DETAILED ACTION
Reissue Application
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,878,796 B2.
Maintenance Fees
No maintenance fee is yet due for US Patent No. 11,878,796 B2.
Status of Submission
The preliminary amendment filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-9 (of which claim 5 is amended) and new reissue claims 10-18 are subject to examination.
Objection to Amendment
The claim amendments filed on December 1, 2025 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g). The use of double brackets in amended claim 5 is improper. Single brackets must be used in reissue claims to identify text to be omitted.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
fixed frame (claims 1 and 10)
Examiner’s Construction:
a frame that is fixed relative to the overall vehicle of which it is a part such that, while the frame moves together with the vehicle, the frame’s orientation is fixed by the orientation of the vehicle
Examiner’s Explanation:
The claimed “fixed frame” is a frame of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and, thus, is not fixed in the sense of being immovable (since it moves with the flight of the UAV). Rather, the frame is fixed in the sense that its orientation is fixed by the orientation of the UAV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a rotating arm pivotably coupled to the fixed frame at a central axis…and configured to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis” (ll. 5-6). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the rotating arm is “configured” to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to pivotably couple the rotating arm to the fixed frame and the specific function of such structure. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed invention would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a battery…configured to supply power to the motors and the housed electronics” (ll. 12-13). Since the battery is on the rotating arm (l. 12) and the motors are on the fixed frame (ll. 2-3), a simple and conventional electrical connection cannot be utilized to supply power from the battery to the motors. However, neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the battery is “configured” to supply power to the motors, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to supply power from the battery to the motors and the specific function of such structure. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed invention would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 2 and 11 recite “the first end of the rotating arm is adjustable to accommodate vertical and horizontal pipes as the ferromagnetic surface”, claims 3 and 12 recite “the rotating arm extends along a longitudinal axis perpendicular to the central axis and going through the docking station, and the first end of the rotating arm is reconfigurable to rotate the first end about the longitudinal axis relative to a remainder of the docking station by 90°”, and claims 4 and 13 recite “the rotation arm further comprises a payload motor powered by the battery and configured to rotate the first end of the rotating arm about the longitudinal axis relative to the remainder of the docking station.” Fig. 9 shows a structure that is identified as a rotatable payload, but Fig. 9 fails to show any structure that allows the payload to be rotated or adjusted. Further, the specification states that the payload end of the rotating arm can be adjusted to accommodate vertical and horizontal pipes, with the rotatable payload shown in Fig. 9 being rotated 90° from its horizontal pipe position in order to make tangential contact with a vertical pipe. The specification further states that a mechanism is provided to allow for the 90° rotation of the payload, with this mechanism being manually adjustable before flight in some embodiments, and with the manual adjustment accomplished via four mounting points or via a turntable. Alternatively, the specification states that the adjustment mechanism can be motorized to allow for in-flight rotation. While possible implementations are broadly described in the specification, none of the possible implementations are illustrated in the drawings, and the specification fails to specifically describe the structural makeup and function of any of the possible implementations. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed invention would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 5 and 14 recite “the rotating arm is further configured to: rotate its first end down with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a top of the ferromagnetic surface; rotate its first end up with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a bottom of the ferromagnetic surface; and rotate its first end even with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a side of the ferromagnetic surface.” Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the rotating arm is “configured” to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to pivotably couple the rotating arm to the fixed frame. Further, neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the structure relied upon to cause the rotating arm to assume the three specific positions required by claim 5 and the specific function of such structure. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed invention would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 8 and 17 recite “the magnetic feet comprise switchable magnets powered by the battery and configured to switch their magnetism on and off under control of the housed electronics, the switchable magnets being further configured to: switch their magnetism on in order to magnetically attach the UAV to the ferromagnetic surface during a perching of the UAV on the ferromagnetic surface; and switch their magnetism off in order to magnetically detach the perched UAV from the ferromagnetic surface during a takeoff of the UAV from the ferromagnetic surface.” Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the switchable magnets are “configured” to switch their magnetism on and off under control of the housed electronics, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to operate the switchable magnets under control of the housed electronics, and the specific manner in which the housed electronics function to control the switchable magnets. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed invention would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “a rotation motor powered by the battery and configured to rotate the rotating arm with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis under control of the housed electronics during flight of the UAV.” The claimed rotation motor is not shown in the drawings. Further, the specification merely contains the same broad recitation found in claims 9 and 18. Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the rotation motor is “configured” to rotate the rotating arm with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis under control of the housed electronics during flight, i.e., the specific structure of the rotation motor, the manner in which the rotation motor and the rotating arm are interconnected, and the specific manner in which the housed electronics function to control the rotation motor. Thus, the disclosure fails to explain how the claimed invention would be structured and how it would function. Absent a complete description of these essential features, the written description fails to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a fixed frame including: peripheral propellers and corresponding motors…” (ll. 2-3). It is unconventional to define a “frame” as “including” propellers and motors. Normally a frame would be relied upon to support propellers and motors. It is unclear how a frame can be considered to “include” propellers and motors. For these reasons, the scope of the claims is unclear.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a rotating arm pivotably coupled to the fixed frame at a central axis between the propellers” (l. 5). This recitation is indefinite because it is partially true and partially untrue. As shown in Fig. 1. The rotating arm is not “pivotably coupled to the fixed frame at a central axis between” all of the propellers. Rather, as shown in Fig. 1, the rotating arm is pivotably coupled to the fixed frame at a central axis that is located between (i) the two propellers on the right side of the frame, and (ii) the two propellers on the left side of the frame.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a rotating arm pivotably coupled to the fixed frame at a central axis…and configured to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis” (ll. 5-6). Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the rotating arm is “configured” to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to pivotably couple the rotating arm to the fixed frame and the specific function of such structure. Since the claim limitation is undefined by the specification, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what is excluded therefrom.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a battery…configured to supply power to the motors and the housed electronics” (ll. 12-13). Since the battery is on the rotating arm (l. 12) and the motors are on the fixed frame (ll. 2-3), a simple and conventional electrical connection cannot be utilized to supply power from the battery to the motors. However, neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the battery is “configured” to supply power to the motors, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to supply power from the battery to the motors and the specific function of such structure. Since the claim limitation is undefined by the specification, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what is excluded therefrom.
Claims 2 and 11 recite “the first end of the rotating arm is adjustable to accommodate vertical and horizontal pipes as the ferromagnetic surface”, claims 3 and 12 recite “the rotating arm extends along a longitudinal axis perpendicular to the central axis and going through the docking station, and the first end of the rotating arm is reconfigurable to rotate the first end about the longitudinal axis relative to a remainder of the docking station by 90°”, and claims 4 and 13 recite “the rotation arm further comprises a payload motor powered by the battery and configured to rotate the first end of the rotating arm about the longitudinal axis relative to the remainder of the docking station.” Fig. 9 shows a structure that is identified as a rotatable payload, but Fig. 9 fails to show any structure that allows the payload to be rotated or adjusted. Further, the specification states that the payload end of the rotating arm can be adjusted to accommodate vertical and horizontal pipes, with the rotatable payload shown in Fig. 9 being rotated 90° from its horizontal pipe position in order to make tangential contact with a vertical pipe. The specification further states that a mechanism is provided to allow for the 90° rotation of the payload, with this mechanism being manually adjustable before flight in some embodiments, and with the manual adjustment accomplished via four mounting points or via a turntable. Alternatively, the specification states that the adjustment mechanism can be motorized to allow for in-flight rotation. While possible implementations are broadly described in the specification, none of the possible implementations are illustrated in the drawings, and the specification fails to specifically describe the structural makeup and function of any of the possible implementations. Since the claim limitation is undefined by the specification, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what is excluded therefrom.
In claims 4 and 13, the term “the rotation arm” (l. 1) lacks proper antecedent basis since claims 1 and 10 recite “a rotating arm”.
Claims 5 and 14 recite “the rotating arm is further configured to: rotate its first end down with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a top of the ferromagnetic surface; rotate its first end up with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a bottom of the ferromagnetic surface; and rotate its first end even with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a side of the ferromagnetic surface.” Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the rotating arm is “configured” to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to pivotably couple the rotating arm to the fixed frame. Further, neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the structure relied upon to cause the rotating arm to assume the three specific positions required by claim 5 and the specific function of such structure. Since the claim limitation is undefined by the specification, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what is excluded therefrom.
Claims 5 and 14 recite “the rotating arm is further configured to…rotate its first end even with respect to the fixed frame in order to perch the UAV and release the crawler on a side of the ferromagnetic surface.” It is unclear what structural interrelationship is required by the phrase “even with respect to the fixed frame”. The phrase “even with” generally means equal or balanced, which does not clearly specify a structural interrelationship. For this reason, the claims are indefinite.
Claims 8 and 17 recite “the magnetic feet comprise switchable magnets powered by the battery and configured to switch their magnetism on and off under control of the housed electronics, the switchable magnets being further configured to: switch their magnetism on in order to magnetically attach the UAV to the ferromagnetic surface during a perching of the UAV on the ferromagnetic surface; and switch their magnetism off in order to magnetically detach the perched UAV from the ferromagnetic surface during a takeoff of the UAV from the ferromagnetic surface.” Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the switchable magnets are “configured” to switch their magnetism on and off under control of the housed electronics, i.e., the specific structure relied upon to operate the switchable magnets under control of the housed electronics, and the specific manner in which the housed electronics function to control the switchable magnets. Since the claim limitation is undefined by the specification, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what is excluded therefrom.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “a rotation motor powered by the battery and configured to rotate the rotating arm with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis under control of the housed electronics during flight of the UAV.” The claimed rotation motor is not shown in the drawings. Further, the specification merely contains the same broad recitation found in claims 9 and 18. Neither the specification nor the drawings disclose the manner in which the rotation motor is “configured” to rotate the rotating arm with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis under control of the housed electronics during flight, i.e., the specific structure of the rotation motor, the manner in which the rotation motor and the rotating arm are interconnected, and the specific manner in which the housed electronics function to control the rotation motor. Since the claim limitation is undefined by the specification, the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is impossible to ascertain what subject matter is encompassed by the claims and what is excluded therefrom.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Abdellatif et al.”
US Publication No. 2020/0172232 A1
“Pallier”
WO Publication No. 2012/013878 A1 (with translation)
“Reichert”
US Publication No. 2015/0021429 A1
“Sun et al.”
CN Publication No. 103192987 A (with translation)
“Sweers et al.”
US Publication No. 2021/0356255 A1
“Tavakolikhakaledi et al.”
US Publication No. 2020/0307786 A1
“Troy et al.”
US Publication No. 2020/0207488 A1
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art listed above is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
In the embodiment of Figs. 2-2B, Sweers et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a rotating frame 8 pivotably coupled to a fixed frame 4 about a central axis between propellers 10; surface attaching feet 16 (which can be magnetic) at ends of the rotating frame 8; and a payload 6 (such as a robotic crawler) that couples to the rotating frame 8 during flight and uncouples from the rotating frame 8 when perched on a surface.
In the embodiments of Figs. 3A-4B, Sweers et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a rotating arm 3 pivotably coupled to a fixed frame 4 about a central axis between propellers 10; a coupling mechanism 15 (like a docking station) at a first end of the rotating arm 3; a payload 6 or 25 (which can be a robotic crawler) that couples to the coupling mechanism 15 during flight and uncouples from the coupling mechanism 15 when perched on a surface 9; surface attaching devices 27 (which can be magnetic) on the payload 6 or 25 for releasably attaching the payload to the surface 9; and a counterweight 7 at a second end of the rotating arm 3.
In the embodiment of Fig. 6, Tavakolikhakaledi et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a rotatable structure 602 that pivotably couples a rotating arm (sensor module) 601 to a fixed frame (see Fig. 6) about multiple axes of rotation; and surface attaching feet 603 (which can be magnetic) on the rotating arm 601.
In the embodiment of Fig. 7, Tavakolikhakaledi et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a coupling structure 710 (like a docking station) at a first end of an arm (see Fig. 7); a payload in the form of a robotic crawler 701 that couples to the coupling structure 710 during flight and uncouples from the coupling structure 710 when perched on a surface 702; surface attaching devices 703 (which can be magnetic) on the crawler 701 for releasably attaching the crawler to the surface 702; and magnetic wheels 705 on the crawler 701 for propelling the crawler over the surface 702.
In the embodiment of Fig. 9, Tavakolikhakaledi et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a first rotating arm 906 pivotably coupled to a fixed arm 908; a second rotating arm 901 pivotably coupled to the first rotating arm 906; a payload 905 (such as the robotic crawler 701 of the Fig. 7 embodiment) that couples to the second rotating arm 901 during flight and uncouples from the second rotating arm 901 when perched on a surface 904; and surface attaching devices (not shown, but which can be magnetic) on the payload 905 for releasably attaching the payload to the surface 904. Figs. 10 and 11 show similar embodiments, but with the first rotating arm omitted.
In the embodiments of Fig. 4, Troy et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a first rotating arm 206 pivotably coupled to a fixed frame 204 about a central axis between propellers (see propellers 610 in Fig. 6b); a second rotating arm (see Fig. 4) having a first end pivotably coupled to first end of the first rotating arm 206; a payload 104 coupled to a second end of the second rotating arm (see Fig. 4); surface attaching devices (not shown, but which can be magnetic) on the payload 104 for releasably attaching the payload to a surface of a target structure 202; and a counterweight 404 at a second end of the first rotating arm 206. Fig. 5 shows a similar embodiment, but with a rotating arm 502 having telescoping sections 504, 506. Fig. 9 shows an embodiment in which a battery 908 serves as part of the counterweight.
Abdellatif et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a docking station 250 coupled to an undercarriage 220 by a height adjusting mechanism 240; a crawler 260 that couples to the docking station 250 during flight and uncouples from the docking station 250 when perched on a surface 150; and surface attaching magnetic feet 290 on legs 280 extending from the undercarriage 220 for releasably attaching the UAV to the surface 150.
In the embodiment of Figs. 7(c)-8, Sun et al. teaches a UAV comprising: a rotating arm 30 pivotably coupled to a fixed frame (see Fig. 7(c)) about a central axis between propellers (see propellers 5 in Fig. 1); a payload in the form of a robotic crawler (see robotic crawler 2 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to a first end of the rotating arm 30; and a counterweight 27 (see also the counterweight 27 in Fig. 7(b)) at a second end of the rotating arm 30. Figs. 2-3 show the crawler 2 includes wheels 16 and a surface attaching device (shown as a vacuum device, but could also be magnetic).
Reichert teaches a UAV comprising: a rotating arm (bridge) 30 pivotably coupled to a fixed frame 20 about a central axis between propellers 11; a payload 12 coupled to a first end of the rotating arm 30; and a counterweight in the form of batteries 34 at a second end of the rotating arm 30.
Pallier teaches a UAV comprising: an arm 3 coupled to a fixed frame 4 between propellers 22; a payload 31 pivotably coupled to a first end of the arm 3; surface attaching magnets 51 on the payload 31; and an injection system at a second end of the arm 3.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
In claims 6 and 15, “pivot in” (l. 2) should read “pivot to”.
In claims 6 and 15, “pivot in” (l. 3) should read “pivot to”.
In claims 7 and 16, “pivot in” (l. 2) should read “pivot to”.
In claims 7 and 16, “pivot in” (l. 4) should read “pivot to”.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
In the abstract, at l. 1, a word is missing between “(UAV)” and “a”.
At col. 8, l. 16, “switchable magnets 160” is inconsistent with “magnetic feet 160” at col. 8, ll. 25-26, 31-32, 35 and 54.
At col. 8, l. 26, “same end of” appears to be inaccurate. Should this read “same end as”?
At col. 8, ll. 65-66, “magnetic legs 160 (claws)” is inconsistent with “magnetic feet 160” at col. 8, ll. 25-26, 31-32, 35 and 54. It is also inconsistent with “magnetic foot 160” at col. 9, ll. 2 and 3.
At col. 9, ll. 19-20, “magnetic legs (claws) 160” is inconsistent with “magnetic feet 160” at col. 8, ll. 25-26, 31-32, 35 and 54. It is also inconsistent with “magnetic foot 160” at col. 9, ll. 2 and 3.
At col. 10, l. 17, “magnetic legs (claws) 160” is inconsistent with “magnetic feet 160” at col. 8, ll. 25-26, 31-32, 35 and 54. It is also inconsistent with “magnetic foot 160” at col. 9, ll. 2 and 3.
At col. 10, l. 32, “magnetic legs 160” is inconsistent with “magnetic feet 160” at col. 8, ll. 25-26, 31-32, 35 and 54. It is also inconsistent with “magnetic foot 160” at col. 9, ll. 2 and 3.
At col. 11, l. 6, “surface 194” should read “surface 195”.
At col. 11, l. 47, “swing point” should read “spring point”. See Fig. 8 and col. 11, l. 60.
At col. 12, l. 32, “magnetic legs (claws) 160” is inconsistent with “magnetic feet 160” at col. 8, ll. 25-26, 31-32, 35 and 54. It is also inconsistent with “magnetic foot 160” at col. 9, ll. 2 and 3.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
A rotating arm…configured to rotate with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis (claims 1 and 10). No structure is shown that configures the arm to rotate.
A battery…configured to supply power to the motors and the housed electronics (claims 1 and 10). No structure is shown that configures the batter to supply power to the motors and electronics.
The first end of the rotating arm is reconfigurable to rotate the first end about the longitudinal axis relative to a remainder of the docking station by 90° (claims 3 and 12). No structure is shown that makes the rotating arm reconfigurable to rotate by 90°.
A payload motor powered by the battery and configured to rotate the first end of the rotating arm about the longitudinal axis relative to the remainder of the docking station (claims 4 and 13).
The rotating arm is further configured to rotate its first end down with respect to the fixed frame…rotate its first end up with respect to the fixed frame…and rotate its first end even with respect to the fixed frame… (claims 5 and 14). No structure is shown that configures the arm to rotate between the three claimed positions.
A rotation motor powered by the battery and configured to rotate the rotating arm with respect to the fixed frame about the central axis under control of the housed electronics during flight of the UAV (claims 9 and 18).
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 2A and 2B fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h). All views of the drawing must be clearly separated from one another and must not be connected to one another. Thus, the lead lines, reference numbers and descriptive text shared by Figs. 2A and 2B are improper.
Figs. 3A and 3B fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h). The lead lines, reference numbers and descriptive text shared by these figures are improper.
In Fig. 3B, “Central Axis 155” is inaccurate because Fig. 3B does not show the same central axis 155 that is shown in Fig. 1 and described at col. 8, ll. 20-25. The axis shown in Fig. 3B is perpendicular to the axis 155 shown in Fig. 1.
Figs. 4A and 4B fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h). The lead lines, reference number and descriptive text shared by these figures are improper.
In Fig. 4A, “Actuator 174” is inaccurate because no such actuator is illustrated (visible) in the figure.
Figs. 5A and 5B fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h). The lead lines, reference number and descriptive text shared by these figures are improper.
In Fig. 5B, “Actuator 174” is inaccurate because no such actuator is illustrated (visible) in the figure.
Figs. 6A and 6B fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h). The lead lines, reference numbers and descriptive text shared by these figures are improper.
In Figs. 6A and 6B, “Actuator 174” is inaccurate because no such actuator is illustrated (visible) in these figures.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center1: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail2 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 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).
2 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights