DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 06/05/2025 and 08/11/2025 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. 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 “base station and the pedestal include corresponding engagement structures” in claims 5 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 § 102
4. 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.
(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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zambelli (US 2019/0367185 A1), as cited on the IDS filed on 06/05/2025.
6. Regarding Claim 1, Zambelli discloses a docking system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract and paras. [0063]-[0065]; system 10/110 for landing and handling drones 1, system 10 is fitable to new or existing buildings or structures 12/112 as seen in FIG. 1), the docking system comprising:
a base station configured to receive the UAV (para. [0065]; landing station 15/115 configured to receive drone 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 8-10); and
a pedestal including an upper wall configured to support the base station in an elevated position such that the base station is positioned atop and externally of the pedestal (paras. [0069]; landing station 115 positioned on a building 112 roof top, accordingly the landing station 115 must be supported by an upper wall and the landing station 115 must be in an elevated position and positioned atop of building 112).
7. Regarding Claim 2, Zambelli discloses the docking system of claim 1, wherein the pedestal includes a fixed configuration (buildings by definition include a fixed configuration, accordingly building 112 must include a fixed configuration).
8. Regarding Claim 5, Zambelli discloses the docking system of claim 1, wherein the base station and the pedestal include corresponding engagement structures configured for releasable engagement to inhibit unintended separation of the base station and the pedestal (paras. [0069]; with consideration of landing station 115 being configured to be positioned on a building 112 roof top, each of the station 115 and building must include corresponding engagement structures configured for releasable engagement).
9. Regarding Claim 18, Zambelli disclose a pedestal configured to support a single base station for a UAV in an elevated position (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1).
10. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 14-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scott (US 12503256 B2).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Scott discloses a docking system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (col. 3 ll. 41-48; docking system 10 as seen in FIG. 1), the docking system comprising:
a base station (col. 3, ll. 39-48 and col. 4, ll. 31-42; upper portion of system 10 which includes at least pyramidal bottom surface 22, base perimeter 24, latches 46 and mating rack 26 which are attachable and not comprises by the UAV 20 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4) configured to receive the UAV (20); and
a pedestal including an upper wall configured to support the base station in an elevated position such that the base station is positioned atop and externally of the pedestal (col. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4, ln. 5 and col. 5, ll. 49; cargo pod 30 including surface 32 sloping upwards and terminating at central portion 56 configured to support bottom surface 22 in an elevated position such that bottom surface 22 is positioned at top and externally of cargo pod 30 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4).
12. Regarding Claim 2, Scott discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the pedestal includes a fixed configuration (a fixed configuration of cargo pod 30 as seen in FIG. 1).
13. Regarding Claim 3, Scott discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the pedestal includes an open configuration (col. 3, ll. 60--64; cargo pod 30 includes cargo bay 34 lockable by an access door 35 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4, see also open through area underneath pod bottom surface 33, between cargo pod standoffs/legs (unlabeled) as seen in FIGS. 1-4).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Scott discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the base station and the pedestal include corresponding engagement structures configured for releasable engagement to inhibit unintended separation of the base station and the pedestal (col. 4, ll. 16-30; releasable latching via latch 46 and larch receptacle 36 as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Scott discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the pedestal further includes:
side walls extending from the upper wall (surface 32 forming side walls extending from central portion 56 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 5); and
base walls extending from the side walls (base walls extending downwardly form walls forming surface 32 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 4-5).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Scott discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the side walls extend in non-orthogonal relation to the upper wall (walls of surface 32 extending at an angle relative to central portion 56 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 4-5).
17. Regarding Claim 8, Scott discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the side walls and the upper wall define obtuse angles therebetween (walls of surface 32 relative to central portion 56 clearly define obtuse angles therebetween as seen in FIGS. 1 and 4-5).
18. Regarding Claim 9, Scott discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the side walls extend in a non-orthogonal relative to the base wall (side walls of surface 32 are clearly at an angle relative to the base walls extending downwardly therefrom as seen in FIGS. 4-5).
19. Regarding Claim 11, Scott discloses a docking system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the docking system comprising:
a base station (col. 3, ll. 39-48 and col. 4, ll. 31-42; upper portion of system 10 which includes at least pyramidal bottom surface 22, base perimeter 24, latches 46 and mating rack 26 which are attachable and not comprises by the UAV 20 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4) configured to receive the UAV (20); and
a pedestal configured to support the base station in an elevated position (col. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4, ln. 5 and col. 5, ll. 49; cargo pod 30 including surface 32 sloping upwards and terminating at central portion 56 configured to support bottom surface 22 in an elevated position such that bottom surface 22 is positioned at top and externally of cargo pod 30 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4), wherein the pedestal includes an open (a fixed configuration of cargo pod 30 as seen in FIG. 1), fixed configuration (col. 3, ll. 60--64; cargo pod 30 includes cargo bay 34 lockable by an access door 35 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4, see also open through area underneath pod bottom surface 33, between cargo pod standoffs/legs (unlabeled) as seen in FIGS. 1-4).
20. Regarding Claim 14, Scott discloses the docking system of claim 11, wherein the pedestal includes:
an upper wall configured to support the base station (col. 4, ll. 6-15; central portion 56 configured to support bottom surface 22);
side walls extending from the upper wall (surface 32 forming side walls extending from wall of central portion 56 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 5); and
base walls extending from the side walls (surface 32 forming side walls extending from central portion 56 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 5).
21. Regarding Claim 15, Scott discloses the docking system of claim 14, wherein the side walls extend in non-orthogonal relation to the upper wall (walls of surface 32 extending at an angle relative to central portion 56 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 4-5).
22. Regarding Claim 16, Scott discloses the docking system of claim 15, wherein the side walls and the upper wall define obtuse angles therebetween (walls of surface 32 relative to central portion 56 clearly define obtuse angles therebetween as seen in FIGS. 1 and 4-5).
23. Regarding Claim 18, Scott discloses a pedestal configured to support a single base station for a UAV in an elevated position (see the discussion above regarding claims 1 and 11).
24. Regarding Claim 19, Scott discloses the pedestal of claim 18, wherein the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration (see the discussion above regarding claims 2-3 and 11).
25. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walsh et al. (US 12528599 B2), hereinafter “Walsh”.
26. Regarding Claim 18, Walsh discloses a pedestal configured to support a single base station for a UAV in an elevated position (Walsh Abstract and col. 5, ll. 29-38; landing pad including landing platform 2 and support brace 4, accordingly the landing pad 1 is structurally capable of supporting a single base station for a UAV in an elevated position as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
27. Regarding Claim 19, Walsh discloses the pedestal of claim 18, wherein the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration (FIG. 2).
28. Regarding Claim 20, Walsh discloses the pedestal of claim 19, wherein the pedestal includes:
an open front end (FIG. 2);
an open rear end (FIG. 2); and
an exposed interior space extending between the open front end and the open rear end (FIG. 2).
29. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gusdorf et al. (US 3917368 A), hereinafter “Gusdorf”.
30. Regarding Claim 18, Gusdorf discloses a pedestal configured to support a single base station for a UAV in an elevated position (Abstract and col. 2, ll. 12-20; mobile pedestal cart including single column 11 and platform 10, accordingly the pedestal cart is structurally capable of supporting a single base station for a UAV in an elevated position as seen in FIG. 1).
31. Regarding Claim 19, Gusdorf discloses the pedestal of claim 18, wherein the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration (FIGS. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
32. 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.
33. Claim(s) 3-5, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambelli (US 2019/0367185 A1), in view of Brody (US 2014/0252168 A1).
34. Regarding Claim 3, Zambelli disclose the docking system of claim 1.
Zambelli is silent regarding the pedestal includes an open configuration.
Brody discloses a pedestal configured to support a base station in an elevated position (para. [0043]; heliport 200 in the form of a building as seen in FIGS. 5-8), wherein the pedestal includes an open configuration (heliport 200 includes a through opening from a front end to a rear end as seen in FIGS. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zambelli as taught by Brody such that the pedestal includes an open configuration in order to reduce the impact of drag caused by the wind on the pedestal as well as allowing for the UAV to maneuver around and through the pedestal as intended by the user.
35. Regarding Claim 4, modified Zambelli discloses (see Brody) the system of claim 3, wherein the pedestal includes:
an open front end (FIG. 5); and
an open rear end (FIG. 6).
36. Regarding Claim 5, modified Zambelli discloses (see Zambelli) the docking system of claim 1, wherein the base station and the pedestal include corresponding engagement structures configured for releasable engagement to inhibit unintended separation of the base station and the pedestal (paras. [0069]; with consideration of landing station 115 being configured to be positioned on a building 112 roof top, each of the station 115 and building must include corresponding engagement structures configured for releasable engagement).
37. Regarding Claim 11, Zambelli discloses a docking system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract and paras. [0063]-[0065]; system 10/110 for landing and handling drones 1, system 10 is fitable to new or existing buildings or structures 12/112 as seen in FIG. 1), the docking system comprising:
a base station configured to receive the UAV (para. [0065]; landing station 15/115 configured to receive drone 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 8-10); and
a pedestal configured to support the base station in an elevated position (para. [0069]; landing station 115 positioned on a building 112 roof top), wherein the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration (buildings by definition include a fixed configuration, accordingly building 112 must include a fixed configuration).
Zambelli is silent regarding wherein the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration.
Brody discloses a pedestal configured to support a base station in an elevated position (para. [0043]; heliport 200 in the form of a building as seen in FIGS. 5-8), wherein the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration (heliport 200 is in a fixed configuration and includes a through opening from a front end to a rear end as seen in FIGS. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zambelli as taught by Brody such that the pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration in order to reduce the impact of drag caused by the wind on the pedestal as well as allowing for the UAV to maneuver around and through the pedestal as intended by the user.
38. Regarding Claim 13, modified Zambelli discloses (see Brody) the system of claim 11, wherein the pedestal includes:
an open front end (FIG. 5); and
an open rear end (FIG. 6).
39. Claim(s) 10, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 12503256 B2).
40. Regarding Claims 10, Scott discloses the docking system of claim 9, wherein the side walls and the base walls define obtuse angles therebetween (FIG. 4).
Scott is silent regarding the side walls and the base walls define specifically acute angles therebetween. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to modify the invention of Scott such that the side walls and the base walls define acute angles therebetween, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In doing so, the sidewalls relative to the base walls are configured in a manner that provides advantages in strength, stability and the ability to withstand heavier loads placed above the pedestal.
41. Regarding Claim 12, Scott discloses the docking system of claim 11, wherein the pedestal is formed from a material (cargo pod 30 must be formed by at least single piece of material).
Scott is silent regarding the pedestal is formed from specifically a single piece of material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Scott such that the pedestal is formed from a single piece of material, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). In doing so, the docking system benefits from having a pedestal with a unitary and rigid construction which is advantageous in supporting the base station in the elevated position, and safeguarding the operability of the docking system during adverse weather conditions.
42. Regarding Claims 17, Scott discloses the docking system of claim 9, wherein the side walls and the base walls define obtuse angles therebetween (FIG. 4).
Scott is silent regarding the side walls and the base walls define specifically acute angles therebetween. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to modify the invention of Scott such that the side walls and the base walls define acute angles therebetween, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In doing so, the sidewalls relative to the base walls are configured in a manner that provides advantages in strength, stability and the ability to withstand heavier loads placed above the pedestal.
Double Patenting
43. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
44. Claims 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,017. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1 and 4. Furthermore, claim 18 of the pending application is encompassed by each of patented claims 1 and 12.
While the limitations of the above-mentioned claims of the pending application are worded differently, the limitations of the above-mentioned patented claims anticipate the limitations of the pending claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Blake et al. (US 2018/0141682 A1), Benner (US 11834181 B2), Gil et al. (US 12492099 B2) individually disclose docking systems including a base station and a pedestal configured to support the base station in an elevated position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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 J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642