Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/190,298

Charging Hubs In Base Stations For Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Including Locking Mechanisms

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Apr 25, 2025
Examiner
RODDEN, JOSHUA E
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Skydio Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
618 granted / 1063 resolved
+6.1% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+51.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1094
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1063 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Oath/Declaration The examiner notes there does NOT appear to be any OATH/DECLARTION filed within this application. Form can be found here: PTO/AIA /101 - Declaration (37 CFR 1.63) for Utility or Design Application Using an Application Data Sheet (37 CFR 1.76) . 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. (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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0050749 (Pilskalns). Regarding Claim 11, Pilskalns teaches: Claim 11 - a charging hub for a base station configured to receive an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during docking, wherein the charging hub (8/71) is repositionable between a retracted position and an extended position and comprises: a charger subassembly (8/71) configured for electrical connection to the UAV (2); and a locking mechanism (24) engageable with the UAV (2), wherein the locking mechanism (24) is configured such that extension and retraction of the charging hub (8/71) automatically repositions the locking mechanism (24 – at least paragraphs [0056] and [0057] describing the functioning of the system, wherein when the UAV (2) lands, the locking mechanism (24) locks the UAV in place and the charging subassembly (71) is then extending to charge the UAV (2), and vice versa once charging of the UAV (2) is complete), (Figures 1-11). Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0031028 (Ehasoo et al.). Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Ehasoo et al. teaches: Claim 11 - a charging hub for a base station configured to receive an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during docking, wherein the charging hub is repositionable between a retracted position and an extended position and comprises: a charger subassembly (electrical contacts on elements (67)) configured for electrical connection to the UAV (10); and a locking mechanism (67) engageable with the UAV (10), wherein the locking mechanism (67) is configured such that extension and retraction of the charging hub (electrical contacts on elements (67)) automatically repositions the locking mechanism (67), (Figures 26-39); Claim 12 - wherein the locking mechanism (67) is pivotable through a range of motion substantially within a range of approximately 30 degrees to approximately 60 degrees, (Figures 26-39). Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 116552862 (Du et al.). Regarding Claims 11-13, Du et al. teaches: Claim 11 - a charging hub for a base station configured to receive an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during docking, wherein the charging hub is repositionable between a retracted position and an extended position and comprises: a charger subassembly (AA) configured for electrical connection to the UAV; and a locking mechanism (BB) engageable with the UAV, wherein the locking mechanism (BB) is configured such that extension and retraction of the charging hub (AA) automatically repositions the locking mechanism (BB – when spring loaded charging hub (AA) is pressed downwards it automatically causes locking mechanism (BB) to clamp leg of the UAV), (Figures 1-5 and Annotated Figure 4 Below); Claim 12 - wherein the locking mechanism (BB) is pivotable through a range of motion substantially within a range of approximately 30 degrees to approximately 60 degrees, (Figures 1-5 and Annotated Figure 4 Below); Claim 13 - wherein the locking mechanism (BB) includes limiters (CC) and DD) configured to confine the locking mechanism (BB) to the range of motion, (Figures 1-5 and Annotated Figure 4 Below). PNG media_image1.png 385 509 media_image1.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-17 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST. 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. /JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Nov 01, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 20, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 20, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 09, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §102
Mar 31, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600606
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY LIFTING / LOWERING A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600497
LINKED SPACECRAFT DISPENSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600505
HANGAR FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE, VEHICLE AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594983
ELECTRIC POWER STEERING GEAR WITH AN ANTI-ROTATE FEATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584751
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1063 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month