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 .
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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/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.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Reference of prior art
Wang et al. (US 20220396373, UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE AIRPORT, UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEM, TOUR INSPECTION SYSTEM AND UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE CRUISE SYSTEM).
Qiang. (CN 112406607, Unmanned aerial vehicle autonomous charging platform).
Li et al. (US 20240239533, Automatic Recycling And Charging Nest For Vertical Take-Off And Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).
Laczak et al. (US 20230100169, Security And Guidance Systems And Methods For Parcel-Receiving Devices).
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) 1-7, 11-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and further in view of Qiang.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang discloses:
A landing platform for a base station configured to dock with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (¶ 0203);, wherein the landing platform comprises:
a stage defining landing areas configured to receive the UAV during docking (item 2);
alignment members configured to engage and reposition the UAV during a first stage of alignment (¶ 0131, items 806-809); and
a charging hub configured for electrical connection to the UAV (item 6), wherein the charging hub includes:
However Wang fails to teach as disclosed by Qiang: a registration member configured to engage external, lateral surfaces of the UAV and reposition the UAV in a plane extending in substantially parallel relation to the landing platform during a second stage of alignment (¶ 0034, 0035); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Qiang teachings of a registration member configured to engage external, lateral surfaces of the UAV and reposition the UAV in a plane extending in substantially parallel relation to the landing platform during a second stage of alignment into the Wang, to align the charging head properly with UAV charging component.
a charging head repositionable in relation to the registration member from a normal position into a deflected position during a third stage of alignment to facilitate engagement of corresponding electrical contacts on the UAV and the charging head (Wang ¶ 0162, 0163, items 61, 622 and Qiang item 6).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 1, wherein the alignment members are repositionable from an extended position into a retracted position during the first stage of alignment to substantially center the UAV on the landing platform (Wang ¶ 0131, items 806-809, …corrected to a fixed position in the middle of the parking apron).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 2, wherein the alignment members are repositionable along an axis extending in substantially orthogonal relation to a landing direction of the UAV (Wang ¶ 0131, items 806-809 depict the limitation).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 2, wherein the alignment members are positioned laterally outward of the landing areas in the extended position and the alignment members are substantially aligned with the landing areas in the retracted position (Wang figs. 11, 32c, items 806-809 are connected to the unnumbered items “grooves” that define the boundaries of movement in the extended and retracted positions).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 1, wherein the registration member is configured to receive the UAV during the second stage of alignment such that the UAV extends into the charging hub (Wang items 81, 622 and 7).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 5, wherein the registration member includes first alignment members configured for engagement with the external, lateral surfaces of the UAV during the second stage of alignment (Wang items 81 and 721 of one of the two charge devices 7).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 6, wherein the charging head includes at least one second alignment member configured for insertion into the UAV during the third stage of alignment (Wang items 81 and 721 of one of the other charge devices 7).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: A landing platform for a base station configured to dock with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), wherein the landing platform comprises: alignment members configured to substantially center the UAV on the landing platform during a first stage of alignment; and a charging hub repositionable between a retracted position and an extended position, wherein the charging hub includes: a registration member configured to reposition the UAV in a plane extending in substantially parallel relation to the landing platform during a second stage of alignment; and a charging head repositionable from a normal position into a deflected position during a third stage of alignment to facilitate electrical connection of the charging head to the UAV.
(Claim 11 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 11 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 11, wherein the charging hub is vertically repositionable between the retracted position and the extended position (Wang item 6 and the lifting and lowering device 64).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 11, wherein the registration member is configured for engagement with external, lateral surfaces of the UAV during repositioning of the charging hub from the retracted position into the extended position (Wang ¶ 0131, items 81, 622).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 13, wherein the charging head is configured for insertion into the UAV during repositioning of the charging hub from the retracted position into the extended position (Wang item 6, the lifting and lowering device 64 and item 7). .
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: A landing platform for a base station configured to dock with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), wherein the landing platform comprises: a stage defining landing areas configured to receive the UAV during docking; a charging hub positioned between the landing areas; and alignment members movable in relation to the stage, wherein the alignment members are configured to substantially align the UAV with the charging hub during a first stage of alignment, wherein the charging hub is configured to engage the UAV and reposition the UAV in a plane extending in substantially parallel relation to the landing platform during a second stage of alignment; and wherein the charging hub is deflected in relation to the UAV during a third stage of alignment to facilitate electrical connection of the charging hub to the UAV.
(Claim 18 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 18 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 18, wherein the charging hub is configured for engagement with external, lateral surfaces of the UAV during the second stage of alignment (Wang items 81 and 721 of one of the two charge devices 7).
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 19, wherein the charging hub is configured for insertion into the UAV during the third stage of alignment (Wang items 81 and 721 of one of the other charge devices 7).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qiang and further in view of Li.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Li: The landing platform of claim 1, wherein the charging head is slidable and rotatable in relation to the registration member during repositioning from the normal position into the deflected position (item 6 and ¶ 0078, … The bottom part is an electromechanical control and charging area, which is used for executing positioning “via sliding” and rotation actions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Li teachings of the charging head is slidable and rotatable in relation to the registration member during repositioning from the normal position into the deflected position into the Wang, as modified above,, to align the charging head properly with UAV charging component.
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Li: discloses: The landing platform of claim 11, wherein the charging head is configured for linear and rotatable movement during repositioning between the normal position and the deflected position (item 6 and ¶ 0078, … The bottom part is an electromechanical control and charging area, which is used for executing positioning “via linear” and rotation actions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Li teachings of the charging head is slidable and rotatable in relation to the registration member during repositioning from the normal position into the deflected position into the Wang, as modified above,, to align the charging head properly with UAV charging component.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Qiang and further in view of Laczak.
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Laczak: The landing platform of claim 1, wherein the charging hub further includes: first magnetic members (items 614); and second magnetic members substantially aligned with the first magnetic members (items 614, 680 and ¶ 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Laczak teachings of the charging hub further includes: first magnetic members; and second magnetic members generally aligned with the first magnetic members into the Wang, as modified above,, for providing a repulsive force to accelerate the movement of the charging head.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 9, wherein the first magnetic members and the second magnetic members bias the charging head towards the normal position such that, upon disengagement of the UAV and the charging hub, the charging head is automatically returned to the normal position (Laczak items 614, 680 and ¶ 0084).
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Laczak: The landing platform of claim 11, wherein the charging hub includes biasing members configured to bias the charging head towards the normal position such that the charging head is automatically returned to the normal position during repositioning of the charging hub from the extended position into the retracted position (items 614, 680 and ¶ 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Laczak teachings of the charging hub includes biasing members configured to bias the charging head towards the normal position such that the charging head is automatically returned to the normal position during repositioning of the charging hub from the extended position into the retracted position into the Wang, as modified above,, for providing a repulsive force to accelerate the movement of the charging head.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wang, as modified above, discloses: The landing platform of claim 16, wherein the biasing members are configured to apply a magnetic biasing force to the charging head (Laczak items 614, 680 and ¶ 0084).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642