DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application filed 22 May 2025 which claims foreign priority to DE102024114417.3 filed 23 May 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for monitoring” in claims 1 and 6-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, and 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider et al. (WO 2020/249447, translation used for citations provided).
- Regarding Claim 1. Schneider discloses a drone network (1, fig. 3) comprising:
at least one work drone (2), the at least one work drone (2) being adapted to perform activities in an environment and being connected to a base station (5) via a supply line (4);
at least one auxiliary drone (6), the supply line (4) being guided to the at least one work drone (2) via the at least one auxiliary drone (6); and
a further drone (5) which comprises at least one of sensors or means for monitoring (“assist the aircraft…adding energy…controlling the length of the line” [abstract]; the base apparatus provides energy and line control requiring both sensors for power consumption and means for monitoring the work and auxiliary drones) at least one of the at least one work drone (2) or the at least one auxiliary drone (6) and/or means for monitoring the environment (“assist the aircraft…adding energy…controlling the length of the line” [abstract]; the base apparatus provides energy and line control requiring both sensors for power consumption and means for monitoring the work and auxiliary drones and line length) of at least one of the at least one work drone (2) or the at least one auxiliary drone (6).
- Regarding Claim 2. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one work drone (2) is substantially free of tensile loading by the supply line (4) or by a weight force of the supply line (4, as illustrated, the aux drone takes the load of the supply line).
- Regarding Claim 3. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 2, wherein the supply line (4) is at least one of a power line (“electrical line”).
- Regarding Claim 6. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one of a sensor or means for monitoring an environment (given that the aux drone holds the supply line and connects the supply line to the work drone, a sensor or means for monitoring the environment is required to be possessed by the aux drone to allow for proper docking with the work drone and return to the base as disclosed by Schneider) of the at least one auxiliary drone (6) arranged on the auxiliary drone (6).
- Regarding Claim 7. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 6, wherein the at least one of the sensor or the means for monitoring the environment of the at least one auxiliary drone (6) are designed for monitoring a work trajectory of at least one of the at least one work drone (2), the at least one auxiliary drone (6), or the further drone (5, in Schneider, the sensor/means of the aux drone are inherently designed for monitoring the work trajectory of the work drone to allow for proper docking).
- Regarding Claim 8. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein there are at least two of the work drones (2, illustrated by fig. 3) and at least two of the auxiliary drones (6, illustrated by fig. 3), with one of the auxiliary drones (6) being assigned to each respective one of the work drones (2, illustrated by fig. 3).
- Regarding Claim 9. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein there are a plurality of the supply lines (4), all of the supply lines (4) being guided via the at least one auxiliary drone (6, illustrated by fig. 3).
- Regarding Claim 10. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a guide for the supply line (4) is arranged on the at least one auxiliary drone (6, the figures illustrate the supply line attached to the aux drone allowing for the presence of a guide), the guide (10) having a device for adjusting a length of the supply line (4) between the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6, “assistance drone for feeding the electrical line to the aircraft”).
- Regarding Claim 11. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a distance between the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) is fixed or is variably adjustable, and a length of the supply line (4) between the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) is adjustable (fig. 3 illustrates varying distances, “assistance drone for feeding the electrical line to the aircraft”).
- Regarding Claim 12. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 11, wherein a minimum distance between the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) is specified, and the distance between the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) is selected such that the length of the supply line (4) between the work drone (2) and the auxiliary drone (6) substantially corresponds to the distance and does not differ from the distance by more than 1 m (“the line can be permanently connected to the assistance drone at a distance from a coupling which is configured to couple the aircraft to the line”; inherently, the distance can be fixed, and further as a result of the fixed distance, the distance will not differ by more than 1m).
- Regarding Claim 13. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein, during operation, the at least one work drone (2), the at least one auxiliary drone (6), and/or the further drone (5) are arranged such respective rotors (19/19/11) of the at least one work drone (2), the at least one auxiliary drone (6), and the further drone (5) do not substantially influence one another (as illustrated by fig. 3, the rotors will not substantially influence one another).
- Regarding Claim 14. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) and/or the further drone (5) are wirelessly connected to each other via a controller (“distance between the base device and the aircraft is coordinated by a control system…which can be a component of both the ground station and the base device”; “can be a component of the ground station”; given that the control can be part of the ground station, it is inherently wireless).
- Regarding Claim 15. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 14, wherein a movement of the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) and/or the further drone (5) are coupled to each other during operation, and the at least one work drone (2) and the at least one auxiliary drone (6) and the further drone (5) are individually controllable (as disclosed, the aux drone can land on the further drone after operation while the further drone remains airborne and the work drone can continue on after recharging as required, allowing for individual control of each drone).
- Regarding Claim 16. Schneider discloses a system (fig. 3) comprising:
a drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1 and a base station (5), the supply line (4) being connected to the base station (5).
- Regarding Claim 17. Schneider discloses the system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the base station (5) comprises an unrolling device (10, “roll-up device…retractor”) for the supply line (4), the supply line (4) being guided via the unrolling device (10), and the unrolling device (10) is configured to release or roll up a length of the supply line (4) depending on a position of at least one of the at least one auxiliary drone (6) or the at least one work drone (2).
- Regarding Claim 18. Schneider discloses the system as claimed in claim 16, further comprising a controller (14) for controlling at least one of the at least one work drone (2), the at least one auxiliary drone (6), the further drone (2), or the base station (5, “distance between the base device and the aircraft is coordinated by a control system…which can be a component of both the ground station and the base device”).
- Regarding Claim 19. Schneider discloses the system as claimed in claim 16, wherein the at least one base station (5) is arranged in a stationary manner (“balloon” as is known, balloons as disclosed are capable of maintaining position allowing for the base station to be arranged in a stationary manner).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Whitaker et al. (US 2017/0043872).
- Regarding Claim 4. Schneider discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one work drone comprises at least one applicator for applying an application medium to an object, and the work drone comprises at least one sensor for detecting at least one of a property of an object or the environment of the work drone.
However, Whitaker discloses a similar drone network (fig. 1-10) wherein the at least one work drone (16, fig. 5) comprises at least one applicator (60/62) for applying an application medium to an object (illustrated by fig. 10), and the work drone (16) comprises at least one sensor for detecting the environment of the work drone (16, fig. 6 illustrates a forward and downward camera of the work drone allowing for the drone to monitor the environment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to incorporate the capability of the work drone to apply a medium to an environment as disclosed by Whitaker to allow for the drone network of Schneider to be utilized for multiple applications, such as fire fighting as disclosed by Whitaker.
- Regarding Claim 5. Schneider as modified discloses the drone network (1) as claimed in claim 4. Whitaker further discloses wherein the supply line (20) is a transport line for the application medium and the transport line (20) is connected to the applicator (60/62).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Obviousness.
- Regarding Claim 20. Schneider discloses the system as claimed in claim 19, with base station (5) but does not disclose wherein there are a plurality of the base stations, and the base stations are arranged at a base-to-base distance on an object, and/or the base stations are arranged on each side of the object.
However, Schneider discloses the claimed invention except for multiple base stations arranged at a base-to-base distance on an object. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to provide additional space stations for the work drone to provide services to a larger footprint, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced".
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in PTO-892. Examiner’s Note: The Mura Yanez reference (US 2021/0155344) reads on all claims 1-20 as a potential 102(a)(1) reference, see fig. 26 and [0038] of the disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYE W ABELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1500 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TYE WILLIAM ABELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644 10 January 2026