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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments, filed on 02/19/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carmack et al., (US 9,689,686), (hereinafter, Carmack) in view of Ashoori et al., (US 2016/0291588), (hereinafter, Ashoori).
Regarding claim 1, Carmack discloses a computer-implemented method for secure unmanned aerial vehicle sensitive communication (= network of trust may facilitates UAVs and central stations to exchange information about detected spoofing and successful correction actions, see col. 10, lines 3-5; determining whether GPS data available to a UAV may be spoofed, see col. 3, lines 39-41; and determining whether the received GPS data may be trusted and to take one or more corrective actions when the received GPS data may be determined to be untrusted, see col. 4, lines 7-11), the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, an instruction from a central server, the instruction at least indicating (1) one or more safe communication zones that are safe for sensitive communication between the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles or (2) one or more unsafe communication zones that are unsafe for sensitive communication (= UAV 110 process received controls and commands from central station, see col. 7, lines 26-30; and UAV 110 may fly to a safe area/known area where spoofing may not exist, see col. 7, lines 11-13);
receiving, at the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, a command from the central server to cause the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles to collect data communication (= UAV 110 process received controls and commands from central station, see col. 7, lines 26-30; UAV may use GPS data to fly between two locations; and incorrect GPS data/spoofed may be transmitted from ground source to the UAV, see, col. 2, lines 49-55; whereby the GPS data/spoofed is being associated with the “collect data”)
collecting data, at the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, based on the command (= incorrect GPS data/spoofed may be transmitted from ground source to the UAV, see, col. 2, lines 49-55);
determining a need for at least one of the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles to transmit the collected data to at least one other unmanned aerial vehicle or the central server (= a second UAV may determine that its GPS data may be spoofed and may report the spoofing via peer-to-peer to the UAV, see col. 3, lines 15-17; and unmanned vehicle may report untrusted data to a central station, see col. 3, lines 28-33);
identifying a current location of the at least on unmanned aerial vehicle (= second UAV generates and transmits an indication that spoofing may be occurring at a particular location or area, see col. 6, lines 19-27);
determining whether the current location is in a safe communication zone or an unsafe communication zone based on the instruction (= second UAV generates and transmits an indication that spoofing may be occurring at a particular location or area, see col. 6, lines 19-27; central station 220 may instruct UAVs about what corrective actions should be performed at different locations, see col. 9, lines 62-64; and corrective action may further include flying to a safe area and reporting the spoofing and an identifier of the item to the central station, see col. 8, lines 25-29); and
in response to determining that the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is not in a safe communication zone, or is in an unsafe communication zone (= second UAV generates and transmits an indication that spoofing may be occurring at a particular location or area, see col. 6, lines 19-27).
Carmack explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“in response to determining that the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is not in a safe communication zone, or is in an unsafe communication zone, preventing the collected data from being transmitted from the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle”.
However, Ashoori, which is an analogous art discloses the claimed limitations of “in response to determining that the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is not in a safe communication zone, or is in an unsafe communication zone, preventing the collected data from being transmitted from the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle” (= instructions are provided to and stored in remote computer, see [0072-73]; UVs has been in the areas of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, see [0075]; under some conditions, UVs operating in a given region may not be allowed to decode the transmission regarding the restricted operation region, see [0074-75); and based at least in part on restricted-operation data and the determination of position of vehicle 410, with respect to restricted-operating region 500, vehicle 410 interprets instruction 406 or responds to received control signals, which in effect, cause vehicle 410 to operate in accordance with operation policy 420…,see [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ashoori with Carmack for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides instruction to UV and the UV operates based on the given instruction to operate in a restrictive zones.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Carmack further discloses that the computer-implemented method for comprising: deploying the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles after the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles receive the instruction or the command (see, col. 15, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 2, Carmack further discloses that the method further comprising: receiving, at the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, an updated instruction from the central server after the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles have been deployed, the updated instruction indicating (1) one or more updated safe communication zones that are safe for sensitive communication between the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles or (2) one or more updated unsafe communication zones that are unsafe for sensitive communication (see, col. 9, line 64- col. 10, line 5).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 2, Carmack further discloses that the method further comprising: receiving, at the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, an updated command from the central server to collect data, the updated command indicating stopping current data collection or collecting a different type of data indicated in the command that was previously received (= using locally generated navigation data (i.e., stop using spoofed GPS data) col. 6, lines 19-52; and col. 7, lines 48-55 ).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 1, Carmack further discloses that the computer-implemented method wherein each of the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles receives a different command from the central server to collect different data (see, col. 9, lines 29-49).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned in claim 5, Carmack further discloses that the computer-implemented method wherein each instruction includes a geographic area where an unmanned aerial vehicle is tasked to collect data from, and each of the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles is instructed to collect data from different geographic areas (see, col. 9, lines 29-52).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned in claim 1, Carmack further discloses that the computer-implemented method wherein the instruction includes a map of an area where the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles are deployed or are to be deployed, and the map includes one or more geofences indicating one or more safe communication zones or one or more geofences indicating one or more unsafe communication zones (see, col. 9, line 54- col. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 1, Carmack further discloses that the method further comprising: in response to determining that the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is no longer in an unsafe communication zone, or enters a safe communication zone, causing the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle to transmit the collected data (see, col. 8, lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned in claim 1, Carmack further discloses that the method further comprising: in response to determining that the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is not in safe communication zone or is in an unsafe communication zone, causing the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle to move into a safe communication zone or leave the unsafe communication zone (see, col. 8, lines 25-29; and col. 9, line 54- col. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned in claim 1, Carmack further discloses that the method wherein the instruction further includes one or more criteria associated with the one or more safe communication zones or unsafe communication zones, and the one or more criteria includes at least one of (1) one or more time intervals within which at least one of the safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone is safe or unsafe, (2) one or more objects when detected, indicating at least one of the safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone is safe or unsafe, or (3) a distance to ground or a landmark within which at least one of the safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone is safe or unsafe (see, col. 4, line 57- col. 5, line 17; and col. 9, line 15-52).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned in claim 10, Carmack further discloses that the method, wherein determining whether the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is in a safe communication zone or an unsafe communication zone is further based on the one or more criteria (see, col. 4, line 57- col. 5, line 17; and col. 9, line 15-52).
Regarding claim 12, Carmack discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle for collecting data and safe transmission of collected data (= network of trust may facilitates UAVs and central stations to exchange information about detected spoofing and successful correction actions, see col. 10, lines 3-5) comprising: one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors configure the unmanned aerial vehicle to perform at least (= determining whether GPS data available to a UAV may be spoofed, see col. 3, lines 39-41; and determining whether the received GPS data may be trusted and to take one or more corrective actions when the received GPS data may be determined to be untrusted, see col. 4, lines 7-11):
receive an instruction from a central server, the instruction at least indicating (1) one or more safe communication zones that are safe for sensitive communication between the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles or (2) one or more unsafe communication zones that are unsafe for sensitive communication (= UAV 110 process received controls and commands from central station, see col. 7, lines 26-30; and UAV 110 may fly to a safe area/known area where spoofing may not exist, see col. 7, lines 11-13);
receive a command from the central server to deploy for data collection (= central station 220 may generate flight routes; and such routes may be provided to the UAVs as part of deploying the UAVs, see col. 9, line 62- col. 10, line 5);
collect data based on the received command (= UAV 110 process received controls and commands from central station, see col. 7, lines 26-30; UAV may use GPS data to fly between two locations; and incorrect GPS data/spoofed may be transmitted from ground source to the UAV, see, col. 2, lines 49-55; whereby the GPS data/spoofed is being associated with the “collect data”);
determine a need for transmitting the collected data to one or more nearby unmanned aerial vehicles or the central server (= a second UAV may determine that its GPS data may be spoofed and may report the spoofing via peer-to-peer to the UAV, see col. 3, lines 15-17; and unmanned vehicle may report untrusted data to a central station, see col. 3, lines 28-33);
identify a current location of itself (= second UAV generates and transmits an indication that spoofing may be occurring at a particular location or area, see col. 6, lines 19-27 and col. 6, line 66- col. 7, line 5);
determine whether the current location is in a safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone based on the instruction (= second UAV generates and transmits an indication that spoofing may be occurring at a particular location or area, see col. 6, lines 19-27; central station 220 may instruct UAVs about what corrective actions should be performed at different locations, see col. 9, lines 62-64; and corrective action may further include flying to a safe area and reporting the spoofing and an identifier of the item to the central station, see col. 8, lines 25-29); and
in response to determining that the current location is not in a safe communication zone, or is in unsafe communication zone, (= second UAV generates and transmits an indication that spoofing may be occurring at a particular location or area, see col. 6, lines 19-27).
Carmack explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“in response to determining that the current location is not in a safe communication zone, or is in unsafe communication zone, preventing the collected data from being transmitted to one or more nearby unmanned aerial vehicles or the central server.”
However, Ashoori, which is an analogous art discloses the claimed limitations of “in response to determining that the current location is not in a safe communication zone, or is in unsafe communication zone, preventing the collected data from being transmitted to one or more nearby unmanned aerial vehicles or the central server.”
(= instructions are provided to and stored in remote computer, see [0072-73]; UVs has been in the areas of intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, see [0075]; under some conditions, UVs operating in a given region may not be allowed to decode the transmission regarding the restricted operation region, see [0074-75); and based at least in part on restricted-operation data and the determination of position of vehicle 410, with respect to restricted-operating region 500, vehicle 410 interprets instruction 406 or responds to received control signals, which in effect, cause vehicle 410 to operate in accordance with operation policy 420…,see [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ashoori with Carmack for the benefit of achieving a communication system that provides instruction to UV and the UV operates based on the given instruction to operate in a restrictive zones.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 12, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle further configured to: receive an updated instruction from the central server, the updated instruction indicating (1) one or more updated safe communication zones that are safe for sensitive communication between the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles or (2) one or more updated unsafe communication zones that are unsafe for sensitive communication (see, col. 9, line 64- col. 10, line 5).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 12, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle wherein the instruction includes a map of an area where the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles are deployed or are to be deployed, and the map includes one or more geofences indicating one or more safe communication zones or one or more geofences indicating one or more unsafe communication zones. (see, col. 9, line 54- col. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned in claim 14, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle further configured to: in response to determining that itself is no longer an unsafe communication zone, or enters a safe communication zone, transmit the collected data to the one or more nearby unmanned aerial vehicles or the central server (see, col. 8, lines 25-29).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned in claim 15, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle further configured to: in response to determining that itself is not in a safe communication zone or is in an unsafe communication zone, move into a safe communication zone or leave the unsafe communication zone (see, col. 8, lines 25-29; and col. 9, line 54- col. 10, line 2).
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned in claim 15, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle wherein the instruction further includes one or more criteria associated with the one or more safe communication zones or unsafe communication zones, and the one or more criteria includes at least one of (1) one or more time intervals within which at least one of the safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone is safe or unsafe, (2) one or more objects when detected, indicating at least one of the safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone is safe or unsafe, or (3) a distance to ground or a landmark within which at least one of the safe communication zone or unsafe communication zone is safe or unsafe, and wherein determining whether itself is in a safe communication zone or an unsafe communication zone is further based on the one or more criteria (see, col. 4, line 57- col. 5, line 17; and col. 9, line 15-52).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned in claim 12, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle further configured to: determine whether a nearby unmanned aerial vehicle is in a safe communication zone or an unsafe communication zone; and in response to determining that itself and the nearby unmanned aerial vehicle are both in a safe communication zone or not in an unsafe communication zone, transmit the collected data to the nearby unmanned aerial vehicle (see, col. 7, lines 36-40 and col. 8, lines 36-59).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned in claim 18, Carmack further discloses that the unmanned aerial vehicle , wherein determining whether the nearby unmanned aerial vehicle is in a safe communication zone or an unsafe communication zone comprises: sending a probing message to one or more nearby unmanned aerial vehicles inquiring about their location status (see, col. 7, lines 36-47; and col. 8, lines 36-51); receiving a response from at least one nearby unmanned aerial vehicle of the one or more nearby unmanned aerial vehicles, the response indicating that the at least one nearby unmanned aerial vehicle is in a safe communication zone or not in an unsafe communication zone (see, col. 8, lines 60- 67); and determining that the at least one nearby unmanned aerial vehicle is in a safe communication zone or not in an unsafe communication zone based on the response.(see, col. 7, lines 36-40 and col. 8, lines 36-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
CONCLUSION
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
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).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.