DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 dated 12/30/2025 are considered in this office action. Hence, claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are pending examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to 103 rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. The applicant mainly argues – “Applicant does not concede that Sun in view of Wang and in further view of Yeshurun discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention. However, solely to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite, in part, "wherein the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft includes at least two attachments for a charging point and/or a refueling point," "wherein the at least one computer system receives the data from the at least one autonomous sensor platform via at least one communications link," and "wherein the at least one communications link is encrypted to provide secure communications for the at least one computer system and/or the at least one autonomous sensor platform." Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been overcome.”
In view of new amendments, and upon further search and consideration, the examiner is now rejecting the amended claims on the new grounds of rejection and described in detail below.
The examiner believes he has responded to all the arguments presented by the applicant at this time. However, if the applicant believes that the examiner has missed any arguments to respond, the applicant is invited to call the examiner directly to expedite the process.
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 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/334826(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both pending invention claims similar invention of providing security to vehicle using UAV and hence would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2019/0227555) in view of Wang et al. (“Towards a Theoretical Framework of Autonomous Systems Underpinned by Intelligence and Systems Sciences”, IEEE/CAA JOURNAL OF AUTOMATICA SINICA, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2021) and in further view of Yeshurun (US 2018/0341262A1) and in further view of Getman (US20210229805A1) and in further view of Mclaughlin et al. (US20230023246A1) and here in after will be referred as Sun, Wang, Yeshuru, Getman and Mclaughlin respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Sun teaches a self-aware mobile system (Fig .1 #12) comprising: a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft (#12) comprising:
at least one communication device (#16) configured to transmit and receive data so as communicate with at least one autonomous sensor platform (#20) (Para [0034] Line 1-4: As shown, the primary road vehicle 12 is associated with and in communication with an aerial drone 20 through a transmitter/receiver, i.e., transceiver 16, located on the primary road vehicle 12. The exemplary primary road vehicle 12 also includes a processor/control unit 18),
and at least one computer system (#18) configured to receive data from the at least one autonomous sensor platform (Para [0078] Line 1-9: “At action block 660 the aerial drone communicates to the road vehicle data associated with the object, such as an image and/or other information, i.e., location, lane number, direction, static or moving, velocity, rate of acceleration, etc., of the other road user, i.e., and/or the location. In exemplary embodiments, communicating data associated with the object and/or the location to the road vehicle includes transmitting the data to a processor onboard the road vehicle.”)
and, using the received data, to generate data to implement autonomous movement corresponding to SAE automation level 4 or level 5 (Para [0079] Line 6-12 “If a risk of collision exists for the road vehicle and the other road user or object, then at action block 680 the aerial drone communicates a warning to the road vehicle to warn a driver or to active an automated braking or steering maneuver for an automated road vehicle. In other words, the data associated with the object and/or the location is utilized to operate the road vehicle.”)
and to generate data to communicate with a human regarding operations of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft (Para [0080]: “Further, at action block 690, the warning event is uploaded to a cloud database and/or broadcast or otherwise communicated to other road users within range on the roadway.”)
and at least one autonomous sensor platform (#20) comprising: at least one communication device configured to transmit and receive data so as communicate with the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft (Para [0035] Line 3-8: “An exemplary aerial drone 20 is paired with the primary road vehicle 12 to communicate information to and receive information from the primary road vehicle 12. Specifically, the exemplary aerial drone 20 includes a transceiver 26 for communicating with the transceiver 16 on the primary road vehicle 12.”).
Wang teaches using processing in accordance with a Hierarchical Intelligence Model incorporating adaptive intelligence comprising run-time determined behaviors where a set of predictable scenarios is determined for processing variable problems (Pages 54-56: Fig 2 and Fig .3 produced below : “A hierarchical intelligence model (HIM) shown in Fig. 2 is created for revealing the levels of intelligence and their difficulty for implementation in computational intelligence based on the abstract intelligence (αI) theory [24]. In the HIM, the levels of intelligence are aggregated from reflexive, imperative, adaptive, autonomous, and cognitive intelligence with 16 categories of intelligent behaviors. Types of system intelligence across the HIM layers may be formally described in Definition 6 using the pattern of stimulus/event-driven behaviors as summarized in the Appendix.”))
PNG
media_image1.png
737
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
845
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include a Hierarchical Intelligence Model incorporating an Autonomous Human Behavior Model to operate the vehicle autonomously. Doing so would make the optimize the driving operation of the vehicle.
Yeshurun teaches the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft is a military or tactical vehicle (Para [0031]: “The system 10 is configured to facilitate active protection of a target such as a vehicle 12, which may be a tank, a personnel carrier, a marine vehicle, an airborne vehicle, etc., from an incoming threat.”) and the generated data is text or voice data to communicate with a human vehicle commander regarding when normal operations of a vehicle escalate into a combat response (Para [0043] : “The UAV 14 may be configured to transmit data gathered by the surveillance equipment 20 to the platform controller and/or the UAV controller for further processing (i.e., to identify the type of or specific threat, and/or to identify whether the threat's trajectory, and assess the likelihood of it impacting the vehicle and/or where on the vehicle the impact is likely to occur). The surveillance equipment 20 may comprise one or more of an optical sensor, infrared sensor, a motion sensor, a thermal sensor, and a pulse-Doppler radar. The surveillance equipment 20 may additionally or alternatively comprise any other device which is suitable to facilitate detection of an oncoming threat.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun, Wang to incorporate the teachings of Yeshurun to include the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft is a military or tactical vehicle and the generated data is text or voice data to communicate with a human vehicle commander regarding when normal operations of a vehicle escalate into a combat response. Doing so would optimize the operation of providing security and threat detection in the military operations.
Getman teaches wherein the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft includes at least two attachments for a charging point and/or a refueling point (Para [0138]: “FIG. 5 illustrates how a forward door 54 a can assist in drone takeoff. A rearward door 54 b can be completely opened. Then, the forward door 54 a moves so that it is only partly opened. Its unopened portion may block wind to permit the drone 10 to have more stable lift off conditions. The respective docking systems 16 and 22 of the vehicle 20 and the drone 10 may utilize, for example, docking mechanisms that employ magnetic charging contacts 56 and/or magnetic feet 58 that also serve as part of the respective external charging station 26 and the on-board charge-receiving system 36. The charging contacts 56 may be flush with the surface of a landing pad 60 of the docking system 16, or they may be recessed (or elevated) to provide for a more stability while docked (or accessibility during docking).”)
Getman also teaches wherein the at least one computer system receives the data from the at least one autonomous sensor platform via at least one communications link (Para [0141] : “The drone 10 may also include a communication system, such as a mobile or cellular system. A communication system may additionally or alternatively include one or more of visual (strobe frequency, Morse code, binary), thermal, audio, tactical chemical signals, laser, lidar, or radar. The communication system may relay instructions and data to a discrete remote device, such as a vehicle computer, a stationary computing system, an artificial intelligence system, a cell phone, or other device equipped to receive communications. Some specific examples of communication with remote devices are provided later.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun, Wang and Yeshuran to incorporate the teachings of Getman to include the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft includes at least two attachments for a charging point and/or a refueling point and the at least one computer system receives the data from the at least one autonomous sensor platform via at least one communications link. Doing so would optimize the operation of providing security and threat detection in the military operations.
Mclaughlin teaches wherein the at least one communications link is encrypted to provide secure communications for the at least one computer system and/or the at least one autonomous sensor platform (Para [0043]: “FIG. 6 illustrates a schematic diagram 100 which represents one example of the software architecture showing how the UAV 14 may be controlled and monitored by a human operator. The flight controller 102 and camera payload 106 of UAV 14 may communicate via encrypted RF communication wirelessly through an on-board wireless RF radio 104 directly with a wireless RF radio 114 contained within the base station 12. The base station 12 may further incorporate a video encoder 116 which may receive video data transmitted from the camera payload 106 of the UAV 14. The video encoder 116 may transmit the video data to the on-board computer 108 in the base station 12 and specifically to a server 112 contained within that utilizes Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates to establish secure web sockets to enable encrypted communications. The on-board computer 108 may also contain an API server 110 which may also receive the data received from the flight controller 102 of the UAV 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun, Wang, Yeshuran and Getman to incorporate the teachings of Mclaughlin to include the at least one communications link is encrypted to provide secure communications for the at least one computer system and/or the at least one autonomous sensor platform. Doing so would optimize the operation of providing security and threat detection in the military operations.
Similarly Claims 7 and 13 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Sun in view of Wang, in further view of Yeshurun, in further view of Getman in further view of Mclaughlin teaches the system of claim 1, Sun teaches wherein the at least one autonomous sensor platform is an unmanned aerial vehicle (Para [0035] #20 Fig 1 “An exemplary aerial drone 20 may be an unmanned quadrotor helicopter (“quadcoptor”) that is lifted and propelled by four rotors 22. An exemplary aerial drone 20 is paired with the primary road vehicle 12 to communicate information to and receive information from the primary road vehicle 12.”).
Similarly Claims 8 and 14 are rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 4, Sun in view of Wang, in further view of Yeshurun, in further view of Getman in further view of Mclaughlin teaches the system of claim 3.
Yeshurun teaches wherein the generated data is generated by logic and algorithmic machine learning to detect threat patterns based on an environment of the military or tactical vehicle (Para [0072] : “It will be appreciated that the UAVs 14 and/or platform 16, when carrying out any operation (described herein or otherwise), may be configured to utilize statistical data, based on data gathered from some or all of the other elements of the system 10 or of other systems, in order to progressively improve their performance of one or more task. (Such improvements are often referred to as machine learning.) These improvements may relate to identification of threats, neutralizing threats, optimization of one or more of its operations, and/or any other suitable task.”).
Similarly Claims 10 and 16 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 5, Sun in view of Wang, in further view of Yeshurun, in further view of Getman in further view of Mclaughlin teaches the system of claim 3.
Yeshurun teaches wherein the military or tactical vehicle is a single vehicle however it would have been obvious to optimize the similar technology to provide threat protection for a convoy or swarm of the vehicle as the military mission normally require multiple vehicles to travel together in a convoy setting to complete a mission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun, Wang and Yeshurun to incorporate the teachings of obvious optimization to include the military or tactical vehicle is part of a multi-vehicle swarm and the generated data provides combination and coordination with multiple units and levels of units. Doing so would optimize the operation of providing security and threat detection in the military operations.
Similarly Claims 11 and 17 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 6, Sun in view of Wang, in further view of Yeshurun, in further view of Getman in further view of Mclaughlin teaches the system of claim 1.
Walimbe teaches wherein the at least one autonomous sensor platform is a ground drone (“The UGV is able to place counter-IED charges and deliver remote sensors, making it an ideal fit for the US Army’s objective of extended tunnel mapping”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun and Wang to incorporate the teachings of Walimbe to include ground drone as autonomous sensor platform. Doing so would optimize the vehicle operation.
Similarly Claims 12 and 18 are rejected on the similar rational.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668