DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/213,377 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the metes and bounds of the claims of this application would obviously have been construed from those of the patent as there is clearly an overlay of flight data over the real time camera display.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) s 1-6, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Woodman 2023/0118521.
The PG pub to Woodman discloses in paragraphs 74-105 a unmanned aerial vehicle 110 with a remote controller with a flight controller 315 with a display 170 that uses real time camera data 450 which is the real view that the UAV sees on display screen 170, as well as flight data paragraph 171. The claim merely recited that there is a display screen with flight data. The pilot could inherently view the flight data and look at the UAV in the sky to provide the real view. Claims 11-14 follow from the above rejection.
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to collectively:determine flight data of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is controllable by a surface- based pilot; generate an overlay that describes the flight data(paragraph 171); and display to the surface-based pilot the overlay combined with a real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle(paragraphs 103-104).
2. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to render the flight data as a graphic, symbol, text, or combination of such(paragraph 171).
3. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2, wherein the flight data comprises:a remaining energy of the unmanned aerial vehicle; an altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle; a latitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle; a longitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle; or a combination of such(paragraph 171).
4. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein:the flight data comprises video captured by a camera of the unmanned aerial vehicle; and the instructions are further to display the video combined with the real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle(paragraphs 103-104).
5. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the video has a bird's eye view of the unmanned aerial vehicle(paragraph 104 vertical view).
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the video is taken from a perspective of the unmanned aerial vehicle(paragraph 106).
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein the video is taken from a perspective of the unmanned aerial vehicle(paragraphs 103-104).
Claims 11-16 follow from the above rejection.
11. A device comprising:a communications interface; one or more processors connected to the communications interface, the one or more processors configured to collectively: determine flight data of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is controllable by a surface-based pilot; generate an overlay that describes the flight data; and output the overlay for combination with a real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
12. The device of claim 11, wherein:the flight data comprises a remaining energy of the unmanned aerial vehicle, an altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a latitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a longitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or a combination of such; and the one or more processors are configured to collectively render the flight data as a graphic, symbol, text, or combination of such.
13. The device of claim 11, wherein:the flight data comprises video captured by a camera of the unmanned aerial vehicle; and the one or more processors are configured to collectively display the video combined with the real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
14. The device of claim 11, wherein:the communications interface comprises a wireless communications interface; and the wireless communications interface is configured to receive the flight data from the unmanned aerial vehicle.
15. The device of claim 14, further comprising a display device connected to the one or more processors, wherein the display device is configured to display the overlay combined with the real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
16. The device of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to move the overlay within the real view.
Claims 18-20 follow from the above rejection.
18. A method comprising:determining flight data of an unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is under control of a surface-based pilot; generating an overlay that describes the flight data; and displaying to the surface-based pilot the overlay combined with a real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein:the flight data comprises a remaining energy of the unmanned aerial vehicle, an altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a latitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a longitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or a combination of such; and the method further comprises rendering the flight data as a graphic, symbol, text, or combination of such.
20. The method of claim 18, wherein:the flight data comprises video captured by a camera of the unmanned aerial vehicle; and the method further comprises displaying the video combined with the real view of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) s 7-10 and 17is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodman ‘521.
In regards to claims 7-10 the PG pub to Woodman discloses all features of the claimed invention, but for the display locations of the flight data which is old and well known in the art of screen overlays in order to meet the users preference.
7. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to collectively generate the overlay with the flight data at a top-left position within the real view.
8. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to collectively generate the overlay with the flight data at a top-right position within the real view.
9. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to collectively:render a portion of flight data as a graphic, symbol, text, or combination of such at one of a top-left position and a top-right position within the real view; and render another portion of the flight data as video at another of the top-left position and the top-right position within the real view.
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to collectively generate the overlay in which the flight data occupies less than one quarter of the real view.
In regards to claim 17 the use of gestures by a user to control a UAV are old and well known in the specific art of swarm control of UAVs and would be obvious here in order to provide the ground based user with specific control of the UAV.
17. The device of claim 16, further comprising:a camera connected to the one or more processors; wherein the one or more processors are configured to detect a gesture of the surface- based pilot using the camera and to move the overlay within the real view based on the gesture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M CAMBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6958. The examiner can normally be reached M - F flex.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571 270 7016. 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.
/RICHARD M CAMBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661