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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the guide part comprises a blocking part that prevents the supporting part from ascending beyond a predefined height, and
wherein, when the supporting part collides with the blocking part, the locker releases the locking of the moving object” is directed towards non-elected species 3a1, including figure 21 (see ¶151-¶153 of the specification).
Claims 18-19 were withdrawn by applicant.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 3a2a in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “each of the first wheel, the second wheel, the first wire receptor, and the second wire receptor is disposed at a different position on the supporting part” should instead read “each of the first wheel, the second wheel, the first wire receptor, and the second wire receptor are disposed at a different position on the supporting part”
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 lifting control part configured to lift the moving object by controlling at least one of the moving object and the supporting part” in claim 5 which corresponds with ¶146-¶148 and ¶133
“the lifting control part is configured to lift the moving object by controlling a wire structurally connected to the supporting part to move the supporting part along the guide part ” in claim 10 which corresponds with ¶18, ¶133, and ¶138.
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 Objections
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “… wherein the body comprises a bottom of body and a side of body…” should read “… wherein the body comprises a bottom of the body and a side of the body…” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-9 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 and “a lifting control part configured to lift the moving object by controlling at least one of the moving object and the supporting part” in claim 5 which corresponds to several lines of ¶146-¶148 and ¶133 of the specification which state:
“ [0146] Referring to FIG. 1, FIG. 11, and FIGS. 19 to 21, the lifting control part (LC) may provide a flight control signal to the moving object (OJ), thereby generating thrust in the moving object (OJ), and accordingly, the supporting part (SP) in contact with the moving object (OJ) may move along the guide part (G), so that the moving object (OJ) may be lifted.
[0147] That is, while both the first embodiment and the second embodiment lift the moving object (OJ) using the guide part (G), the first embodiment moves the supporting part (SP) by using a wire (W) connected to the supporting part (SP), but the second embodiment differs in that it moves the supporting part (SP) by generating thrust in the moving object (OJ), which is positioned above the supporting part (SP), through the provision of a flight control signal to the moving object (OJ). However, the embodiment of the present disclosure is not limited thereto, and in the second embodiment, the flight control signal applied to the moving object (OJ) may also be provided by an external ground control system (GCS). Hereinafter, for the convenience of explanation, a case will be described in which the flight control signal is provided not by the external ground control system (GCS), but by the lifting control part (LC) of the launcher (LA).
[0148] More specifically, in some embodiments of the present disclosure, the lifting control part (LC) may provide a flight control signal to the moving object (OJ), so that the supporting part (SP) in contact with the moving object (OJ) moves along the guide part (G), thereby lifting the moving object (OJ). That is, the lifting control part (LC) may transmit a flight control signal to the motor included in the moving object (OJ) to generate power, and may control the moving object (OJ) to be lifted together with the supporting part (SP) through the force generated by the propeller of the moving object (OJ).”
“ [0133] More specifically, as illustrated in <D1> of FIG. 12, the lifting control part (LC) may apply pressure to the wire (W) in a predefined direction (the arrow direction in <D1> of FIG. 12). Accordingly, as shown in <D2> of FIG. 12, the supporting part (SP), which is structurally connected to the wire (W), may move upward inside the body (BD), thereby lifting the moving object (OJ). Here, the lifting control part (LC) may include a wire actuator for controlling the wire (W).” which fail to provide adequate written support because the specification is not sufficiently specific for the particulars of “[lifting] the moving object by controlling at least one of the moving object” other than a re-iteration of the claimed function/language and the use of signals, but nothing more. As such, the examiner asserts due to the lack of sufficient written description, a skilled artisan would not be informed how to implement the invention as claimed and disclosed in a meaningful way. The examiner invite applicant to particularly point out what and where some examples of these various specific parameters are located in the specification as they relate and/or are directed to the elected invention as tied to the various modules, for further consideration regarding 112a. As such, the examiner asserts the claimed language in view of the specification is not satisfactory to amount to anything more than a general possession of a concept, not disclosed with sufficient detail. A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)). However, note that the part of the limitation reading “[lifting] the moving object by controlling … the supporting part” (this corresponds with the wire actuator of ¶133 reading “…Here, the lifting control part (LC) may include a wire actuator for controlling the wire (W).”) does appear to have written support.
Claims 6-9 and 14 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claims 10-13 are not rejected under 35 USC 112(a) because it precludes the scope of the claim at issue.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the communication interface is configured to control power supply to be blocked for some of a plurality of components included in the moving object by delivering a power control signal to a wireless switch included in the moving object” is indefinite because grammatical issues mean that the intent of this claim limitation can not be understood as written.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed towards “a launcher for lifting a moving object” (inhered from claim 1 and reiterated in the preamble of this claim), but the claim now requires that the “moving object comprises an electronic speed control (ESC) for controlling a driving part comprising a motor or a propeller, and wherein the communication interface provides a power cut-off signal, which turns off the wireless switch, to components other than the ESC” making it unclear whether the claim covers the launcher on its own or a system including both the launcher and the moving object with the elements described. Clarification is required.
Additionally, the language “which turns off the wireless switch, to components other than the ESC” is indefinite because this language refers to components not specified by the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is directed towards “wherein the moving object comprises a mission management unit (MMU), a flight control unit (FCU), a battery eliminator circuit (BEC), and a modem, and wherein the communication interface provides a power cut-off signal, which turns off the wireless switch, to at least one of the MMU, FCU, BEC, and modem” making it unclear whether the claim covers the launcher on its own or a system including both the launcher and the moving object with the elements described. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “a lifting control part configured to lift the moving object by controlling at least one of the moving object and the supporting part” 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. ¶146-¶148 fail to describe a structure for performing/implementing lifting of the moving object via control of the moving object. 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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the first wire receptor and the second wire receptor are disposed at positions facing each other on the supporting part, and
wherein the plurality of wheels and the plurality of wire receptors are alternately arranged at predefined angles with respect to a center of the supporting part.” makes it unclear whether the plurality of wheels and the plurality of wire receptors are required to be arranged in an alternating manner or whether an arrangement of the wheel and wire receptors is an alternative to the first and second wire receptors facing each other. Based on the disclosure of the application (¶21 and ¶137), this is being interpreted as the later.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falk (US 11767110 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Falk (US 11767110 B2) discloses a launcher for lifting a moving object, comprising:
a body (Falk, figure 7, item 714); and
a communication interface (Falk, figure 8, item 822) embedded in the body (Falk, figure 7, item 760, electrical components inside body) and configured to communicate with the moving object (Falk, figure 8, item 832),
wherein, when the moving object is present inside the launcher, the communication interface is configured to control power supply to be blocked for some of a plurality of components included in the moving object by delivering a power control signal to a wireless switch included in the moving object (Falk, communications with UAV are capable of being used to control a power supply with a signal).
Regarding claim 4, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 1, wherein the communication interface provides a power supply signal that turns on the wireless switch when the moving object is lifted from the launcher and is launched from the launcher (Falk, col 6 lines 22-41, when UAV is moved to launch position the UAV is turned on by instructions from terminal via the launcher and then launched).
Regarding claim 5, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a bottom of body and a side of body (Falk, figure 7, item 714, housing has a bottom and sides), and
wherein the launcher comprises:
a supporting part (Falk, figure 7, item 732) configured to be in contact with a lower side of the moving object to support the moving object from below (Falk, figure 7, launching/landing platform supports a lower side of the UAV); and
a lifting control part (Falk, figure 7, item 734) configured to lift the moving object by controlling at least one of the moving object and the supporting part (Falk, figure 7, motor rotates lead screw to control position of the platform and UAV on the platform).
Regarding claim 6, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 5, wherein the supporting part comprises a protrusion part (Falk, figures 4a-b, 7, items 440 and 732) configured to fix the moving object to the supporting part by being inserted into a groove formed on a bottom of the moving object (Falk, figures 3a-4b, 7, items 310 and 732).
Regarding claim 7, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 5, wherein the launcher further comprises a guide part (Falk, figure 7, item 736) configured to guide the supporting part to move vertically inside the launcher by being structurally connected to the supporting part (Falk, figure 7, lead screw supports the platform).
Regarding claim 8, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 7, wherein the guide part comprises an attachment part that is attached to at least one of a bottom of the body of the launcher and a side of the body of the launcher (Falk, figure 7, item 736 and 734, screw is attached to a bottom and a side of the launch box structure).
Regarding claim 9, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 7, wherein the supporting part comprises a connect part that is structurally connected to the guide part (Falk, figure 7, item 732, support part consists of a platform and connects with the lead screw).
Regarding claim 14, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 9, wherein the lifting control part generates thrust in the moving object by providing a flight control signal to the moving object (Falk, col 6 lines 22-41, UAV instructed to provide lift off thrust), and lifts the moving object by causing the supporting part in contact with the moving object to move along the guide part (Falk, figure 7, item 732, platform lifted along guides), and
wherein the connect part comprises a connector that is structurally connected to the guide part (Falk, figure 7, item 732, support part connects with guide part).
Regarding claim 15, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 14, wherein the connector comprises a locker that locks the moving object to the supporting part by being structurally connected to the moving object (Falk, col 5 lines 54- col 6 line 13, release mechanism holds the UAV on the launch platform).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 11767110 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wake (US 20210216085 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 1, except:
wherein the moving object comprises an electronic speed control for controlling a driving part comprising a motor or a propeller, and
wherein the communication interface provides a power cut-off signal, which turns off the wireless switch, to components other than the ESC.
Wake (US 20210216085 A1) teaches a moving object (Wake, figure 5) comprises an electronic speed control (Wake, ¶52, electronic speed control) for controlling a driving part comprising a motor or a propeller (Wake, figures 5 and 7, items 101-1a – 101-4b and 102-1a - 104-b, ¶52); and
where a communication interface (Wake, figure 9, item 401) provides a power cut-off signal (Wake, figure 11, items S8, S9 and S11, ¶189 and ¶186, signal from a remote controller triggers drone to go into a shut down state), which turns off the wireless switch, to components other than the ESC (Wake, ¶196; drone, including components of the drone, is turned off).
Falk and Wake are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of UAV stations and communications. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the moving object of Falk with the electronic speed controller and communications interface providing a power cut off signal of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success in order to regulate power to motors/propellers and to conserve energy when the drone is not in use.
Regarding claim 3, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 1, wherein the moving object comprises a mission management unit (Falk col 4 lines 24-29, control electronics), a flight control unit (Falk col 4 lines 24-29, control electronics),
wherein the communication interface provides a power cut-off signal, which turns off the wireless switch, to at least one of the MMU, FCU, BEC, and modem.
Wake (US 20210216085 A1) teaches a communication interface (Wake, figure 9, item 401) providing a power cut-off signal (Wake, figure 11, items S8, S9 and S11, ¶189 and ¶186, signal from a remote controller triggers drone to go into a shut down state), which turns off a moving object (Wake, ¶196; drone, including components of the drone, is turned off).
Falk and Wake are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of UAV stations and communications. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the moving object of Falk with the communications interface providing a power cut off signal of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve energy when the drone is not in use.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 11767110 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dai (CN 116534309 A) and Yoo (KR 20230168757 A).
Regarding claim 10, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 9, except:
wherein the lifting control part is configured to lift the moving object by controlling a wire structurally connected to the supporting part to move the supporting part along the guide part,
wherein the connect part comprises a wheel that is rollable along the guide part, and
wherein the supporting part further comprises a wire receptor configured to accommodate the wire.
Dai (CN 116534309 A) teaches a launcher where a lifting control part (Dai, figure 8, item 82) is configured to lift the moving object by controlling a wire (Dai, figure 8, item 81) structurally connected to the supporting part (Dai, figure 8, item 5) to move the supporting part along the guide part (Dai, figure 8, item 3, guide part), and
wherein the supporting part further comprises a wire receptor (Dai, figures 8 and 12, item 81 and 5, rope attached to bottom of platform at a receiver) configured to accommodate the wire (Dai, figures 8 and 12, receiver attached with rope).
Falk and Dai are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of UAV launchers. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lifting mechanism of Falk with the lifting control part controlling a wire attached to the support part of Dai with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the size and weight of the guide part.
Yoo (KR 20230168757 A) teaches a launcher wherein the connect part comprises a wheel that is rollable along the guide part (Yoo, figures 3 and 10, item 1122 and 1123, wheels rollable along a guide rail).
Falk as modified by Dai and Yoo are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of UAV launchers. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connect part of Falk as modified by Dai with the rollers sandwiching a guide part of Yoo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce friction between the guide part and the support part.
Regarding claim 11, Falk as modified by Dai and Yoo teaches the launcher of claim 10, wherein the wheel comprises a plurality of wheels comprising a first wheel and a second wheel (Yoo, figures 3 and 10, item 1122 and 1123, wheels rollable along a guide rail), and
wherein the wire receptor comprises a plurality of wire receptors comprising a first wire receptor and a second wire receptor (Dai, figures 8 and 12, item 81 and 5, multiple receivers for connecting a rope to the platform shown).
Regarding claim 12, Falk as modified by Dai and Yoo teaches launcher of claim 11, wherein each of the first wheel, the second wheel, the first wire receptor, and the second wire receptor is disposed at a different position on the supporting part (Dai, figures 8 and 12, item 81 and 5, multiple receivers for connecting a rope to the platform shown; Yoo, figures 3 and 10, item 1122 and 1123, wheels rollable along a guide rail; all are at distinct locations).
Regarding claim 13, Falk as modified by Dai and Yoo teaches launcher of claim 12, wherein the first wheel and the second wheel are disposed at positions facing each other on the supporting part (Yoo, figures 3 and 10, item 1122 and 1123, wheels face each other on opposite sides of the guide part),
wherein the first wire receptor and the second wire receptor are disposed at positions facing each other on the supporting part (Dai, figures 8 and 12, item 81 and 5, some receivers are on opposite sides of the support part and face each other), and
wherein the plurality of wheels and the plurality of wire receptors are alternately arranged at predefined angles with respect to a center of the supporting part (Dai, figure 8, items 3 and 81).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 11767110 B2), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Martens (US 11453498 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Falk discloses the launcher of claim 15, except:
wherein the launcher further comprises a position sensor configured to determine a position of the moving object inside the launcher, and
wherein the lifting control part controls the locker to release the locking based on the position of the moving object determined by the position sensor.
Martens (US 11453498 B2) teaches a launcher further comprises a position sensor configured to determine a position of the moving object inside the launcher (Martens, figure 1, item 34, col 12 lines 15-28; position sensor for detecting vehicle position; would be capable of determining position inside of a given launcher), control a retaining mechanism based on the position sensor (Martens, figure 1, item 232, col 12 lines 15-28; retainer actuator operated based on position of the vehicle; would be capable of releasing the vehicle based on a position inside of a given launcher).
Falk and Martens are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of UAV launchers. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the launcher of Falk with the position sensor and retainer actuator of Martens with a reasonable expectation of success in order to secure the moving object from moving before the moving object is ready to be released.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 116639287 A teaches ropes/cables on corners of platform to move it up and down
CN 116477093 A teaches threaded rods used to move landing pad up/down
US 9845165 B2 teaches a position sensor which determines UAV position inside of a launcher; where a UAV is positioned on four shafts acting as a locker which effectively release when UAV rises above them.
US 10370121 B1 teaches wheels and a track
US 10434885 B2 teaches slots on pad for receiving landing gear
US 10633115 B2 teaches a landing cradle for receiving drone
US 11572197 B1 teaches a landing pad with a groove for receiving drone
US 11760511 B1 teaches a cradle hugging the side of the drone
US 11987402 B2 teaches controlling a UAV to provide thrust for lift off (fig 12a-c)
US 12528608 B1 teaches a charging mechanism including grooves and protrusions
US 20170057635 A1 teaches a drone launched rocket; interstage has protrusion from 1st stage received in a radial groove of the drone stage
WO 2019206483 A1 teaches a circular landing protrusion
WO 2023026308 A1 teaches a docking system formed as a cup
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights