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 .
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.
(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 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by von Flotow et al. (hereinafter von Flotow, US Publication Number 20170274997).
Regarding claim 1, von Flotow discloses a docking assembly for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figure 1a element 100), the docking assembly comprising: a bottom (Figure 1a bottom of element 122c); and an alignment feature on the bottom and configured to engage a docking feature on a top of the UAV to direct the UAV towards a first position (Figure 1a element 124),wherein the alignment feature is configured to encourage a lateral movement of the UAV through a tapered docking path toward the first position (Figures 1a and 3a-c).
Regarding claim 2, see figure 2 element 174 and figures 3c-d.
Regarding claim 3, see figures 3c-d and paragraph 58.
Regarding claim 4, see figure 1a element 124.
Regarding claim 5, von Flotow discloses a docking assembly for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figure 1a element 100), the docking assembly comprising: a bottom (Figure 1a bottom of element 122c); and a guiding feature on the bottom and configured to engage a docking feature on a top of the UAV to direct the UAV towards a first position (Figure 1a element 124), wherein the guiding feature defines a funnel configured to encourage a lateral movement of the UAV toward the first position (Figure 1 element 124 and Figures 3a-c).
Regarding claim 8, see figure 1a elements 126 and 128.
Regarding claim 9, von Flotow discloses a system (Figures 3a-d element 100 and 200)comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figure 2 element 200) comprising a top (Figure 2 unlabeled top of element 210); and a docking feature on the top (Figure 2 elements 250, 252 and 254); and a docking assembly (Figure 1a element 100) comprising a bottom (Figure 1a bottom of element 122c) and a guiding feature on the bottom and configured to receive the docking feature to direct the UAV towards a first position (Figure 1a element 124), wherein the guiding feature is configured to encourage a lateral movement of the UAV toward the first position (Figure 1a and Figures 3a-c).
Regarding claim 10, see figure 2 element 252.
Regarding claim 11, see figure 2 element 252 and figure 3d.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Audrain (US Patent Number 1836010).
Regarding claim 1, Audrain discloses a docking assembly for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figures 1 and 2), the docking assembly comprising: a bottom (Figures 1 and 2 bottom of element 8); and an alignment feature on the bottom and configured to engage a docking feature on a top of the UAV to direct the UAV towards a first position (Figure 2 element 7), wherein the alignment feature is configured to encourage a lateral movement of the UAV through a tapered docking path toward the first position (Page 1 lines 63-90).
Regarding claim 4, see figure 3.
Regarding claim 5, Audrain discloses a docking assembly for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figures 1 and 2), the docking assembly comprising: a bottom (Figures 1 and 2 bottom of element 8); and a guiding feature on the bottom and configured to engage a docking feature on a top of the UAV to direct the UAV towards a first position (Figures 2 and 3 element 7), wherein the guiding feature defines a funnel configured to encourage a lateral movement of the UAV toward the first position (Figure 3 element 7, Page 1 lines 63-90).
Regarding claim 8, see figure 3 elements 7 and 12.
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Gil et al. (hereinafter Gil, US Publication Number 20250136306).
Regarding claim 13, Gil discloses a docking assembly for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figure 2 element 10), the docking assembly comprising: a support assembly (Figure 2 element 18); and a guide at a top of the support assembly, wherein the guide is configured to: capture an element extending from a top of the UAV, and guide the UAV to a captured position (Figure 2 element 20 and Figure 11). The examiner notes that the claim requires neither the UAV nor that the guide actually capture anything, but merely that it have the capability of capturing an element. The claim does not provide any structure that would differentiate the claimed guide from any given guide and as such the guide of Gil can be considered to be configured as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, see figure 2 element 32. The examiner that the claim requires neither the UAV nor dependent vehicle, but merely that it have the capability of receiving the dependent vehicle. The claim does not provide any structure that would differentiate the claimed loading duct from any given duct, nor does is provide any description of the dependent vehicle and as such the loading duct of Gil can be considered to be configured as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, see figure 2 element 32. The examiner that the claim requires neither the UAV nor dependent vehicle, but merely that it have the capability of receiving the dependent vehicle. The claim does not provide any structure that would differentiate the claimed loading duct from any given duct, nor does is provide any description of the dependent vehicle and as such the loading duct of Gil can be considered to be configured as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, see figure 3 element 24.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as being anticipated by Sisko (US Publication Number 20150158599).
Regarding claim 17, Sisko discloses a docking assembly for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Figure 3), the docking assembly comprising: a loading duct configured to guide the UAV to a loading position (Figure 3 element 140); and a guide extending from the loading duct and configured to guide the UAV into alignment with the loading duct (Figures 2 and 3 element 120 and Paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 18, see figure 3 element 131 and paragraph 20.
Regarding claim 19, see paragraph 26.
Regarding claim 20, see figure 2 elements 132, 134 and 138. The examiner notes that the UAV is not positively claimed and the further details of the UAV do not constitute a positive recitation but merely an intended use of the docking assembly. As the claim does not provide any structure that would differential a loading duct for the specific UAV from any given UAV, the loading duct of Sisko can be considered configured as claimed and for the UAV as claimed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Flotow as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gil.
Regarding claim 12, von Flotow discloses the above system, but fails to disclose multiple docking assemblies.
However, Gil discloses a similar system (Figures 2-5) with multiple docking assemblies that are operable at the same time (Figure 3 element 20).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of von Flotow to have multiple docking assemblies as in Gil for the predictable result of allowing the handling of several UAVs simultaneously (Gil, Paragraph 26).
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 (rejecting claim 1) and 2 (rejecting claims 2 and 3) of U.S. Patent No. 12304670. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of USPN 12304670 are a more specific version of claims 1-3 of the instant application. As such they patented claims form a species that anticipate the genus claims of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 12428175 discloses a docking assembly that connected to a capture element on top of a UAV.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights