DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 01/17/2025, 03/12/2025 and 01/12/2026 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 36, line 3: the term “a UAV” should be rewritten as --the UAV-- for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. Claim(s) 31-32 and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tirpak et al. (US 2018/0039286 A1), hereinafter “Tirpak”, as cited on the IDS filed on 01/17/2025.
6. Regarding 31, Tirpak discloses a method of docking an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract and para. [0045]; method of landing UAV on docking station as seen in FIGS. 1-4B), the method comprising:
determining a pose of a first fiducial located on an outer surface of a dock (para. [0049]; determining a pose of the fiducial 122-1 on an outer surface of docking station 120 which includes a plurality of fiducials 122 by the processing apparatus 311 based on the one or more images captured by processing apparatus 311);
causing the UAV to fly to a first position in a vicinity of a landing surface of the dock based on the pose of the first fiducial (paras. [0004]-[0005] and [0050]; based on the position of the fiducial 122-1, controlling the propulsion mechanism 312 to hover to a first location such as a general location of dock 120 via processing apparatus 311 as seen in FIG. 4A);
determining a pose of a second fiducial located on the landing surface (para. [0049]; determining a pose of the fiducial 122-2 on landing pad 121 of docking station 120 which includes a plurality of fiducials 122 by the processing apparatus 311 based on the one or more images captured by processing apparatus 311;
causing the UAV to land on the landing surface based on the pose of the second fiducial (paras. [0004]-[0005] and [0050]; based on the position of the fiducial 122-2, controlling the propulsion mechanism 312 to hover to a first location such as a general location of dock 120 via processing apparatus 311 as seen in FIG. 4A); and
automatically charging the UAV while the UAV is on the landing surface (para, [0053]; charging battery of UAV while on landing pad 121 as seen in FIG. 4B).
7. Regarding Claim 32, Tirpak discloses the method of claim 31, wherein automatically charging the UAV includes causing electrical contact between the UAV and conducting contacts on the landing surface (para. [0043]).
8. Regarding Claim 35, Tirpak discloses the method of claim 31, further comprising:
hovering the UAV above the landing surface until error estimates are met. (paras. [0051]-[0052]; hovering and making hover adjustments at the predetermined height above the landing surface in the state where the tether has been extended while utilizing the image sensor as well as ranging measurements to determine engagement between the tether and the landing surface 121 prior to landing the UAV as characterized in FIGS. 4A-4B, therefore allowing the UAV to hover at the predetermined height until error estimate for a pose and velocity of the UAV meet stability conditions).
9. Regarding Claim 36, Tirpak discloses a method of docking an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract and para. [0045]; method of landing UAV on docking station as seen in FIGS. 1-4B), the method comprising:
hovering a UAV above a landing surface of the dock until stability conditions are met (paras. [0051]-[0052]; hovering and making hover adjustments at the predetermined height above the landing surface in the state where the tether has been extended while utilizing the image sensor as well as ranging measurements to determine engagement between the tether and the landing surface 121 prior to landing the UAV as characterized in FIGS. 4A-4B, therefore allowing the UAV to hover at the predetermined height until error estimates for the UAV meet stability conditions);
and causing the UAV to land on the landing surface upon meeting the stability conditions (para. [0052]; controlling the propulsion mechanism to descend and touch down on the landing surface 121 once the tether and the landing surface 121 have been successfully engaged as characterized in FIG. 4B).
10. Regarding Claim 37, Tirpak discloses the method of claim 36, wherein hovering the UAV above the landing surface includes hovering the UAV at a predetermined height above the landing surface (para. [0051]; hover the UAV at a predetermined height such as a height between the UAV and landing surface 121 that is limited to the length of an extended tether as characterized in FIG. 4A).
11. Regarding Claim 38, Tirpak discloses the method of claim 36, further comprising:
analyzing a first fiducial located on an outer surface of the dock during an initial approach (paras. [0003]-[0005], [0020], [0050]; accessing one or more images taken by image sensor 315 by processing apparatus 311 and analyzing fiducial 122-1 from a set of images taken from landing surface 121 which includes a plurality of fiducials 122 in determining relative positioning of the UAV relative to the dock 120; and
analyzing a second fiducial located on the landing surface prior to hovering the UAV above the landing surface (paras. [0003]-[0005], [0020], [0050]; accessing one or more images taken by image sensor 315 by processing apparatus 311 and analyzing fiducial 122-2 from a set of images taken from landing surface 121 which includes a plurality of fiducials 122 in determining relative positioning of the UAV relative to the dock 120).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 21-22, 33-34 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirpak et al. (US 2018/0039286 A1), in view of Zambelli (US 2019/0367185 A1), as cited on the IDS filed on 01/17/2025.
14. Regarding Claim 21, Tirpak discloses a method of docking an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract and para. [0045]; method of landing UAV on docking station as seen in FIGS. 1-4B), the method comprising:
controlling a propulsion mechanism of the UAV to cause the UAV to approach a dock (paras. [0004]-[0005] and [0050]; controlling the propulsion mechanism 312 to hover to a first location such as a general location of dock 120 via processing apparatus 311 as seen in FIG. 4A);
a landing surface of the dock to facilitate landing of the UAV (paras. [0051]-[0052]; landing surface 121 facilitating landing of the UAV);
analyzing a first fiducial located on the landing surface based on one or more images captured by the UAV (paras. [0003]-[0005], [0020], [0050]; accessing one or more images taken by image sensor 315 by processing apparatus 311 and analyzing fiducial 122-1 from a set of images taken from landing surface 121 which includes a plurality of fiducials 122 in determining relative positioning of the UAV relative to the dock 120); and
controlling the propulsion mechanism to cause the UAV to land on the landing surface based on analysis of the first fiducial (para. [0052]; based on the position of the fiducial 122-1, the processing apparatus 311 controls the propulsion mechanism 312 to descend and land the UAV on the landing surface 121).
Tirpak is silent regarding adjusting a landing surface of the dock to facilitate landing of the UAV.
Zambelli discloses a method of docking an unmanned aerial vehicle (Zambelli Abstract and para. [0064]) comprising adjusting a landing surface of the dock to facilitate landing of the UAV (para. [0065] and [0085]; adjusting platform 16 of landing station 15 to facilitate landing of drone 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 16A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tirpak as taught by Zambelli such that the method comprises adjusting a landing surface of the dock to facilitate landing of the UAV in order to compensate for navigational errors during landing operations, enabling reliable landing and compensating for environmental disturbances such as wind gusts.
15. Regarding Claim 22, modified Tirpak discloses (see Tirpak) the method of claim 21, further comprising:
Analyzing a second fiducial on the dock based on the one or more images (paras. [0003] and [0050]; detecting fiducial 122-2 in one of the images taken by image sensor 315 by the processing apparatus 311).
16. Regarding Claim 33, Tirpak discloses the method of claim 31.
Tirpak is silent regarding adjusting the landing surface.
Zambelli discloses a method of docking an unmanned aerial vehicle (Zambelli Abstract and para. [0064]) comprising adjusting a landing surface (para. [0065] and [0085]; adjusting platform 16 of landing station 15 to facilitate landing of drone 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 16A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tirpak as taught by Zambelli such that the method comprises adjusting a landing surface in order to compensate for navigational errors during landing operations, enabling reliable landing and compensating for environmental disturbances such as wind gusts.
17. Regarding Claim 34, modified Tirpak discloses (see Zambelli) the method of claim 33, wherein adjusting the landing surface includes adjusting the landing surface along an axis extending in generally orthogonal relation to a landing direction of the UAV (paras. [0065], [0085] and as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 16A).
18. Regarding Claim 39, Tirpak discloses the method of claim 36.
Tirpak is silent regarding opening a door of the dock; and adjusting the landing surface.
Zambelli discloses a method of docking an unmanned aerial vehicle (Zambelli Abstract and para. [0064]) comprising opening a door of the dock; and adjusting a landing surface (para. [0065], [0085]; opening barrier 17 and adjusting platform 16 of landing station 15 to facilitate landing of drone 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 16A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tirpak as taught by Zambelli such that the method comprises opening a door of the dock; and adjusting a landing surface in order to compensate for navigational errors during landing operations, enabling reliable landing and compensating for environmental disturbances such as wind gusts as well as preventing an inadvertent collision between the UAV and the door during landing operations.
19. Regarding Claim 40, modified Tirpak discloses (see Zambelli) the method of claim 19, wherein adjusting the landing surface includes adjusting the landing surface along an axis extending in non-parallel relation to a landing direction of the UAV (adjusting platform 16 along an axis extending in non-parallel relation to landing direction of drone 1 as clearly seen in FIGS. 2-4).
Double Patenting
20. 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.
21. Claims 21-22, 24, 26-31 and 33-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 11 and 17, of U.S. Patent No. 12,296,981. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1 and 6 and 9. Further, claim 22 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 2 and 6. Further, claim 24 of the pending application is encompassed by patent claims 3. Further, claim 26-30 of the pending application are each individually encompassed by patented claim 4. Further, claim 31 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1-3 and 5. Further, claim 33 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claim 1. Further, claim 34 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claim 1. Further, claim 36 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1 and 5 as well as claims 11 and 17. Further, claim 37 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1 and 4 as well as claims 11 and 17. Furthermore, claim 38 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1 and 4.
While the limitations of the above-mentioned claims of the pending application are worded differently, the limitations of the above-mentioned patented claims anticipate the limitations of the pending claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-30 are 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 as well as overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set for this in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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 J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642