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 sliding rails with locks, T-slot sliding, a stud-and-tube interlock, a snap-fit, an interference fit, a latch and catch, a push-to-lock mechanism, a spring-loaded pin, screws, and clamps of claim 7 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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14 line 2, “…modules is configured…” should read “…modules are configured…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a push-to-lock mechanism in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “push-to-lock mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification doesn’t not disclose structural features of push to lock mechanism. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-2, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2020/0391863).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) a system comprising:
a spine/arm (30) spanning from a tail portion/leg part (20) to a nose portion/flying part (10) of an aircraft/flying vehicle (1) (clearly seen in figures 1-2a), wherein the spine/arm (30) is configured to provide rigidity to the aircraft/flying vehicle (1) by serving as a structural core of the aircraft/flying vehicle (1), and wherein wings (40, 42), the tail portion/leg part (20) and the nose portion/flying part (10) are attached to the spine (Para 0056); and
one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery (clearly seen in figure 11) configured to be detachably attached to the spine/arm (30) (both object and battery can be removed), wherein the one module/mounted object (52) is configured to be movable on the spine/arm (30) to obtain a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/flying part (10), wherein the one or more modules comprise at least a power source module/battery (clearly seen in figure 11) and a payload module/mounted object (52), wherein one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery are arranged along a longitudinal direction of the spine/arm (30) (clearly seen in figure 2a) (Para 0073, 0077, 0083-0084; mounted object and battery are two modules of one or more modules, and among mounted object and battery modules, one module i.e. mounted object (52) is configured to be movable on the spine/arm (30); flying part (10) comprises battery (clearly seen in figure 11) which is arranged along a longitudinal direction of the spine/arm)).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system further comprising one or more additional spines/arm (30) spanning from the tail portion to the nose portion of the aircraft, wherein the spine/arm (30) and the one or more additional spines (30) are configured to be located on both sides of the aircraft (clearly seen in figure 2a; aircraft/flying vehicle comprises two arms/spines).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system wherein positions of the one module/mounted object (52) is configured to be adjusted based on different desired flight mission for the aircraft (Para 0095; different flight missions have different cargo inside the module and the module is adjusted based on the mass of the module).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) a method comprising:
determining one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery needed for a flight plan of an aircraft, wherein the one or more modules comprise at least a power source module/battery and a payload module/mounted object (52) (Para 0073, 0095; rotor craft can be used for various mission with various flight plan);
detachably attaching the one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery to a spine/arm part (30) of the aircraft/flying vehicle (1) (both object and battery can be removed), wherein the spine/arm part (30) spans from a tail portion/leg part (20) to a nose portion/flying part (10) of an aircraft/flying vehicle (1) (clearly seen in figures 1-2a) and serves as a structural core of the aircraft/flying vehicle (1), and wherein wings (40, 42), the tail portion/leg part (20), the nose portion/flying part (10) and the one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery are attached to the spine/arm (Para 0056, 0068; battery is a part of flying part (10) which is attached to the spine/arm); and
adjusting position of the one module/mounted object (52) to obtain a desired center of gravity of the aircraft (Para 0073, 0077, 0083-0084; mounted object and battery are two modules of one or more modules, and among mounted object and battery modules, one module i.e. mounted object (52) is configured to be movable on the spine/arm (30)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Townsend (US 2023/0271700) and Shafir (US 2020/0031464).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system of claim 1 but it is silent about the system wherein a position of each module of the one or more modules is configured to be movable on the spine to obtain the desired center of gravity for the aircraft.
Townsend ‘700 teaches (figures 1-7) a drone (100) comprising a payload carrier (200) wherein the payload carrier (200) includes a track (61), one or more carriages (73) and a payload shifting devices (62) wherein one or more carriages/module (73) are configured to carry a payload (80) and are slidingly connected to the track (61) and a payload shifting devices (62) is actuated to move one or all of the carriages (73) and the movement of all or some of the payload (80) along the fuselage adjusts the center of gravity (15) (Para 0019, 0041).
Shafir ‘464 teaches (figure 1) an aircraft (20) comprising a battery (41) moveable along a longitudinal axis (51) by controller (47) to control the center of gravity of aircraft (20) (Para 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Townsend ‘700 and Shafir ‘464 to configure more than one module including battery to move to control the center of gravity of aircraft. This results in the system wherein a position of each module of the one or more modules is configured to be movable on the spine to obtain the desired center of gravity for the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control the center of gravity in multiple ways i.e., position of both modules can be controlled to control the center of gravity.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernabei (WO 2022/263327).
Regarding claims 4-5, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system further a module arrangement instruction (Para 0088, 0090; instructions are executed by the processing unit to perform different steps; control module of the processing unit controls states of a mounting part via instructions);
a computing device/a flight controller including a processor (clearly seen in figure 11) (Para 0087),
wherein the processor is configured to receive weight information of each module of the one or more modules (Para 0074; position is changed according to the weight of the object, thus the weight information is received by the processor); and
wherein the processor is configured to generate the module arrangement instruction by calculating position of the one or more module to have the desired center of gravity for the aircraft based on the weight information (Para 0074, 0080, 0090; position is changed according to the weight of the object),
but it is silent about the system further comprising an active slid,
wherein the active slid configured to receive a module arrangement instruction,
wherein the active slid is configured to automatically move each module of the one or more modules along the spine based on the received module arrangement instruction.
Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the system comprising an active slid/actuator (8, 9),
wherein the active slid/actuator (8, 9) is configured to receive a module arrangement instruction,
wherein the active slid/actuator (8, 9) is configured to automatically move the module along the spine/rail (7) based on the received module arrangement instruction (Pg. 5 Lines 2-6; Pg. 6 Line 4-10; actuators are actuated based on signal/module arrangement instruction from controller/processor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Bernabei ‘327 to configure the system further comprising an active slid,
wherein the active slid configured to receive a module arrangement instruction,
wherein the active slid is configured to automatically move each module of the one or more modules along the spine based on the received module arrangement instruction.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would actuate the one or more modules.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) and Bernabei (WO 2022/263327) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Townsend (US 2023/0271700) and Shafir (US 2020/0031464).
Regarding claim 6, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system of claim 5 but it is silent about the system wherein the one or more modules include the computing device.
Townsend ‘700 teaches (figures 1-7) a drone (100) comprising a payload carrier (200) wherein the payload carrier (200) includes a track (61), one or more carriages (73) and a payload shifting devices (62) wherein one or more carriages/module (73) are configured to carry a payload (80) and are slidingly connected to the track (61) and a payload shifting devices (62) is actuated to move one or all of the carriages (73) and the movement of all or some of the payload (80) along the fuselage adjusts the center of gravity (15) (Para 0019, 0041).
Shafir ‘464 teaches (figure 1) an aircraft (20) comprising a battery/functional component (41) moveable along a longitudinal axis (51) by controller (47) to control the center of gravity of aircraft (20) (Para 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Townsend ‘700 and Shafir ‘464 to configure more than one module including functional component of aircraft to move to control the center of gravity of aircraft. This results in the system wherein the one or more modules include the computing device (both computing device and battery are functional components of the aircraft).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control the center of gravity in multiple ways i.e., position of multiple modules can be controlled to control the center of gravity.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin (US 2015/0102077).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) of claim 1 but it is silent about the system wherein the one or more modules are configured to be detachably attached to the spine using at least one of: sliding rails with locks, T-slot sliding, a stud-and-tube interlock, a snap-fit, an interference fit, a latch and catch, a push-to-lock mechanism, a spring-loaded pin, screws, clamps, glue, and adhesive.
Martin ‘077 teaches carrying rails/module are attached to the horizontal rail by a carrying rail mounting bracket or clamp assembly that is secured to the horizontal rail by any means that allows the rail mounting bracket to move along the horizontal rail to a desired position before being secured, by any means known in the art for example a bolt and nut, a set screw, a snap fit, and the like (Para 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Martin ‘077 to configure the system wherein the one or more modules are configured to be detachably attached to the spine using clamps.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would secure module to the spine.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (CN 206336437).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system of claim 1 but it is silent about the system further comprising a shell configured to cover the modules,
wherein the shell is configured to provide access to the one or more modules disposed within the shell,
wherein the shell comprises a releasable closure mechanism, the releasable closure mechanism comprising:
an opening configured to be formed in a line shape along at least a portion of the shell; and
a closure configured to be formed along the opening, the closure configured to close the opening; and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism is configured to provide access to the one or more modules disposed within the shell.
He ‘437 teaches (figure 1) a backpack type vehicle comprising unmanned rotary wing structure (1) and backpack/shell (2) wherein a control system and a battery is mounted in the backpack/shell (2) and a zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) extending along a longitudinal direction of the backpack/shell (2) wherein zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) is controlled for opening and closing to take and place articles conveniently (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 16; Pg. 4 Para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of He. ‘437 to configure the system further comprising a shell configured to cover the modules,
wherein the shell is configured to provide access to the module disposed within the shell,
wherein the shell comprises a releasable closure mechanism, the releasable closure mechanism comprising:
an opening configured to be formed in a line shape along at least a portion of the shell (zipper has an opening formed in a line shape); and
a closure configured to be formed along the opening, the closure configured to close the opening (zipper has a closure); and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism is configured to provide access to the module disposed within the shell .
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access to a module.
Regarding claim 9, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) wherein a rigidity of the shell is less than a rigidity of the spine (as modified by He ‘437; spine is rigid as the spine supports the module whereas shell is flexible as a zipper on the shell provides access inside the shell).
Regarding claim 11, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system wherein a releasable closure mechanism comprises a zipper (as modified by He ‘437).
Regarding claim 12, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system wherein the zipper is configured to be formed along a longitudinal direction of the shell (as modified by He ‘437).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (CN 206336437).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system of claim 1 but it is silent about the system wherein the nose portion of the aircraft is configured to receive a first end of the shell;
wherein a rear portion of the aircraft is configured to receive a second end of the shell, wherein the first end is distal from the second end.
He ‘437 teaches (figure 1) a backpack type vehicle comprising unmanned rotary wing structure (1) and backpack/shell (2) wherein a control system and a battery is mounted in the backpack/shell (2) wherein two ends of backpack/shell (2) are received on two ends of the backpack type vehicle (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 16; Pg. 4 Para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of He ‘437 to configure the system wherein the nose portion of the aircraft is configured to receive a first end of the shell;
wherein a rear portion of the aircraft is configured to receive a second end of the shell, wherein the first end is distal from the second end.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enclose modules and ensure safety of the modules from the external environment
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Townsend (US 2023/0271700) and Shafir (US 2020/0031464).
Regarding claim 15, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the system of claim 1 but it is silent about the system wherein the one or more modules include at least one of : a motor controller module, an avionics module, and a computing module.
Townsend ‘700 teaches (figures 1-7) a drone (100) comprising a payload carrier (200) wherein the payload carrier (200) includes a track (61), one or more carriages (73) and a payload shifting devices (62) wherein one or more carriages/module (73) are configured to carry a payload (80) and are slidingly connected to the track (61) and a payload shifting devices (62) is actuated to move one or all of the carriages (73) and the movement of all or some of the payload (80) along the fuselage adjusts the center of gravity (15) (Para 0019, 0041).
Shafir ‘464 teaches (figure 1) an aircraft (20) comprising a battery/functional component (41) moveable along a longitudinal axis (51) by controller (47) to control the center of gravity of aircraft (20) (Para 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Townsend ‘700 and Shafir ‘464 to configure more than one module including functional component of aircraft to move to control the center of gravity of aircraft. This results in the system wherein the system wherein the one or more modules include at least one of : a motor controller module, an avionics module, and a computing module (a motor controller module, an avionics module, and a computing module, and battery are functional components of the aircraft).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control the center of gravity in multiple ways i.e., position of multiple modules can be controlled to control the center of gravity.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bernabei (WO 2022/263327), Townsend (US 2023/0271700) and Shafir (US 2020/0031464).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the method wherein the adjusting positions of the module comprises:
receiving, by a processor/flight controller in communication with the one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery, weight information of each of the one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery (Para 0074; position is changed according to the weight of the object, thus the weight information of the object as well as the battery is received by the processor as initial weight before loading the object accounts for the weight of the battery);
generating, by the processor/flight controller, a module arrangement instruction by calculating positions of the one or more modules to have the desired center of gravity based on the weight information (Para 0074, 0080, 008, 0090; position is changed according to the weight of the object; instructions are executed by the processing unit to perform different steps; control module of the processing unit controls states of a mounting party via instructions);
automatically moving the module/mounted object (52) along the spine/arm part (30) based on the received modular arrangement instruction (Para 0074, 0080, 008, 0090),
but it is silent about the method wherein the adjusting positions of the one or more module comprises:
processor in communication with an active slid;
receiving, by the active slid, the module arrangement instruction from the processor and
automatically moving, by the active slid, the module/mounted object (52) based on the received modular arrangement instruction.
Bernabei ‘327 teaches (figures 1-14) the method wherein the adjusting positions of the module comprises:
receiving, by a processor/flight controller in communication with the module/ hold (C) with load and an active slid/ actuator (8, 9), weight/mass information of the module (Pg. 5 Lines 2-6, 25-30; Pg. 6 Lines 1-12; flight controller controls all aspect of the flight; aligning center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone obtains a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone, thus weight/mass information of the module is received by the flight controller;
generating, by the processor/flight controller, a module arrangement instruction by calculating positions of the module to have the desired center of gravity based on the weight information (Pg. 5 Lines 2-6, 25-30; Pg. 6 Lines 1-10; module/ hold (C) is translated based on the mass and position of the module/ hold (C) with load; active slid/ actuator (8, 9) are actuated based on signal/module arrangement instruction from the flight controller controller/processor);
receiving, by the active slid/ actuator (8, 9), the modular arrangement instruction from the processor/flight controller (flight controller controls all aspect of the flight; active slid/ actuator (8, 9) aligns the center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone); and
automatically moving, by the active slid/ actuator (8, 9), the module along the spine/rail (7) based on the received modular arrangement instruction (active slid/ actuator (8, 9) aligns the center of mass of hold and aerodynamic center of gravity of the rest of the cargo drone to obtain a desired center of gravity for the aircraft/cargo drone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Bernabei ‘327 to configure the method wherein the adjusting positions of the one or more module comprises:
processor in communication with an active slid;
receiving, by the active slid, the module arrangement instruction from the processor and
automatically, moving by the active slid, the one module/mounted object (52) e based on the received modular arrangement instruction.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would actuate the one or more modules.
Modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) is silent about the method where the adjusting positions of the one or more module comprises automatically, moving by the active slid, each module of the one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery along the spine based on the received module arrangement instruction.
Townsend ‘700 teaches (figures 1-7) a drone (100) comprising a payload carrier (200) wherein the payload carrier (200) includes a track (61), one or more carriages (73) and a payload shifting devices (62) wherein one or more carriages/module (73) are configured to carry a payload (80) and are slidingly connected to the track (61) and a payload shifting devices (62) is actuated to move one or all of the carriages (73) and the movement of all or some of the payload (80) along the fuselage adjusts the center of gravity (15) (Para 0019, 0041).
Shafir ‘464 teaches (figure 1) an aircraft (20) comprising a battery (41) moveable along a longitudinal axis (51) by controller (47) to control the center of gravity of aircraft (20) (Para 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Townsend ‘700 and Shafir ‘464 to configure more than one module including battery to move to control the center of gravity of aircraft. This results in the method where the adjusting positions of the one or more module comprises automatically, moving by the active slid each module of the one or more modules/mounted object (52) and battery along the spine based on the received module arrangement instruction.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control the center of gravity in multiple ways i.e., position of both modules can be controlled to control the center of gravity.
Regarding claim 18, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the method wherein the adjusting positions of the one or more modules is configured to be performed for flight conditions (Para 0095; different flight have different conditions/modules and modules are adjusted based on the weight of the module), and
wherein the adjusting positions of the one or more modules is configured to be performed while the aircraft is in operation (Para 0073, 0083-0084)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2020/0391863) in view of He (CN 206336437) and Gallant et al. (US 2016/0176513).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) a method comprising:
securing a payload/mounted object (52) to a spine/arm (30) of an aircraft/flying vehicle (1) (Para 0056, 0073);
but it is silent about the method comprising:
positioning a shell over the payload; and
securing the shell between a nose portion and a rear portion of the aircraft.
He ‘437 teaches (figure 1) a backpack type vehicle comprising unmanned rotary wing structure (1) and backpack/shell (2) wherein a control system and a battery is mounted in the backpack/shell (2) wherein two ends of backpack/shell (2) are received on two ends of the backpack type vehicle (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 16; Pg. 4 Para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of He ‘437 to configure the method comprising:
positioning a shell over the payload; and
securing the shell between a nose portion and a rear portion of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enclose modules and ensure safety of the modules from the external environment
Modified Suzuki ‘863 is silent about the method comprising:
closing the shell to secure the shell between a nose portion and a rear portion of the aircraft, wherein, when the shell is closed, a first end of the shell sits on a lip and recessed edge of the nose portion and a second end of the shell sits on a lip and recessed edge of the rear portion.
Gallant et al. ‘513 teaches (figures 1-7b) process of nose assembly (1) of an aircraft wherein connecting frame (50) is placed in position on the outer skin of the fuselage (16) from inside the fuselage wherein skirt (52) bears against the perimeter of opening (40) in skin wherein the perimeter of opening (40) comprises a lip and recessed edge (16) (clearly shown the figure below) (Para 0060).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of Gallant et al. ‘513 to configure the method comprising:
closing the shell to secure the shell between a nose portion and a rear portion of the aircraft, wherein, when the shell is closed, a first end of the shell sits on a lip and recessed edge of the nose portion and a second end of the shell sits on a lip and recessed edge of the rear portion.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by streamlining the airflow.
Regarding claim 20, modified Suzuki ‘863 teaches (figures 1-11) the method of claim 19 but it is silent about the method wherein the closing the shell is configured to be performed by closing a releasable closure mechanism, and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism comprises at least one of: a zipper and a hook and loop fastener.
He ‘437 further teaches (figure 1) a backpack type vehicle comprising unmanned rotary wing structure (1) and backpack/shell (2) wherein a control system and a battery is mounted in the backpack/shell (2) and a zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) extending along a longitudinal direction of the backpack/shell (2) wherein zipper/releasable closure mechanism (201) is controlled for opening and closing to take and place articles conveniently (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 16; Pg. 4 Para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki ‘863 to incorporate the teachings of He. ‘437 to configure the method comprising:
closing the shell,
wherein the closing the shell is configured to be performed by closing a releasable closure mechanism, and
wherein the releasable closure mechanism comprises a zipper.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access to a module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16th April 2026, with respect to the amended claim(s) 1, 16 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as explained in the rejection above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights