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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 line 9 reads “the obstacle” which appears to be a continuity error since there is antecedent basis for two obstacles: the target object and the another obstacle. Examiner understands that the intent is for the obstacle of line 9 to have antecedent basis to the another obstacle, so this should read “the another obstacle” to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Consider the following limitation: “the on-board sensor including a rotating millimeter wave radar and/or a rotating lidar mounted on a top of the aerial vehicle, the rotating millimeter wave radar and/or the rotating lidar using an electrical scanning mode in a vertical direction and using a mechanical scanning mode in a horizontal direction, to collect the measurement data, and the measurement data including point cloud data”. The disclosure at the time of filing does not have support for a rotating lidar mounted on a top of the aerial vehicle nor does it have support for using the provided modes for the lidar. Instead, a generic lidar is provided in the disclosure at the time of filing (¶ 0008 for example). Further only the rotating millimeter wave radar has support for being located on top of the vehicle (¶ 00104 for example) and performing the scanning modes (¶ 00106 for example). Therefore, the rotating lidar and associated functions as detailed in claim 26 are new matter and should be cancelled.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first measurement data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the first measurement data will be understood as having antecedent basis to the target measurement data.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. CN 110850894 A (hereinafter He; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon) in view of Qiu CN 110892284 A (hereinafter Qiu; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 14,
He teaches
An aerial vehicle (Abstract "unmanned aerial vehicle") comprising:
an on-board sensor (¶ 0079 "lidar installed on drones");
a memory storing instructions (¶ 0038 "a drone, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the method"); and
a processor calls the instructions stored in the memory for realizing following operations (¶ 0038):
obtaining measurement data collected by an on-board sensor of the aerial vehicle, the measurement data including point cloud data (¶ 0079 "Point cloud data of power lines can be obtained by using lidar installed on drones");
obtaining target parameters, the target parameters being determined based on the measurement data (¶ 0026 "The direction of the wire is obtained from the wire point cloud"; ¶ 0067 "Use lidar to obtain the distance from the drone to the power line"), the target parameters comprising a distance between the aerial vehicle and a target object (¶ 0067) and an extension direction of the target object, the extension direction of the target object being determined based on the point cloud data (¶ 0026), and the target object including an obstacle (Abstract "electric wire" which examiner understands as an obstacle in light of ¶ 0060 of the instant application);
determining a flight path of the aerial vehicle based on the target parameters (¶ 0027 "The drone's flight direction is adjusted in real time according to the direction of the power line"; ¶ 0074 "Automatically adjust the flight position of the UAV based on the difference between the preset altitude information and the actual altitude information, and the difference between the preset offset information and the actual offset information"), the flight path of the aerial vehicle including a flight direction of the aerial vehicle (¶ 0027), and the flight direction of the aerial vehicle being substantially parallel to the extension direction of the target object (¶ 0074-0075; it is inherent that maintaining a fixed horizontal and vertical displacement from a line would result in a trajectory heading parallel to the line); and
controlling the aerial vehicle to perform an operation based on the flight path of the aerial vehicle (¶ 0027 and 0074).
He does not teach
the on-board sensor including a radar.
Qiu teaches
the on-board sensor including a radar (¶ 0040 "radar").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Qui. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the radar of Qui for the lidar of He. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of detecting 3D objects utilizing sensors that generate a point cloud renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the modified He reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above.
He does not teach that
the radar comprises at least one of a millimeter wave radar, rotating millimeter wave radar, or an ultrasonic radar.
Qui further teaches that
the radar comprises a millimeter wave radar (¶ 0048 "millimeter-wave radar").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the further teachings of Qui. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the millimeter wave radar of Qui for the lidar of He. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of detecting 3D objects utilizing sensors that generate a point cloud renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the modified He reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above.
He further teaches that
the distance between the aerial vehicle and the target object includes a horizontal distance between the aerial vehicle and the target object (¶ 0069 "calculate the… actual offset information of the UAV relative to the power line"; see also Figure 4) and a vertical height between the aerial vehicle and the target object (¶ 0069 "calculate the actual height information… of the UAV relative to the power line"; see also Figure 4).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the modified He reference teaches all of claims 1 and 14 as detailed above.
He further teaches
determining the flight path of the aerial vehicle based on the target parameters and a predetermined requirement for the aerial vehicle to follow the target object (¶ 0027 "The drone's flight direction is adjusted in real time according to the direction of the power line"; ¶ 0074 "Automatically adjust the flight position of the UAV based on the difference between the preset altitude information and the actual altitude information, and the difference between the preset offset information and the actual offset information").
Regarding claim 12, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
He further teaches
determining a heading direction of the aerial vehicle based on the extension direction of the target object (¶ 0027 "The drone's flight direction is adjusted in real time according to the direction of the power line"); and
determining the flight path of the aerial vehicle in the heading direction based on the target parameters, a position of the aerial vehicle, and a predetermined distance between the aerial vehicle and the target object (¶ 0074 "Automatically adjust the flight position of the UAV based on the difference between the preset altitude information and the actual altitude information, and the difference between the preset offset information and the actual offset information").
Regarding claim 22, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
He further teaches
controlling the aerial vehicle to perform the operation at a preset distance relative to the target object based on the flight path of the aerial vehicle (¶ 0074), the preset distance including a horizontal distance between the aerial vehicle and the target object (¶ 0074 "Automatically adjust the flight position of the UAV based… the difference between the preset offset information and the actual offset information") and a vertical distance between the aerial vehicle and the target object (¶ 0074 "Automatically adjust the flight position of the UAV based on the difference between the preset altitude information and the actual altitude information").
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as modified by Qui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. CN 104143189 A (hereinafter Wu; a translated copy has been previously provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 9, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
He further teaches that
the target parameters are determined based on the target measurement data (¶ 0026 "The direction of the wire is obtained from the wire point cloud"; ¶ 0067 "Use lidar to obtain the distance from the drone to the power line").
He does not teach
determining whether the measurement data is target measurement data based on a dispersion of the measurement data.
Wu teaches
determining whether the measurement data is target measurement data based on a dispersion of the measurement data (Abstract discloses extracting the transmission line data from a 3D point cloud utilizing the dispersion degree of point cloud points).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Wu such that the detected transmission line of He can be detected via the dispersion method of Wu. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve tracking of the transmission device as disclosed in Wu (Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as modified by Qui and Wu as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of "Automatic Detection and Classification of Pole-Like Objects in Urban Point Cloud Data Using an Anomaly Detection Algorithm" by Rodriguez-Cuenca et al. (hereinafter Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 10, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 9 as detailed above.
He does not teach that
under a condition that the dispersion is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the measurement data is determined to be the first measurement data; and
under a condition that the dispersion is greater than the predetermined threshold, the measurement data is determined to be second measurement data, which is measurement data of another obstacle other than the target object.
Rodriguez teaches that
under a condition that the dispersion is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the measurement data is determined to be the first measurement data (pages 12689-12690 disclose the determination of elements based on dispersion of points with vertical poles having a smaller dispersion than roads; this indicates the detection of poles, i.e. "target objects", is based on being smaller than a set dispersion level; Figure 7 also indicates utilization of these dispersions based classifications to distinguish between two different vertical objects, not just horizontal and vertical indicating further flexibility in the taught method); and
under a condition that the dispersion is greater than the predetermined threshold, the measurement data is determined to be second measurement data, which is measurement data of another obstacle other than the target object (pages 12689-12690 disclose the determination of elements based on dispersion of points with vertical poles having a smaller dispersion than roads; this indicates the detection of roads, i.e. obstacles, is based on being larger than a set dispersion level; Figure 7 also indicates utilization of these dispersions based classifications to distinguish between two different vertical objects, not just horizontal and vertical indicating further flexibility in the taught method).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Rodriguez such that objects can be distinguished between based on dispersion of point cloud elements as taught by Rodriguez such that power line poles can be extracted from point cloud data. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of object distinguishment to reduce risk of collision with the power line or other objects during following.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as modified by Qui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. US 20210284198 A1 (hereinafter Schmidt).
Regarding claim 13, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
He does not teach
determining presence of another obstacle other than the target object, the obstacle being determined by measurement data collected by the on-board sensor during the movement of the aerial vehicle;
under a condition that the another obstacle is determined to be within the flight path of the aerial vehicle, controlling the aerial vehicle to enter an obstacle avoidance mode to avoid the another obstacle;
and under a condition that the another obstacle is determined to be outside the flight path of the aerial vehicle, controlling the aerial vehicle to ignore the another obstacle.
Schmidt teaches
determining presence of another obstacle (Abstract "acquiring object information representing an object shape from one or more sensors"), the another obstacle being determined by measurement data collected by the on-board sensor during the movement of the vehicle (Figure 2 210-250 indicate that a vehicle is currently traveling on a path and a projection of the path and sensing of objects on the path occur during travel on this path; ¶ 0112 details that step 220 "may be done in real-time while the vehicle navigates along its path");
under a condition that the another obstacle is determined to be within the path of the vehicle, controlling the vehicle to enter an obstacle avoidance mode to avoid the another obstacle (Abstract "determining if the object shape overlaps the projected motion polygon. If so, the method includes adjusting the vehicle navigation"; Figure 2 280 "avoid object");
and under a condition that the another obstacle is determined to be outside the path of the vehicle, controlling the vehicle to ignore the another obstacle (Abstract "determining if the object shape overlaps the projected motion polygon… If not, the method includes, continuing navigation along the path"; Figure 2 290 "ignore object").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt such that the obstacle avoidance of Schmidt can be performed in the aerial vehicle context of He to avoid any obstacles that aren’t the electric wire of He. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for obstacle avoidance while also preventing unnecessary interruptions caused by obstacles outside of the vehicle's path as disclosed in Schmidt (¶ 0012).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as modified by Qui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moore et al. US 20190033467 A1.
Regarding claim 23, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
He does not teach that
the on-board sensor further includes a multispectral camera.
Moore teaches that
the on-board sensor further includes a multispectral camera (¶ 0028 "multi-spectrum cameras").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Moore such that the sensor system aboard He can further include the multispectral cameras of Moore. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve locating existing or impending electrical arcing faults as disclosed in Moore (¶ 0003).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He as modified by Qui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. CN 110427504 A (hereinafter Wang; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 24, the modified He reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
He does not teach that
a frequency of the on-board sensor to collect the measurement data is adjusted based on whether there is an object other than the target object in surrounding environment of the aerial vehicle.
Wang teaches that
a frequency of the on-board sensor to collect the measurement data is adjusted based on whether there is an object other than the target object in surrounding environment of the vehicle (¶ 0016 "the vehicle-mounted server is used to determine the obstacle area and the non-obstacle area after receiving the data processing results from the cloud server, and to reduce the scanning frequency of the laser radar device scanning the non-obstacle area"; examiner understands an obstacle as equivalent to an object that is not a target object as obstacle avoidance would be required in reaction to the obstacle, changing the standard flight path).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Wang such that the obstacle detection method with varying detection frequency of Wang can be performed in the aerial vehicle context of He. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce data acquisition volume while still maintaining vehicle safety, reduce data transmission pressure for any transmitted data, reduce data processing load, reduce hardware latency, and improve data processing speed as disclosed in Wang (¶ 0026).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Qiu and Rohani et al. US 20170299714 A1 (hereinafter Rohani).
Regarding claim 26, examiner understands that claim 26 is a mere copy of claim 1 with additional recitations regarding the on-board sensor. Thus, the same grounds of rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the subject matter of claim 26. For conciseness of record, these grounds of rejection will not be repeated and only the subject matter presented in claim 26 not present in claim 1 will be further discussed.
He does not teach
the on-board sensor including a rotating millimeter wave radar and/or a rotating lidar mounted on a top of the aerial vehicle, the rotating millimeter wave radar and/or the rotating lidar using a mechanical scanning mode in a horizontal direction, to collect the measurement data.
Qiu further teaches
the on-board sensor including a rotating millimeter wave radar (¶ 0048-0049 discloses a millimeter-wave radar as a microwave radar wherein the radar is configured to rotate), the rotating millimeter wave radar using an mechanical scanning mode in a vertical direction (¶ 0049 discloses that the radar can rotate perpendicular to the ground to collect data) and using a mechanical scanning mode in a horizontal direction, to collect the measurement data (¶ 0049 discloses that the radar can rotate parallel to the ground to collect data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified He to incorporate the teachings of Qui. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the rotating millimeter wave radar of Qui for the lidar of He. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of detecting 3D objects utilizing sensors that generate a point cloud renders the claim obvious. Qiu does not explicitly teach that the radar is mounted on a top of the aerial vehicle, but Qiu does suggest that placement on the top of the vehicle would be obvious as Qiu explicitly states that the placement of the radar is a mere design choice (¶ 0048 discloses that the radar can be mounted anywhere that design requires). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to rearrange the radar of Qiu to be on top of the vehicle since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
He does not teach
the rotating millimeter wave radar and/or the rotating lidar using an electrical scanning mode in a vertical direction, to collect the measurement data.
Rohani teaches
the radar using an electrical scanning mode in a vertical direction, to collect the measurement data (¶ 0065 discloses that vertical scanning of an environment can be performed using electrical beam steering).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Rohani. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the radar based vertical electrical scanning of Rohani for the radar based vertical mechanical scanning of Qiu. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of detecting the environment renders the claim obvious. Further, examiner notes that Rohani indicates that either electrical or mechanical scanning methods can be performed in the vertical direction (¶ 0065) indicating that mere substitution of one for the other would only require routine skill within the art and produce predictable results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Qiu, Zhang et al. CN 111912419 A (hereinafter Zhang; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon), and Chen et al. CN 109872384 A (hereinafter Chen; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 27, examiner understands that claim 27 is a mere copy of claim 1 with additional recitations regarding the determination step. Thus, the same grounds of rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the subject matter of claim 27. For conciseness of record, these grounds of rejection will not be repeated and only the subject matter presented in claim 27 not present in claim 1 will be further discussed.
He further teaches
the on-board sensor including a lidar (¶ 0079 "lidar installed on drones").
He does not teach
determining the target parameters based on the measurement data including:
converting the measurement data in polar coordinates to measurement data in a body coordinate system;
converting the measurement data in the body coordinate system to measurement data in a geodetic coordinate system.
Zhang teaches
converting the measurement data in polar coordinates to measurement data in a body coordinate system (¶ 0018-0020 discloses transforming a 3D point cloud from a lidar's coordinate system to a vehicle's coordinate system by converting the point cloud from polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates to body coordinates);
converting the measurement data in the body coordinate system to measurement data in a geodetic coordinate system (¶ 0017 discloses transforming the 3D point cloud from the vehicle's coordinate system to a geodetic coordinate system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Zhang such that the point cloud of He can be converted from polar coordinates to geodetic coordinates as taught by Zhang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for low cost creation of a high precision map for navigation as disclosed in Zhang (Abstract and ¶ 0064).
He does not teach
projecting the measurement data onto a plurality of planes of the geodetic coordinate system to obtain projected data on each of the plurality of planes;
linearly fitting the projected data on each of the plurality of planes of the geodetic coordinate system to obtain linear equations on the plurality of planes; and
determining the target parameters based on the linear equations on the plurality of planes.
Chen teaches
projecting the measurement data onto a plurality of planes of the geodetic coordinate system to obtain projected data on each of the plurality of planes (¶ 0034-0037 discloses projecting a point cloud to a YZ plane and an XZ plane);
linearly fitting the projected data on each of the plurality of planes of the geodetic coordinate system to obtain linear equations on the plurality of planes (¶ 0034-0037 discloses linear fitting using a RANSAC algorithm); and
determining the target parameters based on the linear equations on the plurality of planes (Abstract discloses determining structure parameters following projection and linear fitting; see ¶ 0034-0037 for examples of obtaining specific coordinates based on the fit straight line equation; ¶ 0038 also discloses modeling based on the collected point data; examiner understands a real time model would include the target parameters and/or would be usable to obtain the target parameters).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified He to incorporate the teachings of Chen such that the point cloud of He converted into geodetic coordinates according to Zhang can further be projected, linear fit, and used to create a structural model of the target object as taught by Chen. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for robust environmental monitoring that covers complex situations such as when noise interference or missing data exists as disclosed in Chen (¶ 0041).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/25/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the limitation “the on-board sensor including a rotating millimeter wave radar and/or a rotating lidar mounted on a top of the aerial vehicle, the rotating millimeter wave radar and/or the rotating lidar using an electrical scanning mode in a vertical direction and using a mechanical scanning mode in a horizontal direction, to collect the measurement data, and the measurement data including point cloud data” of claim 26 does not have support within the disclosure at the time of filing. Particularly, the rotating lidar and associated modes for the lidar are not present within the disclosure as originally filed. (See 112(a) rejection above for more details.)
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13, applicant argues that the amended claim language of claim 1 is not taught in the prior art of record. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amending the claim language from target object to obstacle functionally does nothing towards changing patentable scope as object and obstacle are patentably indistinguishable within the context of the application. Furthermore, ¶ 0060 of the specification details “a process of recognizing whether an obstacle is an electric wire” indicating that He’s electric wire detection and following still is acceptable to teach the limitations related to detection and following of a target object. Since the amendments to claim 1 fail to be patentably distinguishable from the previous claim revision filed 1/16/2026, the 103 rejection in the Office Action dated 3/27/2026 is maintained.
On page 12-13, applicant argues that the He does not disclose or suggest that “obtaining measurement data collected by an on-board sensor of the aerial vehicle, the on-board sensor including a radar, and the measurement data including point cloud data”. While examiner agrees that He does not teach the entity of this limitation since He does not teach a radar, examiner respectfully asserts that the applicant fails to consider that Qiu makes up for this deficiency as detailed in the Office Action dated 3/27/2026. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 13, applicant indicates that the office has no articulated reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would find the claimed combination obvious. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for combination of He with each piece of art is clearly provided in the Office Action dated 3/27/2026. Applicant fails to particularly articulate any rational explanation as to why the examiner’s provided motivation for combination is unsatisfactory and merely alleges that no motivation has been provided. Mere allegations without evidentiary indication in the Office Action where motivation does not exist is not sufficiently persuasive. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to newly added claim(s) 26-27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of He in view of Qiu and Rohani for claim 26 and He in view of Qui, Zhang, and Chen for claim 27.
Conclusion
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights