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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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.
Claims 1-37 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a cargo drone” in line 2, despite previously introducing “A passenger drone” in line 1. It is unclear if this recitation in line 2 intends to reference the previous recitation of “a passenger drone” or intends to introduce a new, additional “cargo drone.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-37 fail to cure the deficiency.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" (line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 3, 5, 7-9, 12-13, 15-18, 20, 23-24, 26, 29, 33, and 35-37 are similarly rejected for the use of “preferably”. Claims 2, 4, 6, 10-11, 14, 19, 21-22, 25, 27-28, 30-34 fail to cure the deficiency.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "can be" (lines 3 and 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, or are functional limitations. Claims 7, 10, 14-17, 20, 22-24, 34, and 37 are similarly rejected for the use of “can be”. Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-13, 18-19, 21, 25-33, and 35-36 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “a safety bar is arranged…to the at least one chair”. This is indefinite because the scope of “arranged” is unclear. Is the safety bar attached to the at least one chair? Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-3, 9, and 22 are similarly rejected for the use of “arranged”.
The term “mostly” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mostly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much of the chair and/or hanger are/is made of the fiber-reinforced plastic, for example. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the seating area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "at least one, preferably all, rotors of the cargo drone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear how the at least one cover could be between only one rotor of the drone, for example. Is there an embodiment where the cover could be between one rotor, and not the others? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the operator unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitations of Claim 1 in lines 1-7, despite previously introducing these limitations in claim 1. It is unclear if the first 7 lines of claim 24 intend to reference the previous recitations of claim 1, or intend to introduce a new arrangement in addition to the drone of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 37 is similarly rejected.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "when picking up at least one winter sports enthusiast" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 29 is similarly rejected.
Claim 23 recites “when picking up at least one winter sports enthusiast…the hanger…is separated from the cargo drone.” It is unclear how the drone can pick up the enthusiasts if the hanger and chair are separated from the drone. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the at least one base station". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-11, 14, 16-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zosel (DE 102013108204 A1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Zosel discloses a passenger drone for transporting winter sports enthusiasts with strapped-on winter sports equipment (1, Fig. 4, examiner notes 1 is capable of transporting this type of passenger), with a cargo drone (1, Fig. 4), wherein a hanger (top portion of 8, Fig. 6), can be fastened, preferably in a releasable manner, to the cargo drone (Figs. 4-5, examiner notes 8 is releasable), wherein at least one chairlift chair for at least one winter sports enthusiast can be fastened, in particular directly, to the hanger (bottom seat portion of 8, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim1,wherein a footrest is arranged and/or fastened on the at least one chair (footrest on front of 8, Fig. 6), preferably on a safety bar arranged on the at least one chair and/or on the hanger (footrest on front of 8 as lower part of 8, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim1,wherein the hanger has a curved shape at least in sections (top of 8 is curved, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein the seating area of the at least one chair is at least partially open to the outside (Fig. 5) and/or is at least partially surrounded by a rod.
Regarding Claim 9, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein a parking device is arranged on the chair and/or on the hanger (landing gear at bottom of 5, Fig. 5, which are arranged extending from the hanger via 4), wherein the parking device extends into an area under the at least one chair and/or the hanger (Fig. 5), preferably wherein the parking device has at least one skid and/or at least one wheel (bottom landing gear element of 5 may be considered a skid, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein the cargo drone has a connecting part (4, Fig. 5), wherein the hanger can be fastened to the cargo drone by means of the connecting part (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein the hanger has a fastening device for connection to the cargo drone at the end opposite the at least one chair (mounting flange at top of 8, depicted in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1, wherein the hanger can be fastened to the cargo drone via a cable section and/or a rail (Fig. 6, top flange of 8 may be considered a rail, and/or 8 is capable of being fastened via a rail).
Regarding Claim 16, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein the cargo drone has at least one, preferably four, six, eight or sixteen, rotor(s) (2, Fig. 5), wherein the at least one rotor can preferably be fastened to at least one cantilever, and wherein particularly preferably exactly one and/or exactly two rotors(19) can be fastened to each cantilever (3, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 17, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 16,wherein the cargo drone has at least one electric motor, preferably one electric motor per rotor (2, “rotor-motor units”), wherein the at least one electric motor can be supplied with electrical energy by at least one accumulator (Pg. 8, Para. 4 of attached translation, “…equipped with removable batteries and fly purely electrically…”).
Regarding Claim 18, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein the cargo drone has at least one sensor, preferably wherein the cargo drone
- has at least one position sensor, in particular at least one pressure sensor, and/or
- at least one motion sensor, in particular at least one gyro sensor and/or acceleration sensor, and/or
- at least one environmental sensor, in particular at least one camera (Pg. 5 of attached translation, para. 8, “…monitor the airspace by suitable sensors, for example by cameras…”), at least one LIDAR system and/or at least one RADAR system.
Regarding Claim 19, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim1, wherein the cargo drone comprises a control unit for controlling at least one electric motor, wherein the control unit is connectable to sensors (Pg. 4 of attached translation, “electrical connection of at least the rotor motor units and the support unit to a control unit for the aircraft…as well as…sensors within the control unit…”).
Regarding Claim 20, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim1,wherein the passenger drone has at least one communication unit (7c, fig. 2), preferably wherein the communication unit has an antenna for communication (7b, Fig. 2), wherein electromagnetic signals can be sent
- from a satellite, in particular a navigation satellite, and/or
- to and from a mobile and/or stationary transmitting unit, in particular via a mobile network, and/or received by the same (Pg. 3 of attached translation, “…external control unit for…communication…”).
Regarding Claim 21, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 20,wherein a first communication unit is provided in the cargo drone (7c, Fig. 2) and a second communication unit is provided on the hanger and/or on the at least one chair (8a, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 22, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim1,wherein on the at least one chair and/or on the hanger
- an operator unit is arranged, wherein the operator unit has a display and/or actuating elements, preferably wherein the cargo drone can be controlled by means of the operator unit (8a, Fig. 6), and/or
- an intercom system is arranged.
Regarding Claim 23, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according claim 20,wherein signals can be sent between the communication unit and the operator unit, preferably wirelessly (examiner notes the drone is capable of this function, see Pg. 10 of attached translation…”preferably wireless…”).
Regarding Claim 24, Zosel discloses an arrangement comprising at least one passenger drone for transporting winter sports enthusiasts with strapped-on winter sports equipment, with a cargo drone, wherein a hanger can be fastened, preferably in a releasable manner, to the cargo drone, and wherein at least one chair, preferably at least one chairlift chair, for at least one winter sports enthusiast can be fastened, in particular directly, to the hanger, preferably wherein the passenger drone is designed according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), at least one first base station, and at least one unboarding point located higher than the at least one first base station, wherein the at least one winter sports enthusiast can be transported from the at least one first base station to the unboarding point located higher than the at least one first base station by, preferably autonomous, flying of the passenger drone (examiner notes that Zosel is clearly capable of this function as it can be used for rescuing a person, which would include transporting a person from one place to another, and would be capable of transporting between different elevations, see Claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Sutterluty (US 20100089280 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1.
Zosel is silent about wherein a safety bar is arranged and/or fastened to the at least one chair and/or to the hanger.
Sutterluty teaches a safety bar fastened to a similar chair (2, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the at least one chair of Zosel with the safety bar as taught by Sutterluty, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance safety of the drone by helping to secure the passenger.
Regarding Claim 7, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1,wherein the at least one chair is at least partially open to the outside (Fig. 5).
Zosel is silent about wherein the at least one chair can be partially closed by at least one openable, preferably pivotable and/or partially transparent, protective hood, preferably wherein the seating area of the at least one chair is at least partially open to the outside when the protective hood is closed and when it is open.
Sutterluty teaches a similar chair with at least one openable, preferably pivotable and/or partially transparent, protective hood, preferably wherein the seating area of the at least one chair is at least partially open to the outside when the protective hood is closed (3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the at least one chair of Zosel with the at least one protective hood as taught by Sutterluty, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance safety of the drone by helping to secure the passenger.
Regarding Claim 8, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1.
Zosel is silent about wherein between the at least one chair and at least one, preferably all, rotors of the cargo drone at least one cover is arranged to protect the winter sports enthusiasts sitting on the at least one chair, preferably wherein the at least one cover is at least partially transparent, and/or is curved towards the at least one chair, particularly preferably hemispherical, and/or is open at the bottom, and/or is designed as an openable protective hood.
Sutterluty teaches a similar chair wherein at least one cover is arranged to protect the winter sports enthusiasts sitting on the chair, preferably wherein the at least one cover is designed as an openable hood (3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the at least one chair of Zosel with the at least one protective hood as taught by Sutterluty, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance safety of the drone by helping to secure the passenger.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of In view of JP 6872822 B2, hereafter JP’822.
Regarding Claim 5, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1.
Zosel is silent about wherein the chair and/or the hanger are/is made at least partially, preferably mostly, from fiber-reinforced plastic, in particular from carbon fiber-reinforced plastic.
JP’822 teaches a similar hanger made of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (Pg. 2 of attached translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the chair and/or the hanger of Zosel from carbon fiber-reinforced plastic, as taught by JP’822, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure sufficient strength to support the user.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Payne (US 3586263 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1.
Zosel is silent about wherein a preferably lockable joint is arranged between the cargo drone and the hanger, preferably wherein the joint is designed as a hinge, pivot bearing, universal joint or ball joint.
Payne teaches a joint arranged between similar rotors and a hanger, wherein the join is designed as a pivot bearing (Col. 3, lines 9-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cargo drone and hanger of Zosel to have a preferably lockable joint designed as a pivot bearing, as taught by Payne, with a reasonable expectation of success, for foldability and more compact store/transportation of the drone.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Erickson et al. (US 20170174343 A1), hereafter Erickson.
Regarding Claim 13, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to claim 1.
Zosel is silent about wherein a weight detecting device is arranged between the cargo drone and the hanger, preferably wherein the weight detecting device has strain gauges.
Erickson teaches a weight detecting device with strain gauges (para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the cargo drone and hanger of Zosel with a weight detecting device, as taught by Erickson, with a reasonable expectation of success, to enhance the safety of the drone via weight management.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of In view of Gil (US 20220205469 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zosel discloses the passenger drone according to any claim 1.
Zosel is silent about wherein the hanger can be fastened to the cargo drone via a clamp, preferably wherein the clamp is held in a closed position by means of a spring and/or can be transferred from a closed position to an open position by means of an actuating lever.
Gil teaches a clamp that can be held in a closed position by means of a spring (200, para. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the hanger and cargo drone of Zosel with a clamp as taught by Gil, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mechanism for automatic release of the hanger during passenger dropoff.
Claim(s) 25-30, 32, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Oqab et al. (US 20240059415 A1), hereafter Oqab.
Regarding Claim 25, Zosel discloses at least one passenger drone according to claim 1.
Zosel does not specifically teach a method for transporting winter sports enthusiasts, in particular with strapped-on winter sports equipment, with the passenger drone.
Oqab teaches a method for transporting winter sports enthusiasts, in particular with strapped on winter sports equipment, with a similar passenger drone (para. [0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Zosel’s passenger drone to transport winter sports enthusiasts, as taught by Oqab, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use the drone to provide towing/and or lifting services, expanding the mission capabilities of the drone.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 25 comprising at least one of the steps:
accommodating at least one winter sports enthusiast in the at least one chair(Zosel, Fig. ),
Zosel is silent about transporting the at least one winter sports enthusiast from at least one first base station to an unboarding point, preferably higher than the at least one first base station, by, preferably autonomous, flying of the passenger drone,
dropping off the at least one winter sports enthusiast at the unboarding point,
returning the passenger drone to the at least one first base station or to at least one second base station.
Oqab teaches transporting the at least one winter sports enthusiast from at least one first base station to an unboarding point (1708, Fig. 18), preferably higher than the at least one first base station, by, preferably autonomous, flying of the passenger drone (1708, Fig. 18),
returning the passenger drone to the at least one first base station or to at least one second base station (charging station 122, Fig. 8, for example).
dropping off the at least one winter sports enthusiast at the unboarding point (para. [0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Zosel’s passenger drone to transport winter sports enthusiasts, as taught by Oqab, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use the drone to provide transportation services in alpine environments and to return to a base station for self charging, for example, expanding the mission capabilities of the drone.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26,wherein at least one winter sports enthusiast is accommodated in the at least one chair in the at least one first base station (Zosel as modified by Oqab, see Claim 26 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26,wherein when picking up at least one winter sports enthusiast, the hanger with the at least one chair is separated from the cargo drone, and the cargo drone is only connected to the hanger before the transport of the at least one winter sports enthusiast (Zosel, Fig. 4, which depicts the hanger separated from the drone before pickup).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26,wherein at least one of the following steps is provided:
- picking up at least one winter sports enthusiast in at least one valley station, wherein the hanger is attached to the cable of a chairlift,
- transporting the at least one winter sports enthusiast to at least one first base station, preferably higher than the valley station, by the chairlift,
- decoupling the hanger from the cable of the chairlift,
- fastening the hanger to the cargo drone (Zosel, Figs. 4-5 depict fastening the hanger to the drone, for example).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26,wherein the hanger with the at least one chair is provided in the at least one first base station in a hanging and/or standing position on the ground for receiving at least one winter sports enthusiast (Zosel, Fig. 4, examiner notes the chair is provided in a standing position on the ground via 9).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26, wherein the passenger drone during the transport of the at least one winter sports enthusiast and/or during the return, at least in sections,
- flies autonomously, and/or
- is controlled from a base station, and/or
- is controlled by the at least one winter sports enthusiast (Zosel, via 8a, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 36, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 25,wherein the at least one winter sports enthusiast can summon the passenger drone away from the at least one base station, preferably by means of a mobile transmitting unit, preferably wherein a recording of the at least one winter sports enthusiast takes place away from the at least one base station (Oqab, para. [0173], “…An individual may dispatch system 1700…”).
Regarding Claim 37, modified Zosel teaches use of a passenger drone which comprises a cargo drone (see Claim 1 rejection), wherein a hanger can be fastened (see Claim 1 rejection), preferably in a releasable manner, to the cargo drone (see Claim 1 rejection), and at least one chair (see Claim 1 rejection), preferably at least one chairlift chair, for at least one winter sports enthusiast can be fastened, in particular directly, to the hanger for the transport of winter sports enthusiasts (see Claim 1 rejection), in particular with strapped-on winter sports equipment, preferably wherein the passenger drone is designed according to at least one of claims 1 to 23 claim 1 (see Claim 1 rejection).
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Zosel, embodiment of Fig. 16, hereafter “Zosel, Fig. 16”.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26.
Zosel, Fig. 16 teaches wherein the passenger drone remains within a predefined flight corridor when transporting the at least one winter sports enthusiast and/or when returning (delimited airspace 14a, Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of modified Zosel with wherein the passenger drone remains within a predefined flight corridor as taught by Zosel Fig. 16, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced safety by ensuring the drone remains within a safe area for the winter sports enthusiasts.
Claim(s) 33-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Erickson et al. (US 20170174343 A1), hereafter Erickson.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26.
Modified Zosel is silent about wherein when the at least one winter sports enthusiast is dropped off at the unboarding point, it is registered whether the drop-off of the at least one winter sports enthusiast has taken place, preferably wherein the registration takes place
- automatically, in particular by measuring a weight detection device, and/or
- by manual indication of the at least one winter sports enthusiast, and/or
- by remote indication from the base station.
Erickson teaches registering drop off automatically by a weight detection device (para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of modified Zosel with registering the drop off by a weight detection device, as taught by Erickson, with a reasonable expectation of success, to enhance the safety of the drone and provide an input to the controller that the passenger has been dropped off.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 33.
Modified Zosel is silent about wherein an autonomous return of the passenger drone to the at least one first base station or to at least one second base station can be initiated by registering the drop-off of the at least one winter sports enthusiast (examiner notes the use of “can be” renders this limitation optional, and modified Zosel is capable of this function).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zosel as applied above, and further in view of Wengreen (US 11807406 B1).
Regarding Claim 35, modified Zosel teaches the method according to claim 26.
Modified Zosel is silent about wherein the passenger drone follows the at least one winter sports enthusiast before or during the return, preferably wherein the passenger drone sends a warning signal to the base station in the event of an emergency.
Wengreen teaches a similar drone that follows a winter sports enthusiast and sends a warning signal to a similar base station in the event of an emergency (Col. 11, lines 3-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of modified Zosel with the passenger drone follows the at least one winter sports enthusiast and sends a warning signal to the base station in the event of emergency, as taught by Wengreen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the safety of the sports enthusiast.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bard et al. (US 20240367825 A1) teaches a personal transportation drone.
Eaton (US 20230174234 A1) teaches a drone based assistance method.
Thrun et al. (US 10703480 B1) teaches a personal transportation drone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642