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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 11/6/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 11/6/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,473,107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims only differ from the conflicting patent claims as shown in the table below. Note that “robot” and drone and docking and landing are not patentably distinguishable.
Instant Application 19/381644
Patent 12,473,107
Docking station for a robot
Drone docking station for an aerial vehicle
Docking area
Drone landing area
Robot positioning device
Drone positioning device
1,2
1
3
2
4
3
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
10
13
14,15
11
16
12
17
13
18
14
19
15
20
16
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 13 is 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. In claim 13, “discloses a sealing” does not provide sufficient description to allow those of ordinary skill in the art to fully understand what is intended to be claimed.
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, 5-8, 12-14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Minnick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0237161).
In regards to claim 1, Minnick et al (henceforth referred to as Minnick) disclose a docking station for a robot. Note the docking station for the drone in figure 1, comprising:
a platform having a docking area. The docking station (item 120) includes a platform (see figure 1);
an alert device disposed on a portion of the docking station and configured to
indicate, through a plurality of modes, one or more current or future operation functions of the robot. Minnick teaches multiple “surface contacts” that may be utilized for various purposes including exchanging data, communication between the docking station and the drone, charging the drone and other purposes equivalent to the claimed function; and
a robot positioning device disposed on the platform. Minnick teaches that some of the surface contacts and or magnets (items 121) can be used to position the drone on the docking platform (par. 29).
In regards to claim 5, Minnick discloses that the docking area comprises one or more functional locations configured to communicatively couple via direct contact with the robot. The docking platform of Minnick includes multiple locations that communicate with the drone upon landing (items 121/122).
In regards to claim 6, Minnick discloses that the one or more functional locations are configured to charge a battery on the robot. The locations of the Minnick platform are taught to provide power to the drone (par. 32).
In regards to claim 7, Minnick disclose the one or more functional locations are configured to communicate data to or from the robot. Minnick teaches communication between the platform and the drone via the contacts (par. 28).
In regards to claim 8, Minnick discloses that the one or more functional locations are configured to communicate data to or from the robot via a wireless data interface. Minnick discloses using wireless communication (par. 38).
In regards to claim 12, Minnick discloses a hanging bar coupled to the platform, the hanging bar configured to be secured to a rack in a warehouse. The platform of Minnick includes supports (items 123) that constitute hanging bars and are capable of being attached to any of various items including a rack in a warehouse.
In regards to claim 13, Minnick discloses a sealing of some type between components of the device.
In regards to claim 14, Minnick discloses a robot docking station for a robot, comprising:
a housing defining a platform having a robot landing area. Minnick teaches a docking platform that constitutes a housing and provides a landing area for a drone (see figure 1);
Minnick discloses an alert device disposed on a portion of the robot docking station and configured to indicate, through a plurality of modes, one or more current or future
operation functions of the robot. Minnick teaches multiple “surface contacts” that may be utilized for various purposes including exchanging data, communication between the docking station and the drone, charging the drone and other purposes equivalent to the claimed function;
a robot positioning device disposed on the platform. Minnick teaches that some of the surface contacts and or magnets (items 121) can be used to position the drone on the docking platform (par. 29);
Minnick does not disclose one or more cooling devices disposed within the housing, or that the one or more cooling devices configured to reduce a temperature of the robot. However, Raptopoulos teaches a drone landing platform that includes a
temperature monitoring and control system (par. 35). It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to provide a temp
control system in/on the Kozlenko platform as taught by Raptopoulos, to maintain the
drone in varying conditions; and
Minnick disclose one or more functional locations disposed on the robot landing area, the one or more functional locations configured to make direct contact with the robot. The docking platform of Minnick includes multiple locations that communicate with the drone upon landing (items 121/122).
In regards to claim 18, Minnick discloses that the one or more functional locations are configured to charge a battery on the robot. The locations of the Minnick platform are taught to provide power to the drone (par. 32).
In regards to claim 19, Minnick discloses that the one or more functional locations are configured to communicate data to or from the robot. Minnick teaches communication between the platform and the drone via the contacts (par. 28).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 9, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0237161) in view of Raptopoulos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0276735).
In regards to claims 9 and 20, Minnick fails to disclose a camera disposed on the platform. However, Raptopoulos et al (henceforth referred to as Raptopoulos)
teaches a drone platform that includes a camera (item 216) and it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to
incorporate a camera in/on the platform of Minnick as taught by Raptopoulos, to
monitor the drone.
In regards to claim 11, Minnick fails to explicitly disclose a thermal management
system configured to cool and/or heat the aerial drone. However, Raptopoulos teaches a drone landing platform that includes a temperature monitoring and control system (par. 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to provide a temp control system in/on the Minnick platform as taught by Raptopoulos, to maintain the drone in varying conditions.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minnick et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0237161) in view of Kozlenko et al. (U.S. Patent 11,873,116).
In regards to claim 10, Minnick does not disclose a thermal management system configured to cool and/or heat the robot. However, Kozlenko et al (henceforth referred to as Kozlenko) teaches utilizing a sensor to monitor drone temperature (col. 10, lines 46-58) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate various sensor with the system of Minnick including a temperature sensor as taught by Kozlenko, to verify normal operating conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 15-17 would be allowable pending an approved Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 2 and 15, an alert device disposed on a portion of the docking station and configured to indicate, through a plurality of modes, one or more current or future operation functions of the robot in combination with a sidewall disposed around the robot landing area and a flange extending from the sidewall, the flange having a first end coupled to the sidewall and a second end distal thereto, wherein the flange extends from the sidewall at a first angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights