As usual, the media doesn't read the claims, which are the legally enforceable part. To those without a background in patent law, how similar the abstract, draw

As usual, the media doesn't read the claims, which are the legally enforceable part. To those without a background in patent law, how similar the abstract, drawings, or parts of the specifications are to prior art doesn't matter in terms of granting a patent. What matters is the claims. Let's figure out precisely what the difference is between the claims and the prior art that lead the examiner to allow the application. You can take a look at the patent application prosecution history here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16383105/ifw/docs https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16383105/ifw/doc... The applicant amended the independent claim to add the following: the aerial hoist having a static position within the three-dimensional workspace whereby the aerial hoist is not translated along the x-axis with the end effector and the aerial hoist is not translated along the y-axis with the end effector In the "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)" the examiner discusses why the prior art doesn't have this feature. I don't have time to read the notice, but this is the longest notice of allowance I can recall. The examiner seems to be going into detail about why they believe it is different. The Hangprinter was submitted by the applicant as prior art and considered by the examiner: see "List of References cited by applicant and considered by examiner". Note: I'm not saying the examiner was right to grant a patent here, just that critics of a granted patent should start with the claims as that's the legally enforceable part (and not the drawings or abstract). And typically the examiner's logic in allowing the application is documented, so critics should take a look at that too.