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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/201,543, filed on May 24, 2023. In response to Examiner's Non-Final Office Action dated January 28, 2026, Applicant on April 27, 2026, amended claims 10-12, 14 and 15. Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-16 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on June 23, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-16 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed April 27, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed April 27, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the rejection mischaracterizes the claims by omitting the claims' machine-executed integrity-monitoring and cross-source analytics mechanics. Applicant cites limitations from claims 1, 10 and 11 (see p. 9) and citations from the specification (see p. 10, Applicants Remarks).
These are not "observations" or "judgments" practicably performable in the human mind (even with pen and paper). A human cannot, as a practical matter, execute continuous, machine- speed evaluation of streaming, multi-source telemetry with time-windowed filtering and historical tracking, continuously execute timestamp-based latency computations against time of applicability, maintain and apply schema-defined per-field timing criteria, gate threshold events through a configurable M-of-N filter, apply relationship functions over time across multiple independent external sources, and simultaneously re-load live configuration without pausing service. These are not ordinary mental observations or judgments. They are specific machine operations in a streaming telemetry environment. Under MPEP §2106.04(a) and SRI Int'l v. Cisco, claims do not recite a mental process when the human mind is not equipped to perform the limitations in practice. That is the case here.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner finds the present claims are directed to the data analysis of monitoring and analyzing data to implement identified mitigation strategies. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, regardless of complexity and/or granularity, data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Even in a computer environment, these limitations are still considered abstract by reciting limitations that mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluations, judgement and opinion, that can feasibly be performed with pen and paper, where the data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states even if the Office were to maintain that some aspect of the claims implicates an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The claimed subject matter is not a generic data-review workflow. Rather, it is a specific supervisory safety-assurance architecture for an uncrewed aviation ecosystem. The configuration mechanism is not mere field-of-use language. It is a service-availability improvement: configuration files identifying modules and parameters are read at start-time and may be re-loaded during run-time without pausing service. Spec. [0008], [0041], [0042] (STEP 502). That improves the functioning of the supervisory monitoring system itself by allowing configuration adaptation without downtime. Likewise, the configurable schema with message timing, time-of-applicability latency determination, and M-of-N gating is not generic "analysis." It is a concrete integrity- monitoring technique that improves data-quality assessment and reduces false alerts in the uncrewed aviation ecosystem. Spec. [0007], [0031]-[0032]; Fig. 4, BLOCKS 404-418. The translation layer is not mere data gathering. It is a concrete ingestion and normalization mechanism that enables downstream processing by converting heterogeneous machine interfaces into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain. See Spec. [0020]-[0022]. Likewise, the mitigation output is not mere reporting. The claims now require generation of a particular airspace- management artifact, namely a 3D or 4D airspace constraint volume with metadata, for transmission to external systems. See Spec. [0042], [0045]. Those claim elements tie the detection and assessment pipeline to a concrete technological environment and to a specific operational use of the resulting output. They therefore cannot reasonably be dismissed as insignificant extra- solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The ordered combination further reflects a practical technological implementation. The claims require heterogeneous protocol ingestion, domain-based standardization, continuous monitoring, schema-defined integrity tests, timing- and rate-based checks, false-alert suppression through a preconfigured filter, impact assessment at the ecosystem level, and execution of indirect mitigation outputs that expressly exclude onboard flight-control commands. This architecture improves supervisory safety assurance by increasing interoperability across diverse external systems, improving the quality and consistency of ingested data, reducing false alerts, and producing a specific external constraint artifact for airspace management. See Spec. [0027]- [0032], [0042], [0045]. The claims therefore are materially different from the generalized "collect- analyze-display" claims in Electric Power and FairWarning cited by the Office Action. Here, the claims recite the particular technical manner in which the integrity-monitoring system is configured, how timing and latency are computed, how false positives are suppressed, and how live system availability is preserved. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d), this is a practical application of any alleged exception, not a claim to the exception itself..
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicants arguments regarding the specific supervisory safety-assurance architecture are not technical in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than the abstract idea. Improving supervisory safety assurance by increasing interoperability across diverse external systems, improving the quality and consistency of ingested data, reducing false alerts, and producing a specific external constraint artifact are improvements to an existing business process (i.e., airspace management) and not to the technology, a technological field or computer-related technology. Applicant is describing the use of the additional elements without disclosing any improvement to how they functions, reflecting and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved or there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Examiner asserts the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the rejection also should be withdrawn under Step 2B. The Office Action states that the claims merely employ generic processors, memory, and communications components, and that the additional elements amount only to receiving, storing, and transmitting information. See Office Action, § 101, Step 2B. But the claims are not directed to those generic components in isolation. The relevant question is whether the claim as a whole recites an ordered combination amounting to significantly more than the alleged exception. Here, the Office has not identified evidence establishing that the particular combination now claimed was well-understood, routine, and conventional, namely: translating heterogeneous interface types into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain; performing configurable schema-based integrity monitoring with completeness, bounds, message rate, rate-of-change, and timing criteria; generating and transmitting a 3D or 4D airspace constraint volume with metadata as a mitigation output; start- time reading of configuration files; run-time re-loading of configuration without pausing service; schema-defined per-field thresholds and message timing; timestamp-versus-time-of-applicability latency determination; threshold comparison; configurable M-of-N gating of threshold-breaking latency; and application of preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple independent external data sources. On the present record, the Office has not shown that this claimed arrangement was merely conventional computer implementation.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims are not directed to a mental process, are integrated into a practical application even if any exception were implicated, and in any event recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore respectfully requested.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous office action the analysis in Step 2B addresses the question on whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities. Examiner maintains Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Specifically, translating heterogeneous interface types into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain; performing configurable schema-based integrity monitoring with completeness, bounds, message rate, rate-of-change, and timing criteria; generating a 3D or 4D airspace constraint volume with metadata as a mitigation output; start-time reading of configuration files; run-time re-loading of configuration without pausing service; schema-defined per-field thresholds and message timing; timestamp-versus-time-of-applicability latency determination; threshold comparison; configurable M-of-N gating of threshold-breaking latency are all instructions off the abstract idea performed by the additional elements. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than monitoring and analyzing data to implement identified mitigation strategies. Examiner maintains the additional elements (e.g., processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory, system comprising at least one processor coupled to a memory, computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and at least one of communications systems, surveillance systems, navigation systems, weather sensing systems, digital infrastructure systems, and heterogeneous interface types) recited in the claims perform generic functions (i.e., such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory) without reciting any limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Applicant has not made any persuasive argument that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12 and 16 are directed towards a method, claim 10 is directed towards a system and claims 11 and 13-15 are directed towards a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite monitoring and analyzing data to implement identified mitigation strategies.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, continuously monitoring the data; detecting one or more issues associated with at least one of health, integrity, or performance associated with the data or the uncrewed aviation ecosystem, wherein the detecting comprises performing data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema that defines passing criteria including at least one of field completeness, parameter bounds, message rate, and rate of change, applying a preconfigured M of N filter to limit false alerts, and applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple data sources to identify deviations against thresholds; assessing impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem; determining one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues; and executing the one or more mitigation strategies without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of performing the steps by at least one processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory and external system interfaces does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, monitor the data; detect one or more issues associated with the at least one of health, integrity, or performance associated with the data or associated systems comprising evaluating one of completeness, bounds, message rate, and rate of change according to a configurable schema and applying a preconfigured filter including comparing send and receipt timestamps of messages against a time of applicability to determine latency and comparing the latency to a configured threshold; assess impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem; determine one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues; and execute one or more mitigation strategies comprising generating a 3D or 4D airspace constraint volume with metadata without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle and without transmitting commands to any onboard flight controller or aircraft actuator of the uncrewed vehicle constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of at least one processing device coupled to a memory does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, monitor the data; detect one or more issues associated with the at least one of health, integrity or performance issues associated with the data or associated systems wherein the detecting comprises performing data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema that defines passing criteria including thresholds, rates of change, and message timing, comparing the data to per-field threshold parameters and message timing parameters defined in the configurable schema, comparing various send and receipt timestamps against time of applicability to determine latency and comparing the latency to a configured threshold, passing latency which breaks this threshold through a configurable M of N filter to determine if an alert or mitigation should be generated, and applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple independent external data sources to identify deviations against thresholds; assess impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem; determine one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues; and execute one or more mitigation strategies without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle and without transmitting commands to any onboard flight controller or aircraft actuator of the uncrewed vehicle, the one or more mitigation strategies comprising at least one of sending an alert, sending a constraint, providing a contingency procedure, and triggering an external registered mitigation action constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs executable by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites ingesting data from at least one of communications systems, surveillance systems, navigation systems, weather sensing systems, and digital infrastructure systems in association with performance of an uncrewed aviation ecosystem and wherein executing comprises generating and publishing at least one of alert messages, constraints, contingency procedures, or triggers for externally registered mitigation actions via interfaces to external systems, without issuing flight-control commands to any onboard system of the unmanned vehicle, which are limitations considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites wherein the steps are performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea.
The system comprising at least one processor, coupled to a memory recited in claim 10 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and ingest and transmit limitations, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g), respectively. Additionally, claim 10 recites wherein ingesting comprises translating heterogeneous interface types selected from UDP, RESTful APIs, AMQP, MQTT, and WebSocket into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain, which is not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs executable by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory and data ingestion module in claim 11 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and ingest, read and send limitations, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 10 and 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory, system comprising at least one processor coupled to a memory, computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and at least one of communications systems, surveillance systems, navigation systems, weather sensing systems, digital infrastructure systems, and heterogeneous interface types amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 3, 7, 13, 15 and 16 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 3, 15 and 16 recite sending, providing, read, updating and/or transmitting limitations respectively, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 4 recites additional elements that recite an instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 16 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 12-16 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art of Record
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed April 27, 2026, in particular pg. 14-19 regarding the prior art of record recited for claims 1, 10 and 11. Examiner analyzed claim 1 and amended claims 10 and 11 in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hammerschmidt teaches reliable determination of a state parameter of an object to be monitored (see par. 0016). Specifically, Hammerschmidt discloses the system has a switching threshold, and when the same is exceeded or fallen below, an action is triggered, such as the transmission of measurement data towards the outside or the change of a system-internal state. The noise caused by the sensor system and its characteristic is known and, thus, an error probability (pel) for the single measurement results. The decision is always repeated when a decision criterion is fulfilled. If it is not the same in the repetition, the decision is discarded and the repetitions are terminated. If the decision is the same in the repetition, the repetition is continued until n repetitions with the same result are present and then the decision is finally made. Variations are: The error probability results as pe (m of n)=pel/(1-pel)m-n. This variation is particularly useful when the signal to be decided upon is also random and can occasionally fall to a value, which would not lead to a decision. The time intervals of the repetition measurements have to be in the same period as the measurements prior to the threshold exceeding, but can take place faster to ensure a sampling rate, which is, on the one hand, significantly below the bandwidth of the superposed noise, but, on the other hand, oversamples the signal to be detected (e.g. driving-induced pressure changes) (faster than the Nyquist rate defined by the Shannon sampling theorem). When the repetition criterion is not fulfilled, a switch-back to the old sampling rate defined for the parking state is made. When the repetition criterion is fulfilled, the increased sampling rate can be maintained or a change to another sampling rate defined for the driving state can be made (see par. [0145]-[0168]).
However, Hammerschmidt, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 12-16 are distinguishable because they depend on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Wiseman teaches one or more of the test instruments transmit data to a computing system in accordance with a standardized format and/or standardized protocol. Specifically, the standardized format and/or protocol may be defined by a standard setting organization or other appropriate organization (such as an industry trade group or trade association). The standardized format may also be defined in accordance with an application programming interface (API), such as a Representational State Transfer (REST) based API. A standardized format, protocol, and/or APIs in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention includes features and characteristics that are particular to the domain of embodiments of the present invention, such as specifying data formats (e.g., canonical data formats) for each type of test instrument. In some embodiments, data that is received in a proprietary of specialized format may be canonized into the standardized data format (see par. [0056]).
However, Wiseman, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claim 10. Thus, claim 10 are found to be distinguishable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Samani et al. (US 20240400083 A1) – A method for determining a human operator's visual attention to an operating panel of a vehicle during vehicle operation is described. The method includes: receiving and processing data indicative of the human operator's gaze direction from at least one monitoring device over a period of time; determining, by the processor, an approximate location of the human operator's gaze on the operating panel at different individual times over the period of time; identifying, by the processor, any individual areas-of-interest (AOI) located at each of the determined approximate locations of the human operator's gaze; and calculating, by the processor, a value for at least one metric using at least the determined approximate locations at different individual times and the identification of any individual AOI at the determined approximate locations to determine the human operator's attention to the operating panel.
Topan et al. (US 20240085914 A1) – In various examples, techniques for determining perception zones for object detection are described. For instance, a system may use a dynamic model associated with an ego-machine, a dynamic model associated with an object, and one or more possible interactions between the ego-machine and the object to determine a perception zone. The system may then perform one or more processes using the perception zone. For instance, if the system is validating a perception system of the ego-machine, the system may determine whether a detection error associated with the object is a safety-critical error based on whether the object is located within the perception zone. Additionally, if the system is executing within the ego-machine, the system may determine whether the object is a safety-critical object based on whether the object is located within the perception zone.
Whelan et al. (Threat Analysis of a Long Range Autonomous Unmanned Aerial System) – Technology of the 21st century has led to the development and deployment of many unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) within today’s airspace. UAVs typically perform tasks such as surveillance, pipeline, and crop monitoring, professional imaging, surveying, search and rescue, and military operations. Many of these UAVs execute their duties entirely autonomously without the intervention of humans. Due to the nature of the responsibilities of UAVs, their security is of utmost importance. Security threats to UAVs are often targeted at the unmanned aerial system (UAS) which includes everything employed to allow the UAV to function; this can include the software running on the drone, the control system piloting the drone and the connection between the two. This paper provides an overview of autonomous UAS architecture and analyzes security threats to the system. The goal of this paper is to support UAV manufacturers and developers to have an understanding of the components required in an autonomous UAS and allow them to identify, prevent and address security concerns within their systems.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights