DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits.
Claims 2-21 are examined.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 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.
Claims 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130054054 (“Toll”) in view of US 20150284222 (“Hall”).
As per claim 15 Toll discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a control system of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that the UAV is hovering above a delivery location [¶11 for use with an UAV, ¶ 31 (UAV) 301 is shown at a load pickup location, Fig. 4 (vehicle is hoovering, understood to hoover at locations with payloads, pickups or deliveries)];
operating, by the control system, a tether system of the UAV to lower a payload release mechanism from the UAV on a tether, the payload release mechanism including an enclosure having the payload secured therein [¶ 3 sling (sling is a type of enclosure for a payload), ¶ 39 tethered cable, Fig. 10.];
identifying, by the control system, a proximity of the payload release mechanism to the ground [¶ 41 The computer hook assembly 100… is navigating load 200 towards delivery point 500…. for terminal navigation… transmits this data… steering and altitude commands]; and
responsive to identifying the proximity of the payload release mechanism to the ground, operating, by the control system, the payload release mechanism to release the payload [¶ 41 The hook assembly 100 senses beacon 503 for terminal navigation and transmits this data to the aircraft… An RFID tag at the drop point confirms the drop zone identification (RFID tags are understood to be proximity dependent), When the load is delivered to the drop zone, automatic release… when the hook is unloaded, that is, when the load rests on the ground as determined by the load cell].
Toll is silent to a winch system.
Hall discloses a winch with a spool [Fig. 1, Fig. 34 ] for use with a line (tether)[Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Toll with the teachings of Hall to include line with a spool and parameters for controls in order for controlling payload location with respect to the vehicle and ground for proper delivery for minimizing payload damage and increasing drop zone adaptability.
As per claim 16 Toll discloses further wherein operating the payload release mechanism includes opening a bottom of the payload release mechanism to release the payload [¶ 32 The hook 151 is computer controlled and actuated by a solenoid protected in the retracted position by the hook guard (in order for a hook to release, it has to open, which is at the bottom of the payload release mechanism), Fig. 5.151].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130054054 (“Toll”) in view of US 20150284222 (“Hall”) in further view of US 20160023761 (“McNally”).
As per claim 21 Toll discloses further comprising operating, by the control system, beacon on the payload release mechanism to help identify location as the payload release mechanism is approaching the ground [¶37 The load 200 has a beacon 223 attached allowing the hook assembly to locate the load and send steering commands].
Toll in view of Hall is silent to an audio source to emit an audible warning.
McNally discloses further an audio source to emit an audible warning [¶62 Other identifiers may be used, such as a sound or light beacons, so long as they provide a sensible indication that equipment and personnel can use to move an object 50 into contact with a cable span 96].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Toll in view of Hall with the teachings of McNally to use different identifiers for location assistance involving UAVs for improving identification of desired locations for promoting workflow.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 26 and claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12221213. Additionally, claim 13 is rejected by claim 27. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are systems and a method of the same invention.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11827356. Additionally, claim 17 is rejected by claim 14. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are systems and a method of the same invention.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and/or 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10710722. Additionally, claim 17 is rejected by claim 17. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are systems and a method of the same invention.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 9849981. Additionally, claim 17 is rejected by claim 6. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are systems and a method of the same invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17 and are objected to by dependence.
Claims 2-14 allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, “Toll” (US 20130054054), taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed invention.
While it is well known in the art for payload delivery systems to utilize environmental parameters for target unloading, prior art does not disclose an UAV payload delivery system that uses a spool device that winds a line automated with motor, that adjusts its drop rate to a secondary slower drop rate when a ground is detected to be in proximity of the payload release mechanism.
This is significant because the system provides a suitable delivery line that winds down to an appropriate speed depending on the elevation of the payload to the ground. This allows for increased drop-off efficiency by lowering at a faster rate when there’s a larger clearance and slowing down to allow for a drop off of a payload with minimal impact to the ground for greater payload protection while also increase drop-off speed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
