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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “solar panel”, “cargo elevator”, and “one pair of wheels” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation “a cargo elevator” which is not adequately described in the specification. While the specification recites the term “cargo elevator” once throughout the description, it does not provide a description of its structure or how it is used.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claim 4 recites the limitation “a cargo elevator”. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the meaning of “cargo elevator” to mean “cargo loading elevator”. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. While the specification refers to element 132 as the cargo loading elevator, the drawing merely points to a flat portion in Fig. 2. The specification discloses that “the cargo loading elevator 132 is a segment of conveyor belt 130 onto which a package 160 can be loaded, and then elevates to pass the package onto drone stored on drone storage wheel 150. The elevation of cargo loading elevator can use motion control systems such as leadscrews, belts, chains, rack & pinion drives, hydraulics, pneumatics, and/or other devices known in the art. Once package 160 is elevated to, and retained by the drone, cargo loading elevator 132 returns to a position substantially level with the rest of conveyor belt 130.” However, this fails to adequately describe the structure and components of element 132 in such a way that would enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benezra (US 2020/0003529).
Regarding claim 1, Benezra discloses a drone roost (Fig. 5) comprising: an outer shell (301); a top hatch (opening covered by door 302) to allow a drone to enter an interior of said drone roost; a conveyor belt (501); a drone storage wheel (pivot 503 provides a ferris wheel arrangement shown in Fig. 5) with an at least one drone storage shelf (502); and a conveyor door (302).
Regarding claim 3, Benezra discloses that the at least one drone storage shelf is configured to secure (paragraph [0049]) said drone.
Regarding claim 4, Benezra inherently discloses a cargo elevator since the structure of Benezra is functionally a cargo elevator.
Regarding claim 6, Benezra discloses that the drone roost is configured to be mobile and includes at least one pair of wheels (the drone roost is configured to be transported on a moving vehicle which would have at least one pair of wheels – paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Benezra discloses that the drone storage wheel further comprises: a motor (304).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (CN 111908003).
Regarding claim 1, Cui et al. discloses a drone roost (Fig. 1) comprising: an outer shell (1); a top hatch (opening on top) to allow a drone to enter an interior of said drone roost; a conveyor belt (501); a drone storage wheel (pivot 503 provides a ferris wheel arrangement shown in Fig. 5) with an at least one drone storage shelf (502); and a conveyor door (302).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohammed et al. (US 12,205,072).
Regarding claim 1, Mohammed et al. discloses a drone roost (Fig. 6) comprising: an outer shell (650); a top hatch (650) to allow a drone to enter an interior of said drone roost; a conveyor belt (656-1); a drone storage wheel (658) with an at least one drone storage shelf (shown in Fig. 6); and a conveyor door (door at the back of the drone roost/ vehicle, 154-2).
Regarding claim 6, Mohammed et al. discloses that the drone roost is configured to be mobile and includes at least one pair of wheels (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Mohammed et al. teaches that the drone storage wheel comprises: a frame (the central portion of Mohammed et al.’s ferris wheel); and a moving wheel frame (the arms connected to the shelves, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Mohammed et al. discloses that the drone storage wheel further comprises: a motor (power modules).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curlander et al. (US 9,777,502).
Regarding claim 14, Curlander discloses a drone roost (100) comprising: an outer shell (112); a top hatch (118) to allow a drone to enter an interior of said drone roost a plurality of trays (802) configured to move along an at least one guiderail (804); and a charging system, wherein said charging system is powered via said at least one guiderail (col. 12, lines 32 – 34).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blake et al. (US 2019/0383052).
Regarding claim 14, Blake et al. discloses a drone roost (Fig. 16B) comprising: an outer shell (1601); a top hatch (1605) to allow a drone to enter an interior of said drone roost a plurality of trays (1603) configured to move along an at least one guiderail (1621); and a charging system, wherein said charging system is powered via said at least one guiderail (paragraph [0077] – the aircraft receives charge through a power rail in the track).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Blake et al. discloses a motor (1623).
Regarding claim 16, Blake et al. discloses a solar panel (paragraph [0105]).
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) 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benezra (US 2020/0003529) in view of Blake et al. (US 2019/0383052).
Regarding claim 5, Benezra fails to teach a solar panel. However, Blake et al. discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle housing with solar panels (paragraph [0105]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include solar panels in the drone roost of Benezra in order to provide sustainable, independent power for drone operations.
Regarding claim 7, Benezra fails to teach a second drone storage wheel. However, Blake et al. discloses a plurality of drone roosts (Fig. 23A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a second drone storage wheel in order to enhance operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Benezra fails to teach a robotic system configured to recharge said drone. However, Blake et al. teaches a robotic arm used to place the drone in high-density charging. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a robotic system for recharging in order to enhance operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Benezra fails to teach a robotic system configured to service said drone. However, Blake et al. teaches a robotic arm used to service a drone (place the drone in high-density charging). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a robotic system for servicing a drone in order to enhance operational efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Benezra as modified by Blake et al. teaches that the drone storage wheel further comprises: a motor (1623, Blake et al.).
Claim(s) 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blake et al. (US 2019/0383052) in view of Mohammed et al. (US 12,205,072).
Regarding claims 17, 19, and 20, Blake et al. fails to teach that the drone roost is configured to be mobile and includes at least one pair of wheels. However, Mohammed et al. teaches a drone delivery system being housed within a moving vehicle with a pair of wheels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a mobile configuration for the drone roost in order to more efficiently transport the drone roost as needed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wankewycz et al. (US 2021/0031947) – Landing platform with improved charging for unmanned vehicles
Qu et al. (CN 118835866) – Stereoscopic airport
Gil et al. (US 10,993,569) – Drone delivery platform
Martin et al. (US 10,246,256) – Parallel axis, conveyance mechanism
Mathi et al. (US 11,780,680) – Vertical conveyor for a conveying installation
Todd (US 12,026,668) - Inventory management loadout system
Aleshire (US 2004/0079620) – Storage and conveyor apparatus
Neeper et al. (US 2007/0172396) – Automated system for storing retrieving and managing sample
Koster (US 2015/01752276) – Delivery platform for unmanned aerial vehicles
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642