Stephen Shoemaker

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2021

2020006756 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16/269,475 02/06/2019 Stephen P. Shoemaker JR. SHOES-98492 1072
24201 7590 06/24/2021
FULWIDER PATTON LLP
111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1510
Long Beach, CA 90802
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, VICENTE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketla@fulpat.com
eOfficeAction2@fulpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN P. SHOEMAKER JR.
____________

Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tanaka (US 2019/0077027 A1, pub. Mar. 14, 2019) and Zhao
(US 2015/0158392 A1, pub. June 11, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV” or
drone) delivery device. Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A device for delivering emergency or time sensitive
packages to a destination, comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle controlled remotely by a control
unit, the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising a power supply;
a relay switch connected to the power supply;
a vacuum pump connected to the power supply through the
relay switch, the vacuum pump including a hose and a suction
cup;
a vacuum valve connected to the power supply through the
relay switch to release the vacuum upon command;
a remote control for operating the unmanned aerial vehicle
and for activating and deactivating the relay switch; and
an object configured for delivery by the unmanned aerial
vehicle, the object connected to the suction cup of the vacuum
pump;
wherein the remote control unit disconnects the power to
the vacuum pump and thereby releases the object at a remote
location.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Tanaka discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for a relay switch connected to the power supply, for
which the Examiner relies on Zhao. Final Action 3–4. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to provide Tanaka with a relay switch as
taught by Zhao. Id. at 3. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
3
skill in the art would have done this as a matter of using a well-known
device to control power supply delivery. Id.
Appellant first argues that neither Tanaka nor Zhao discloses remote
control operation of a relay switch. Appeal Br. 3. This argument is not
persuasive. Zhao teaches an electronic switch that can remotely control the
power-on or off of the power supply of a UAV. Zhao, Abstract, ¶ 73.
Moreover, relay switches are well known and remote control of UAV’s is
known (indeed all UAV’s, by definition, are controlled remotely). Appellant
provides neither evidence nor persuasive technical reasoning that modifying
Tanaka with a remotely controlled switch as taught by Zhao would have
required more than ordinary skill or produced unexpected results.
Appellant next argues that Tanaka does not disconnect the power to
its suction pad in order to release the payload as claimed. Appeal Br. 4.
Instead, According to Appellant, Tanaka effectuates payload release by
operation of a mechanical valve that is subject to mechanical failure. Id.
Appellant further argues that Tanaka does not teach turning off the power to
its suction device until after the payload is released via operation of the
valve. In Appellant’s own words:
Tanaka uses a mechanical valve to open up the suction pad to
the atmosphere and thereby release the negative pressure,
releasing the object. If the valve does not open, gets jammed,
or sticks, the delivery will not be successful. Even if the power
is disconnected, there is no evidence that the Tanaka valve will
suddenly open and release the payload. There is no teaching in
the Tanaka reference for disconnecting the power to effect the
release of the payload.
Id. (emphasis supplied by Appellant).
Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
4
In response, the Examiner finds that Tanaka’s remote control does
accomplish release of an object held by the suction device (vacuum pump)
by disconnecting the power supply to the suction device. Ans. 7.
Tanaka discloses a UAV (flight device 10) that features object holding
apparatus 11 which can be used for aerial delivery of objects. Tanaka,
¶¶ 58–62, Figs. 1, 5. Tanaka’s object holding system includes suction
device 52, directional control valve 53, suction tube 51, and suction pad 113.
Id.
In many respects, Tanaka discloses a system that is considerably more
complex and sophisticated than that of Appellant. For example, Tanaka
discloses means for flying flight device 10 to an object, causing the object
holding apparatus 11 to approach an object, make contact with the object
and initiate suction, and then air deliver and release the object. Id. ¶¶ 66–73,
Fig. 6. In contrast, Appellant’s invention presupposes a situation where the
UAV is already in flight and holding an object such that Appellant’s
Specification and only independent claim is essentially just directed to
release of the object upon delivery.
Consequently, for purposes of deciding the instant appeal, we focus
on how Tanaka “releases” an object upon delivery to a destination.
According to Tanaka:
In the case where the flight device 10 transfers the object 97 to
a destination (for example, the conveyor 40 shown in FIG. 1),
the controller 50 opens the directional control valve 53 to
communicate the suction pad 113 with the atmosphere. By this
operation, the vacuum within the suction pad 113 is released,
and the object 97 is released from the suction pad 113. The
suction device 52 is stopped at this time.
Id. ¶ 72 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
5
Additional context for what it means to stop suction device 52 “at this
time” is provided in the following passage.
In step S110, release operation of the object is performed. For
example, the controller 50 controls the suction device 52 to
stop, and opens the directional control valve 53. If the robot
controller 20 confirms that the vacuum level of the suction
pad 113 decreases to a target pressure value in step S111, the
robot controller 20 moves the flight device 10 in step S112.
Whether or not the object is released may be determined based
on a sensor signal from the proximal sensors 114 or the contact
sensors 115 in addition to a sensor signal from the pressure
sensor 54.
Id. ¶ 79 (emphasis added).
Having fully considered Appellant’s arguments in view of the actual
disclosure of Tanaka, it is our opinion that Appellant’s factual assertions
concerning Tanaka are not supported by the record before us. Contrary to
Appellant’s apparent misunderstanding of the reference, Tanaka does not
teach that controller 50 does not control suction device 52 to stop until after
release is accomplished by opening valve 53 to the atmosphere to equalize
pressure in suction tube 51. Instead, reading paragraphs 72 and 79 together,
it is understood that Tanaka stops suction device 52 and opens valve 53
more-or-less simultaneously. Id. ¶¶ 72, 79. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that “stop” in paragraph 79 refers to disconnecting
power to suction device 52. Id. ¶ 79.
Essentially, Appellant attempts to distinguish over Tanaka by
asserting that, in the event of failure of Tanaka’s valve 53 in the closed
position, Tanaka will continue to apply vacuum pressure to tube 51 and
pad 53 in a manner that will prevent release of object 97. However, Tanaka
Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
6
explicitly teaches that suction device 52 is stopped upon delivery of
object 97. Id. ¶ 79.
To summarize, Appellant’s invention claims a vacuum pump and a
valve. So does Tanaka. Appellant ordinarily releases a package by opening
a valve and turning off its vacuum pump. So does Tanaka. During transfer
and delivery, Tanaka’s vacuum pressure is monitored and suction device 52
is operated “intermittently.” Tanaka ¶¶ 58, 70, 79. From this teaching, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that vacuum pressure in
tube 51 will dissipate over time, even when valve 53 is closed. Id. Opening
valve 53 merely causes pressure in tube 51 to equalize with ambient pressure
more quickly. In the unlikely or occasional event of valve failure, vacuum
pressure in tube 51 will eventually dissipate to a level that is below the target
value required to hold object 97. Thus, Tanaka can successfully deliver an
object in the event of valve failure, albeit while taking a longer period of
time to release the object. Presumably, Appellant’s system operates in a
similar manner when its valve fails.
Appellant’s patentability argument rests almost entirely on the
prospect that Tanaka’s valve 53 might fail. Appeal Br. 4. However,
Appellant fails to explain how or why its own valve is less prone to failure
than Tanaka. Furthermore, Appellant fails to explain how the claimed
system would successfully complete a package delivery release if its valve
fails, but Tanaka would not be able to complete delivery under similar
circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant fails to patentably distinguish
over Tanaka and Zhao. We sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection
of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-006756
Application 16/269,475
7
Unpatentability of Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
object includes a substantially smooth plate or surface for adhering to the
suction cup.” Claims App. Appellant does not argue for the separate
patentability of claim 2. Claim 2, therefore, falls with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to separately argue claims constitutes a
waiver of arguments for separate patentability).
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103 Tanaka, Zhao 1, 2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED