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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scott (US 12503256 B2).
4. Regarding Claim 18, Scott discloses a freestanding pedestal configured to support a single base station for a single UAV in an elevated position (col. 3 ll. 41-48, col. 3, ln. 55 - col. 4, ln. 5 and col. 5, ll. 49; docking system 10 including a 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, the docking system 10 further include the at least pyramidal bottom surface 22, base perimeter 24, latches 46 and mating rack 26 which are attachable and not comprised by the UAV 20 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 4), wherein the freestanding pedestal includes:
side walls (52); and
an upper end configured to support and engage the single base station to thereby connect the freestanding pedestal to the single base station (pyramidal top 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 and 5), wherein the freestanding pedestal defines an open, interior space extending between side walls and the upper end (col. 3, ll. 60-64; cargo bay 34 is by definition an open interior space which extends between side walls 52 on each of the right, left and top sides as seen in Fig. 4).
5. Regarding Claim 19, Scott discloses the freestanding pedestal of claim 18, wherein the freestanding pedestal includes an open, fixed configuration (FIG. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US 12503256 B2).
8. Regarding Claim 22, Scott discloses the freestanding pedestal of claim 18, wherein the upper end includes an upper wall (52), and a side wall (52) of the side walls (52) extends in a non-orthogonal relation to the upper wall (FIG. 4).
Scott is silent regarding specifically the side walls extend in non-orthogonal relation to the upper wall. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to make the side walls extend in relation to the upper wall in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In doing so, the side walls relative to the upper wall are configured in a manner that provides structural benefits by transferring vertical load paths more efficiently to the pedestal, reducing lateral stress and increasing stability compared to side walls extending orthogonally in relation to the upper wall.
9. Regarding Claim 23, Scott discloses the freestanding pedestal of claim 22, wherein the side wall (52) of the side walls (52) and the upper wall (52) defines an obtuse angle therebetween (FIG. 4).
Scott is silent regarding specifically the side walls and the upper wall define obtuse angles therebetween. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to make the side walls oriented relative to the upper wall in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. 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
10. 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.
11. Claim 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,017 in view of Scott (US 12503256 B2).
12. Claim 1 discloses a docking system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the docking system comprising: a base station configured to receive the UAV; and a pedestal configured to support the base station in an elevated position such that the base station is positioned atop the pedestal, the pedestal defining an interior space configured in correspondence with an outer contour of the base station such that the base station is positionable within the pedestal to protect the base station during nonuse; wherein the pedestal includes: an upper wall having a non-linear configuration; first and second side walls extending from the upper wall, each of the first and second side walls having a generally linear configuration; and first and second base walls extending laterally inward from the first and second side walls, respectively, each of the first and second base walls having a generally linear configuration. Claim 1 of the U.S. patent does not disclose a freestanding standing pedestal. In view of teachings of Scot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the U.S. patent such that the pedestal is a freestanding pedestal in order increase the capability, transportability and usability of the freestanding pedestal as intended by the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-17 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitations of claim 1 and 11, respectively. In particular, the prior art in record fails to mention “wherein the pedestal includes an open front end and an open rear end providing access to an interior space defined by the pedestal extending from a bottom of the pedestal to the upper wall” as recited in claim 1 as well as “wherein the pedestal includes a fixed configuration defining an open, interior space extending between a lower end of the pedestal and an upper end of the pedestal” as recited in claim 11.
Claim 20 is 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, and overcoming the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to arguments pertaining to claim 18, the applicant asserts that Scott does not disclose claim 18 as currently amended. In particular, the applicant asserts that Scott does not disclose “"[a] freestanding pedestal configured to support a single base station for a single UAV in an elevated position" that includes "side walls" and "an upper end configured to support and engage the single base station to thereby connect the freestanding pedestal to the single base station, wherein the freestanding pedestal defines an open, interior space extending between side walls and the upper end," as recited in amended independent claim 18” on pp. 8-9 of the remarks. These arguments are not considered to be persuasive. Applicant’s statements amount to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent claim 18 and nakedly asserting that Scott does not teach or suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support is afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996): In re De Blauwe, 736 F,2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See MPEP 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.Sti 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion to what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prime facie case of obviousness.''). Accordingly, as discussed above regarding claim 18, Scott is currently be relied upon for anticipating claim 18.
With regard to further arguments pertaining to claim 18, the applicant asserts that “amended independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are allowable over Scott under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2), as discussed and agreed to during the interview, as are claims 2, 6-9, 14-16, and 19, which depend therefrom.” on p. 9 of the remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as there was no discussion regarding Claim 18 specifically in relation to Scott’s disclosure during the conducted interview. While the examiner agrees regarding the applicant’s characterization of claim 18 in view of Gusdorf’s disclosure, however, there was no particular discussion held during the interview regarding the status of amended claim 18 in view of Scott’s disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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
Prosecution Insights