DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This non-final action is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 01/21/2026.
Claims 21, 23-32, 34-42 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 21, 25-32, 36-42.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21, 32, and 40 objected to for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection against claims 21, 32, and 40 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 21-40 rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for lack of written description have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) for lack of written description against claims 21-40 has been withdrawn.
Additionally, Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 21-40 rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 35 USC § 101 against claims 21-40 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (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.
Claims 21, 25-32, and 36-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasilya Sudarsan et al. (US 20200365041 A1) in view of Iskrev et al. (US 20170308100 A1), Holtz et al. (US 20190248487 A1), and Semke et al. (US 20160280359 A1).
Regarding claim 21 and 32, Kasilya Sudarsan discloses a system (claim 21; see at least abstract) comprising one or more computers and one or more one or more non-transitory computer storage media (claim 40; see at least ¶ [0062-0064]) on which are encoded with instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform a method (claim 32; see at least ¶ [0062-0064]) comprising:
determining whether a criterion from a plurality of criteria is satisfied, the plurality of criteria comprising one or more of a duration of a visit satisfying a duration criterion, a landing location satisfying a proximity criterion to an entity location of the entity (see at least ¶ [0082-0085] disclosing the robotic vehicle observing a potential landing zone, determining if it meets safety criteria thresholds, comparing it to previously stored potential landing zones, and continuing to monitor for potential landing zones if the threshold or comparison falls below stored values), a battery level of the drone satisfying a battery level criterion, or a field of view of the drone at a landing location satisfying a field of view criterion for the moving entity,
and a determination that at least one criterion is satisfied from the plurality of criteria causing generation an instruction to cause the drone to land (see at least ¶ [0029-0033] and [0040] disclosing a robotic vehicle monitoring potential landing zones according to conditions (i.e. meeting safety requirements) and whether they meet one or more criteria, including a distance to travel);
and, suggests, in response to determining that no criterion from the plurality of criterion is satisfied, choosing to stay in flight instead of identifying a location at which the drone should land (see at least ¶ [0082-0085] disclosing the robotic vehicle observing a potential landing zone, determining if it meets safety criteria thresholds, comparing it to previously stored potential landing zones, and continuing to monitor for potential landing zones if the threshold or comparison falls below stored values).
While Kasilya Sudarsan discloses a drone that includes one or more sensors (see at least ¶ [0027-0029] disclosing an unmanned aerial vehicle as a robotic vehicle equipped with sensors and/or cameras), it does not explicitly disclose maintaining the entity in a field of view of a drone that includes one or more sensors and is monitoring the entity;
the drone monitoring the entity at a property and navigating through the property.
However, Iskrev suggests maintaining the entity in a field of view of a drone that includes one or more sensors and is monitoring the entity (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0040-0042] disclosing a UAV using a camera to monitor a landing area for an object or pattern as a landmark);
the drone monitoring an entity at a property and navigating through the property (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0040-0042] disclosing a UAV using a camera to monitor a landing area for an object or pattern as a landmark).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mid-landing monitoring of Iskrev into the landing zone observation and assessment system of Kasilya Sudarsan with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone. This would help the robotic vehicle of Kasilya Sudarsan maintain awareness of the landing zone so that if any spontaneous event were to occur while the robotic vehicle is landing and would reduce the safety conditions of the landing zone, the robotic vehicle would be able to respond and abort the landing procedure to avoid potential hazards.
The combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that no criterion from the plurality of criterion is satisfied, choosing to stay in flight instead of identifying, using data for the moving entity at the property, a location at which the drone should land to continue monitoring the moving entity;
and in response to choosing to stay in flight, continuing to navigate the drone through the property instead of identifying, using the data for the moving entity at the property, a location at which the drone should land to continue monitoring the moving entity.
However, Holtz teaches a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] and [0097]).
Additionally, Semke teaches a UAV system with the ability to attach to a structure to provide stable perching, including perching locations that allow the UAV to complete surveillance missions for maintaining a target within a field of view (see at least abstract and ¶ [0046]).
These features suggests the limitations deficient in the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev. While Holtz is primarily directed toward operating a UAV in an exterior environment and not an interior one, the ability to detect, track, and follow a user and adjust its landing process accordingly can be directly implemented agnostic to the setting it is implemented in. The UAV tracks a mobile user’s position and determines whether to land or not before selecting a viable landing location according to predetermined parameters, while still aware of the user’s position. Additionally, Semke’s use of maintaining a target in a field of view from a perched location further improves Holtz’ landing observations by allowing the UAV to assume different perching locations to maintain the field of view, and can directly incorporate Kasilya Sudarsan’s distance to landing site considerations in determining perching locations. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position tracking and landing of Holtz and the perching features of Semke into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone or objects near it. This would allow the drone to select landing zones that provide better accessibility or ability to track the position of the tracked subject.
Regarding claim 40, Kasilya Sudarsan discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media (see at least ¶ [0062-0064]) on which are encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to operations (see at least ¶ [0062-0064]) comprising:
determining whether the distance between the landing site satisfies a distance criterion that, when satisfied, cause generation of an instruction to cause the drone to land (see at least ¶ [0029-0033] and [0040] disclosing a robotic vehicle monitoring potential landing zones according to conditions (i.e. meeting safety requirements) and whether they meet one or more criteria, including a distance to travel);
and, suggests, in response to determining that the distance does not satisfy the distance criterion, choosing to stay in flight instead of identifying a location at which the drone should land (see at least ¶ [0082-0085] disclosing the robotic vehicle observing a potential landing zone, determining if it meets safety criteria thresholds, comparing it to previously stored potential landing zones, and continuing to monitor for potential landing zones if the threshold or comparison falls below stored values).
While Kasilya Sudarsan discloses a drone that includes one or more sensors (see at least ¶ [0027-0029] disclosing an unmanned aerial vehicle as a robotic vehicle equipped with sensors and/or cameras), it does not explicitly disclose maintaining the entity in a field of view of a drone that includes one or more sensors and is monitoring the entity;
the drone monitoring the entity at a property and navigating through the property.
However, Iskrev suggests maintaining the entity in a field of view of a drone that includes one or more sensors and is monitoring the entity (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0040-0042] disclosing a UAV using a camera to monitor a landing area for an object or pattern as a landmark);
the drone monitoring an entity at a property and navigating through the property (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0040-0042] disclosing a UAV using a camera to monitor a landing area for an object or pattern as a landmark).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mid-landing monitoring of Iskrev into the landing zone observation and assessment system of Kasilya Sudarsan with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone. This would help the robotic vehicle of Kasilya Sudarsan maintain awareness of the landing zone so that if any spontaneous event were to occur while the robotic vehicle is landing and would reduce the safety conditions of the landing zone, the robotic vehicle would be able to respond and abort the landing procedure to avoid potential hazards.
The combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev does not explicitly disclose a moving entity at a property continues to move and for at least some positions of a plurality of positions of the moving entity;
monitoring a distance between a) a landing site for the drone that is at the property and b) the corresponding position of the moving entity, wherein the distance changes as the moving entity moves and at least some positions in the plurality of positions of the moving entity are different;
in response to determining that the distance does not satisfy the distance criterion, choosing to stay in flight instead of identifying, using data for the moving entity at the property, a location at which the drone should land to continue monitoring the moving entity;
and in response to choosing to stay in flight, continuing to navigate the drone through the property instead of identifying, using the data for the moving entity at the property, a location at which the drone should land to continue monitoring the moving entity.
However, Holtz teaches a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] and [0097]).
Additionally, Semke teaches a UAV system with the ability to attach to a structure to provide stable perching, including perching locations that allow the UAV to complete surveillance missions for maintaining a target within a field of view (see at least abstract and ¶ [0046]).
These features suggests the limitations deficient in the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev. While Holtz is primarily directed toward operating a UAV in an exterior environment and not an interior one, the ability to detect, track, and follow a user and adjust its landing process accordingly can be directly implemented agnostic to the setting it is implemented in. The UAV tracks a mobile user’s position and determines whether to land or not before selecting a viable landing location according to predetermined parameters, while still aware of the user’s position. Additionally, Semke’s use of maintaining a target in a field of view from a perched location further improves Holtz’ landing observations by allowing the UAV to assume different perching locations to maintain the field of view, and can directly incorporate Kasilya Sudarsan’s distance to landing site considerations in determining perching locations. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position tracking and landing of Holtz and the perching features of Semke into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone or objects near it. This would allow the drone to select landing zones that provide better accessibility or ability to track the position of the tracked subject.
Regarding claims 25 and 42, Kasilya Sudarsan discloses the plurality of criteria includes a proximity of the drone to a landing location satisfying a secondary proximity criterion (see at least ¶ [0031-0032] disclosing conditions for determining if it meets criteria includes distance of travel to landing zones).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Kasilya Sudarsan does not explicitly disclose the operations comprising, while the moving entity continues to move and for at least some positions of a plurality of positions of the moving entity;
maintaining the moving entity in a field of view of the drone;
and monitoring a distance between a) a landing site for the drone that is at the property and b) the corresponding position of the moving entity, wherein:
the distance changes as the moving entity moves and at least some positions in the plurality of positions of the moving entity are different;
and determining whether the criterion from the plurality of criteria is satisfied comprises determining, while the drone is monitoring the moving entity at the property, whether the distance between the landing site and the moving entity satisfies a distance criterion that, when satisfied, the moving entity would be in the field of view of the drone and cause generation, of the instruction to cause the drone to land while continuing to monitor the moving entity.
However, Iskrev suggests the drone monitoring the entity at the property (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0040-0042] disclosing a UAV using a camera to monitor a landing area for an object or pattern as a landmark),
and causing the drone to land while continuing to monitor the entity (see at least ¶ [0042] and [0044] disclosing following the landmark in performing landing operations).
Additionally, Holtz suggests the operations comprising monitoring a distance between a) a landing site for the drone that is at the property (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV - one such example includes the UAV landing on a cliff at an elevation that matches the user’s as opposed to landing at the base of the cliff), wherein:
the distance changes as the entity moves and at least some positions in the plurality of positions of the moving entity are different (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV - one such example includes the UAV landing on a cliff at an elevation that matches the user’s as opposed to landing at the base of the cliff, using the tracked user’s footprints);
and determining whether the criterion from the plurality of criteria is satisfied comprises determining, while the drone is monitoring the moving entity at the property, whether the distance between the landing site and the moving entity satisfies a distance criterion that, when satisfied, the moving entity would be in the field of view of the drone and cause generation, of the instruction to cause the drone to land while continuing to monitor the moving entity (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV - one such example includes the UAV landing on a cliff at an elevation that matches the user’s as opposed to landing at the base of the cliff).
Additionally, Semke suggests maintaining the moving entity in a field of view of the drone (see at least abstract and ¶ [0046] disclosing a UAV system with the ability to attach to a structure to provide stable perching, including perching locations that allow the UAV to complete surveillance missions for maintaining a target within a field of view),
and monitoring b) the corresponding position of the moving entity (see at least abstract and ¶ [0046] disclosing a UAV system with the ability to attach to a structure to provide stable perching, including perching locations that allow the UAV to complete surveillance missions for maintaining a target within a field of view).
These features suggests the limitations deficient in the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev. While Holtz is primarily directed toward operating a UAV in an exterior environment and not an interior one, the ability to detect, track, and follow a user and adjust its landing process accordingly can be directly implemented agnostic to the setting it is implemented in. The UAV tracks a mobile user’s position and determines whether to land or not before selecting a viable landing location according to predetermined parameters, while still aware of the user’s position. Additionally, Semke’s use of maintaining a target in a field of view from a perched location further improves Holtz’ landing observations by allowing the UAV to assume different perching locations to maintain the field of view, and can directly incorporate Kasilya Sudarsan’s distance to landing site considerations in determining perching locations. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position tracking and landing of Holtz and the perching features of Semke into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone or objects near it. This would allow the drone to select landing zones that provide better accessibility or ability to track the position of the tracked subject.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Kasilya Sudarsan discloses choosing to stay in flight instead of identifying a location at which the drone should land uses one or more of a current location of the drone (see at least ¶ [0037] disclosing using the location of the robotic vehicle as a current condition to meet criteria), a current location of the entity, or the drone's view of the entity using at least one of the one or more sensors.
Kasilya Sudarsan does not disclose causing the drone to land while continuing to monitor the moving entity,
and determining to skip an identification of the location at with the drone should land,
However, Iskrev suggests causing the drone to land while continuing to monitor the entity (see at least ¶ [0042] and [0044] disclosing following the landmark in performing landing operations).
Additionally, Holtz teaches a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] and [0097]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mid-landing monitoring of Iskrev and the position tracking and landing of Holtz into the landing zone observation and assessment system of Kasilya Sudarsan with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone. While Holtz is primarily directed toward operating a UAV in an exterior environment and not an interior one, the ability to detect, track, and follow a user and adjust its landing process accordingly can be directly implemented agnostic to the setting it is implemented in. The UAV tracks a mobile user’s position and determines whether to land or not before selecting a viable landing location according to predetermined parameters, while still aware of the user’s position. This would help the robotic vehicle of Kasilya Sudarsan maintain awareness of the landing zone so that if any spontaneous event were to occur while the robotic vehicle is landing and would reduce the safety conditions of the landing zone, the robotic vehicle would be able to respond and abort the landing procedure to avoid potential hazards.
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Kasilya Sudarsan discloses determining whether to land the drone at a charging location or a non-charging location using a battery level of the drone (see at least ¶ [0037-0039] disclosing using the battery level of the robotic vehicle as a current condition to meet criteria);
and after choosing to stay in flight instead of identifying a location at which the drone should land, determining a landing location at which to land the drone using a result of the determination to land the drone at the non-charging location using the battery level of the drone (see at least ¶ [0037-0039] disclosing using the battery level of the robotic vehicle as a current condition to meet criteria).
Kasilya Sudarsan does not disclose landing the drone while the moving entity is at the property.
However, Iskrev suggests landing the drone while the entity is at the property (see at least ¶ [0042] and [0044] disclosing following the landmark in performing landing operations).
Additionally, Holtz suggests the entity is a moving entity (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position and movement of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the mid-landing monitoring of Iskrev and the position tracking and landing of Holtz into the landing zone observation and assessment system of Kasilya Sudarsan with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone. This would help the robotic vehicle of Kasilya Sudarsan maintain awareness of the landing zone so that if any spontaneous event were to occur while the robotic vehicle is landing and would reduce the safety conditions of the landing zone, the robotic vehicle would be able to respond and abort the landing procedure to avoid potential hazards.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev does not explicitly disclose the plurality of criteria include a predicted field of view of a sensor included in the drone while at a landing location satisfying the field of view criterion.
However, Holtz suggests the one or more landing parameters include a predicted field of view of a sensor included in the drone while at a landing location (see at least ¶ [0045], [0149], and [0175] disclosing a UAV equipped with a tracking system and landing system working in conjunction with a navigation system to track objects in an environment where the UAV is landing and keeping them in its field of view).
Additionally, Semke teaches a UAV system with the ability to attach to a structure to provide stable perching, including perching locations that allow the UAV to complete surveillance missions for maintaining a target within a field of view (see at least abstract and ¶ [0046]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the predictive tracking system of Holtz and the perching features of Semke into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone. This would help the aerial vehicle be aware of its surroundings and any objects that may move and disrupt safe landing operations.
Regarding claims 30 and 39, the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev does not explicitly disclose determining whether the criterion from the plurality of criteria is satisfied comprises determining whether a landing location is predicted to maintain the moving entity in the predicted field of view of the sensor included in the drone.
However, Holtz suggests determining whether the criterion from the plurality of criteria is satisfied comprises determining whether a landing location is predicted to maintain the moving entity in the predicted field of view of the sensor included in the drone (see at least ¶ [0045], [0091-0092], [0149], and [0175] disclosing a UAV equipped with a tracking system and landing system working in conjunction with a navigation system to track objects in an environment where the UAV is landing and keeping them in its field of view, including tracking mobile users).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the predictive tracking system of Holtz into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone. This would help the aerial vehicle be aware of its surroundings and any objects that may move and disrupt safe landing operations.
Regarding claims 31 and 41, the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev does not explicitly disclose the plurality of criteria include an expected activity of the moving entity at the property satisfying an activity criterion.
However, Holtz suggests the plurality of criteria include an expected activity of the moving entity at the property satisfying an activity criterion (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] and [0097] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on the user’s activity and elevation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the position tracking and landing of Holtz into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan and Iskrev with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the landing zone or objects near it. This would allow the drone to select landing zones that provide better accessibility or ability to track the position of the tracked subject.
Claims 23-24 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasilya Sudarsan et al. in view of Iskrev et al., Holtz et al., and Semke et al., as applied to claims 21 and 32 above, and in further view of Kusumi et al. (US 20210225178 A1).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, while Holtz suggests the entity is a moving entity (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position and movement of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV), the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan, Iskrev, Holtz, and Semke does not disclose determining a time at which the moving entity will likely arrive at the property;
determining, using the time at which the moving entity will likely arrive at the property, whether the drone should dock prior to the arrival of the moving entity;
and in response to determining that the drone should dock prior to the arrival of the moving entity, sending, to a component of the drone, an instruction to cause the drone to dock prior to the arrival of the moving entity.
However, Kusumi discloses multiple UAVs arriving at reserved port candidates where, in case of emergency, it is determined if the port candidate has sufficient time to allow the arrival of an unscheduled UAV before the arrival of the scheduled UAV and adjusts flight paths accordingly (see at least ¶ [0059-0060] and Fig. 9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the scheduled landing management of Kusumi into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan, Iskrev, Holtz, and Semke with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the activity of the landing zone. This would prevent UAVs from occupying landing zones that are already reserved for other UAVs, while also allowing UAVs experiencing a need for emergency landing to land at a reserved landing zone with sufficient time before a scheduled arrival on another UAV.
Regarding claims 24 and 35, while Kasilya Sudarsan discloses determining whether the drone should dock using a battery level of the drone (see at least ¶ [0037] disclosing using a battery level of the robotic vehicle as a current condition) and Holtz suggests the entity is a moving entity (see at least ¶ [0091-0092] disclosing a UAV that tracks the position and movement of a user and determines whether or not to land and at what elevation to land at based on surrounding obstacles in the environment and locations where the tracked user may more easily reach the UAV), the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan, Iskrev, Holtz, and Semke does not disclose determining to dock prior to the arrival of the moving entity.
However, Kusumi discloses multiple UAVs arriving at reserved port candidates where, in case of emergency, it is determined if the port candidate has sufficient time to allow the arrival of an unscheduled UAV before the arrival of the scheduled UAV and adjusts flight paths accordingly (see at least ¶ [0059-0060] and Fig. 9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the scheduled landing management of Kusumi into the combination of Kasilya Sudarsan, Iskrev, Holtz, and Semke with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating aerial vehicles to landing zones while monitoring the activity of the landing zone. This would prevent UAVs from occupying landing zones that are already reserved for other UAVs, while also allowing UAVs experiencing a need for emergency landing to land at a reserved landing zone with sufficient time before a scheduled arrival on another UAV.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights