para. [0112].
Regarding claim 8, Wypyszynski further discloses in which the parachute is located prior to deployment between the capture device and a connected host drone or other host aerial vehicle (Fig. 6, parachutes shown between the host vehicle and the capture device being tethers/netting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gury in which the parachute is located prior to deployment between the capture device and a connected host drone or other host aerial vehicle, as further taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a “configuration may optionally be used if the interceptor 100 is unable (or it is not desired) to carry the threat UAS after intercept”, as discussed by Wypyszynski, Para. [0112].
Regarding claim 11, Wypyszynski further discloses in which the at least one arm is formed with a plurality of backward facing fingers disposed along one or more arms (Fig. 5(b), a plurality of hooks or backward facing fingers 406 shown along each effector frame arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Gury in which the at least one arm is formed with a plurality of backward facing fingers disposed along one or more arms, as taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation of success, to more easily entangle the target/restrained drone.
Regarding claim 16, Wypyszynski further discloses further comprising a tether (Figs. 5(a)-5(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Gury to further include a tether, as taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a means to entangle and hold onto the target device to be restrained and carried or dropped elsewhere.
Regarding claim 18, Wypyszynski further discloses in which the capture device together with the captured target aerial vehicle detaches from the host drone or other host aerial vehicle (Fig. 5(a) to Fig. 6 wherein the captured drone is released from the host aerial vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Gury in which the capture device together with the captured target aerial vehicle detaches from the host drone or other host aerial vehicle, as taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a “configuration may optionally be used if the interceptor 100 is unable (or it is not desired) to carry the threat UAS after intercept”, as discussed by Wypyszynski, Para. [0112].
Regarding claim 19, Wypyszynski further discloses in which a parachute is deployed to restrain the descent of the capture device and captured target aerial vehicle (See Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Gury in which a parachute is deployed to restrain the descent of the capture device and captured target aerial vehicle, as further taught by Wypyszynski, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a “configuration may optionally be used if the interceptor 100 is unable (or it is not desired) to carry the threat UAS after intercept”, as discussed by Wypyszynski, Para. [0112].
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gury et al. (US 2021/0240207 A1) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0112045 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Gury discloses wherein the capture mechanism comprises a frame and a biasor biasing element (Figs. 7A-8E and 11B shown comprising a frame and described as having springs as a biasor: “dampener 786 is coupled between quick-release component 784 and net assembly 772. Dampener 786 is formed by four semicircular spring elements that provide flexibility in the coupling between net assembly 772 and UAV 770… dampener 786 includes four semi-circular springs 787a-d that are coupled to quick release component 784 and also coupled to a cross-shaped portion 789 with holes for cross bars 791a-b that form the bottom portion of net assembly 772… a hinge mechanism such as hinge mechanism 812 may be actuated to close (e.g. may be spring loaded, pneumatically actuated, electrically actuated, or otherwise moved by some mechanical force). A hinged portion or latch may be spring loaded and latched so that it is unlatched by collision of the target drone and the hinged portion closes or folds down on a target drone (e.g. it may snap closed in the manner of a mouse trap)…Articulating joints 1124a-b allow upright frame members 1122a-b to articulate between the open position of FIG. 11A to the closed position of FIG. 11B and elastic components (or other components such as springs, magnets, pneumatic actuators, electromechanical actuators, or other actuating mechanisms) provide force to move upright frame members 1122a-b and thus move front portion 1120b.”, Paras. [0050], [0065], [0081], and [0114]).
Gury is silent on the use of a slider.
However, in an analogous drone capturing device art, Zhang teaches the use of a slider (“FIG. 5A through FIG. 5D illustrate yet another embodiment of the drone capture device, in which the capturing net is formed by individual threads coiled on multiply deploying reels and slide through guiding rings on the frame arms… FIG. 5C shows the details connections of the threads 506a and 506b. The thread 506a is extended from its deploying reel 504a, slides through the guiding rings 502i, 502b, 502j and 502d (502i and 502j are guiding rings on the adjacent frame arms) in zigzag fashion and finally attached to the middle post 100 or one of the frame arms. The other thread 506b is extended from the deploying reel 504b, and slides through the guiding rings 502l, 502f, 502k and 502h at the other side in same zigzag fashion.”, Paras. [0033] and [0060]; additionally, claims 12 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mechanism of Gury to further include a slider, as taught by Zhang, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “the foldable frame assembly extends to support the foldable capturing net to deploy from its deploying device to reach the largest coverage of capturing, so that the probability of intercepting the targeted UAV is maximized”, as discussed by Zhang, Para. [0039].
Regarding claim 13, Gury discloses wherein the biasor includes a spring (See claim 12 above, disclosed in Paras. [0050], [0065], [0081], and [0114] and Figs. 7A-8E and 11B).
Regarding claim 14, Gury is silent on if the springs are compression or tension springs.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mechanism of Gury wherein the spring is a tension spring, since springs of a variety of types and configurations were art recognized equivalents for providing biasing closed or open capture mechanisms, as discussed by Gury: “a hinge mechanism such as hinge mechanism 812 may be actuated to close (e.g. may be spring loaded, pneumatically actuated, electrically actuated, or otherwise moved by some mechanical force). A hinged portion or latch may be spring loaded and latched so that it is unlatched by collision of the target drone and the hinged portion closes or folds down on a target drone (e.g. it may snap closed in the manner of a mouse trap)…Articulating joints 1124a-b allow upright frame members 1122a-b to articulate between the open position of FIG. 11A to the closed position of FIG. 11B and elastic components (or other components such as springs, magnets, pneumatic actuators, electromechanical actuators, or other actuating mechanisms) provide force to move upright frame members 1122a-b and thus move front portion 1120b.”, Paras. [0081] and [0114]. Further, whether the spring is a compression spring or a tension spring does not appear to be a critical to applicant’s disclosed invention: “Optionally, the biasing element may include a spring. Furthermore, the spring may be a tension spring. A compression spring may be an option, however.”, Para. [0016]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mechanism of Gury to use any type of spring to provide the known normally open or normally closed bias of the capture device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647