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 .
Election/Restrictions
NOTE: Examiner’s typographical error of group 1 and group 2 claims overlapping of claim 14 do not invalidate previous restriction requirement. Applicant clearly understood the group options and was able to elect group 1.
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1, species 6 in the reply filed on 06/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed invention is drawn to the same inventive concept. This is not found persuasive as the independent claims established lack of unity as the technical features don’t make a contribution over the prior art a posteriori, as such, the species fall as well, as the genus claims cannot serve as the only unifying link. See at least Rule 13.2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the vehicle orientation machine must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 13 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230039483 A1 Strobel; Armin (hereinafter Strobel83).
Regarding claim 1, Strobel83 teaches, a vehicle recovery system comprising: a capture assembly (element 20) comprising a guide surface (element 22) and a capture passageway (element 34), the guide surface extending from the capture passageway such that a distal area defined by a perimeter of a distal edge of the guide surface (element 26 rim) is larger than a proximal area defined by a perimeter of a proximal edge of the guide surface adjacent to the capture passageway (element 35), the guide surface being angled to funnel an unmanned vehicle towards the capture passageway in response to the unmanned vehicle impacting the guide surface (fig. 10);
and a parking assembly comprising a containment device defining a vehicle receiving space (element 40), wherein the containment device is positioned such that the unmanned vehicle moves into the vehicle receiving space without requiring use of a propulsion system of the unmanned vehicle after passing through the capture passageway (fig. 9-10).
Regarding claim 10, Strobel83 teaches, the vehicle recovery system of claim 1 further comprising a net, wherein the net comprises the guide surface (element 22).
Regarding claim 13, Strobel83 teaches, the vehicle recovery system of claim 1 further comprising a vehicle orientation machine configured to automatically orient the unmanned vehicle into a desired orientation to be deposited into the vehicle receiving space of the containment device in a known orientation (fan duct element 130).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strobel83 as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20190241282 A1 Strobel; Armin (hereinafter known in as Strobel82).
Regarding claim 9, Strobel83 teaches, the vehicle recovery system of claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the unmanned vehicle is a first unmanned vehicle; wherein the capture assembly comprises a vehicle queue space configured to receive and hold a second unmanned vehicle while the first unmanned vehicle is positioned within the vehicle receiving space of the containment device.
However, Strobel82 teaches, wherein the unmanned vehicle is a first unmanned vehicle; wherein the capture assembly comprises a vehicle queue space configured to receive and hold a second unmanned vehicle while the first unmanned vehicle is positioned within the vehicle receiving space of the containment device (fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recovery system taught by Strobel83 with the queue space taught by Strobel82 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is to store a plurality UAVs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art Strobel 83 and 82 teach a vehicle capture and queue system, but they fail to teach, a control circuitry “wherein the control circuitry is configured to: detect a presence of the unmanned vehicle within the vehicle receiving space of the containment device via the vehicle presence sensor; and in response to detecting the presence of the unmanned vehicle within the vehicle receiving space of the containment device, execute a charging process comprising operably coupling the charging apparatus with the unmanned vehicle to charge an energy storage device of the unmanned vehicle via a physical electrical connection or a wireless electrical connection.” for claim 2, and “each distribution position being associated with a respective containment device of the plurality of containment devices to permit one of a plurality of unmanned vehicles to be deposited into the respective containment device; wherein the control circuitry is configured to control operation of the distribution actuator to move the movable distribution guide surface into alignment with one of the plurality of containment devices.” of claim 11.
Alone or in combination with the prior art of record, it would not have been obvious to meet the overall claim without impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights