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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilkins (US Patent No. 10,796,275).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Wilkins discloses a work system comprising:
a flying object [100] including a body capable of flight and a work section [116] to perform work (Figure 1A; Col. 9, lines 4-37);
a collection vehicle [502] configured to collect a work-related item [552] related to body work that is work performed by the body (Figures 5A, 5B, and 6; Col. 9, lines 44-50; Col. 10, lines 14-22);
a collection vehicle position acquirer configured or programmed to acquire collection vehicle position information indicating a position of the collection vehicle (Col. 10, lines 46-57); and
a work controller [204] configured or programmed to control the body work based on the collection vehicle position information (Col. 10, line 35 - Col. 11, line 24).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Wilkins discloses the work system according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, further comprising a delivery section [116] configured to deliver the work-related item from the flying object to the collection vehicle (Col. 9, lines 44-50).
Regarding claim 6, Wilkins discloses the work system according to claim 1, wherein no structure couples the flying object and the collection vehicle (Figure 5A).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Wilkins discloses the work system according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein
the work-related item is produce [552] grown in an agricultural field [202] (Figure 2; Col. 5, lines 61-65);
the work section includes a harvester [116] configured to harvest the produce in the agricultural field; and
the body work includes harvesting the produce by the body (Col. 9, lines 4-37).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Buckland et al. (US PGPub. No. 2023/0030848).
Regarding claim 5, Wilkins discloses the work system according to claim 1 (Wilkins Col. 9, lines 4-37; Col. 9, lines 44-50; Col. 10, lines 14-22; Col. 10, line 35 - Col. 11, line 24), but appears to be silent on the system further comprising a damper to reduce an impact of a collision of the work-related item against the collection vehicle.
Buckland, however, teaches an autonomous orchard cart to receive produce from (human) pickers (Buckland ¶0061), the cart including a damper to reduce impact of produce received during transfer to cart (Buckland ¶0028, ¶0248). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Wilkins in view of Buckland. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Wilkins, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include a damper to reduce an impact of a collision of the work-related item against the collection vehicle, as doing so was a known way of preserving integrity of produce during transfer to a collection vehicle, as recognized by Buckland (Buckland ¶0028, ¶0248).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 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.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 9, Examiner deems a work system comprising: a flying object including a body capable of flight and a work section to perform work; a collection vehicle configured to collect a work-related item related to body work that is work performed by the body; a collection vehicle position acquirer configured or programmed to acquire collection vehicle position information indicating a position of the collection vehicle; and a work controller configured or programmed to control the body work based on the collection vehicle position information further comprising: a range setter configured or programmed to set a work range based on the collection vehicle position information; wherein the work controller is configured or programmed to control the body work such that the body work is executed within the work range and is not executed outside the work range to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a work system that sets a working range based on position of a collection vehicle.
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 11, Examiner deems a work system comprising: a flying object including a body capable of flight and a work section to perform work; a collection vehicle configured to collect a work-related item related to body work that is work performed by the body; a collection vehicle position acquirer configured or programmed to acquire collection vehicle position information indicating a position of the collection vehicle; and a work controller configured or programmed to control the body work based on the collection vehicle position information further comprising a delivery section configured to deliver the work-related item from the flying object to the collection vehicle, wherein the delivery section includes a speed reducer configured or programmed or programmed to reduce a falling speed of the work-related item from the flying object to the collection vehicle. Specifically, the prior art of record provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying the prior art of record to include such a work system wherein the delivery section includes a speed reducer configured or programmed or programmed to reduce a falling speed of the work-related item from the flying object to the collection vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights