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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 May 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 24 April 2026 and RCE of 14 May 2026.
Claims 1-6, 12 and 14 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the Office Action of February 26, 2026 has been withdrawn. However, new rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is presented below based on the amendment to the claims presented in the Amendment of 14 May 2026.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “CANTRELL is directed to maintaining a continuous visual line of sight (VLOS) by using a pre-planned, static “daisy-chain” of remote pilots along a drone’s flight path . . . “The plurality of remote autonomous pilots” in CANTRELL is not a dynamic list of potential control entities . . .”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language because “dynamic list of potential control entities” is not apparently claimed. Further, applicant asserts “. . . More particularly, the above-mentioned amendment clarifies that the selection of the second control entity is a dynamic decision . . . CANTRELL does not disclose or suggest, following the detection of a potential unpredictable event, . . . searching within this list a control entity that meets some conditions taking into account the event triggering the transfer of control and . . .”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. Examiner notes that Cantrell et al. is being used to teach the determining of a control entity from among a plurality of control entities/controllers (e.g. list of control entities/controllers).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1 line 10, the claim recites “as a function of at least one parameter associated to”
should read as “as a function of at least one parameter associated with”.
As to claim 4 line 5, the claim recites “modifying said parameter representing a status of exercise of control . . .”; it appears to the Examiner that this limitation should read as “modifying said parameter representing the status of exercise of control . . .”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, 12 and 14 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “in response to the detecting of the event triggering the transfer of control of said drone, identifying said second control entity from a list of control entities possessing an authorization for control of said drone, as a function of at least one parameter associated to said second control entity in said list and relating to a condition for transferring control to said second control entity, and as a function of said event triggering the transfer of control of said drone”. It is unclear to the Examiner what “and relating to a condition for transferring control to said second control entity” is intended to modify. For example, is “relating . . .” intended to modify the “function” or the “at least one parameter” or is it intended to modify the “identifying said second control entity . . .” ?
As to claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the at least one parameter relating to a condition for transferring control of said drone to said second control entity . . .”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the “a condition” is a new condition or is it the same condition recited in claim 1.
As to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 14, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which the depend.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu Jian-Feng (CN 105261189 A) in view of Cantrell et al. (US 20190235489 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Tu Jian-Feng discloses A method
for transferring to a second control entity control of a remotely-controlled vehicle, called a drone, from a first control entity exercising control of the drone via a first control data stream transmitted throughout a first communication session established between said first control entity and the drone, wherein said method is implemented by a device and comprises: ([0009] “provides a flight control system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which can realize the control of the UAV by using multiple remote controllers”, and [0011] – [0012] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller; The drone receives the control request from the first remote controller and sends a handover negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling it.”). Examiner Notes: See the “second remote controller” as the first control entity and the “first remote controller” as the second control entity.
detecting an event triggering the transfer of control of said control, in response to the detecting of the event triggering the transfer of control of said drone, identifying said second control entity ([0013] “The drone receives a switching response from the second remote controller. If the switching response indicates that the switching is approved, the drone sends a control permission message to the first remote controller.”, [0050] – [0051] “The control request sent by the remote controller to the drone includes an authentication password. After the drone receives the control request from the first remote controller in step 102, the method further includes: The drone extracts the original authentication password stored locally and compares it with the received authentication password. If the two are consistent, the drone executes the step of sending a switching negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling the drone. Otherwise, the drone rejects the control of the first remote controller.”, and [0054] “using a broadcast method to detect whether a remote control corresponding to the broadcast message can be received; establishing a connection with the detected remote control can specifically include: receiving a control request from the remote control, performing verification and judgment, and allowing the connection after consistency;”)
establishing transmission of a second control data stream throughout a second communication session between the drone and said second control entity, the establishment of the transmission of said second control data stream throughout the second communication session contributing to an end of the control exercised by the first control entity over the drone. ([0011] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller”, and [0080] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller, receives a control request from the first remote controller, and sends a handover negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling the UAV; receives a handover response from the second remote controller, and if the handover response indicates that the handover is approved, sends a control permission message to the first remote controller, thereby allowing the UAV to fly under the control of the first remote controller;”, [0042] “the second remote controller to release the control right and switch to the first remote controller”, and [0081] “The first remote controller establishes a connection with the drone, sends a control request to the drone, receives a control permission message from the drone, and controls the drone”)
However, Tu Jian-Feng fails to explicitly disclose . . . identifying said second control entity from a list of control entities possessing an authorization for control of said drone, as a function of at least one parameter associated to said second control entity in said list . . .
Cantrell et al. teaches . . . identifying said second control entity from a list of control entities possessing an authorization for control of said drone, as a function of at least one parameter associated to said second control entity in said list and relating to a condition for transferring control to said second control entity, and as a function of said of said event triggering the transfer of control of said drone, ([0041] “A plurality of remote autonomous pilots 140[1]-140[N] may be established along the drone flight route 122 and transfer the pilot control operations at the virtual nodes. Each remote pilot 140 may be registered in the system with a unique identification number or its device address… the autonomous remote pilot system may use standard encryption techniques and/or security protocols (e.g., pre-defined criteria), such as blockchain handoffs to prevent devices not in the system from remotely taking over a drone. In one example embodiment, the system may transfer control operations from remote pilot 140[2] to an autonomous drone 130 temporarily and then to remote pilot 140[3].”, and [0055] “The central sever 112 may continuously update the mission instructions while generating the first verification code and the second verification code; broadcasting the second verification code to the plurality of remote autonomous pilots; selecting a second remote pilot from the plurality of the remote pilots to monitor, control, or backup the drone along the flight route. The central server 112 may verify the second verification code provided by the second remote pilot for authorizing the second remote pilot to monitor, control, or backup the drone along the flight route 122 such that a visual line of sight may be maintained along a drone flight route. For example, the system may communicatively control a first pilot 140[1] to a second pilot 140[2] and facilitate the transfer of control from the first pilot 140[1] to the second pilot 140[2], and so on until the drone 130 safely arrives at the destination 120 or node D6, as shown in FIG. 1. Thus, the plurality of the remote pilots are established along the flight route and are configured to operate at least one drone remotely and visually so that the system can maintain autonomous VLOS until the drone flight mission is completed.”, and see at least Figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention Tu Jian-Feng to incorporate determining a controller from a plurality of authorized controllers (e.g. a list) as taught by Cantrell et al. for the purpose of “extend[ing] operations of the drone beyond a pilot's vision by employing autonomous remote pilots which can take over the operation of the drone when needed or if required…” and “prevent(ing) outside entities from remotely taking over a drone”. ([0020] and [0036], Cantrell et al.)
Regarding claim 3, Tu Jian-Feng in view of Cantrell et al. discloses The method for
transferring control of a drone according to claim 1,
Tu Jian-Feng discloses wherein said second control entity is also identified as a function of
a parameter representative of the event triggering the transfer of control of the drone. ([0035] “the drone is controlled by the second remote controller. During subsequent flights, if another remote controller needs to control the drone, it will first establish a wireless communication connection with it and send a control request.”, [0037] “The drone receives a control request from the first remote controller and sends a handover negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling the drone.”, and [0042] “the second remote controller to release the control right and switch to the first remote controller.”)
Regarding claim 4, Tu Jian-Feng in view of Cantrell et al. discloses The method for
transferring control of a drone according to claim 1,
Tu Jian-Feng discloses wherein the at least one parameter relating to the condition for
transferring control of said drone to said second control entity is a parameter representing a status of exercise of control of the drone by said second control entity, said method comprising: modifying said parameter representing a status of exercise of control of the drone by said second control entity from inactive to active, triggering the transmission of the second control data stream. ([0011] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller”, [0080] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller, receives a control request from the first remote controller, and sends a handover negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling the UAV; receives a handover response from the second remote controller, and if the handover response indicates that the handover is approved, sends a control permission message to the first remote controller, thereby allowing the UAV to fly under the control of the first remote controller;”, [0042] “the second remote controller to release the control right and switch to the first remote controller”, [0081] “The first remote controller establishes a connection with the drone, sends a control request to the drone, receives a control permission message from the drone, and controls the drone”, and [0091] “after receiving the control request from the first remote controller, the switching module further extracts the locally stored original authentication password and compares it with the received authentication password. If the two are consistent, a switching negotiation message is sent to the second remote controller currently controlling the first remote controller; otherwise, the control of the first remote controller is rejected.”). Examiner notes: See “a status of exercise of control of the drone” as the second remote controller granting or rejecting the control request of the first remote controller.
Regarding claim 5, Tu Jian-Feng in view of Cantrell et al. disclose The method for
transferring control of a drone according to claim 1,
Tu Jian-Feng discloses wherein said method comprises modifying a priority level associated with the first control entity or with the second control entity in said list of control entities intended to control said drone, the modifying triggering the transmission of the second control data stream. ([0011] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller”, and [0080] “The UAV establishes a wireless communication connection with the first remote controller, receives a control request from the first remote controller, and sends a handover negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling the UAV; receives a handover response from the second remote controller, and if the handover response indicates that the handover is approved, sends a control permission message to the first remote controller, thereby allowing the UAV to fly under the control of the first remote controller;”, [0042] “the second remote controller to release the control right and switch to the first remote controller”, and [0081] “The first remote controller establishes a connection with the drone, sends a control request to the drone, receives a control permission message from the drone, and controls the drone”). Examiner Notes: See the “modification of the priority level” as the second remote controller release the control right and switch to the first remote controller.
Regarding claim 6, Tu Jian-Feng in view of Cantrell et al. discloses The method for
transferring control of a drone according to claim 1,
Tu Jian-Feng disclose wherein the event triggering the transfer of control of said drone
belongs to the following list:
a crossing of a geographical limit or an altitude of said drone, a cutoff in a transmission
channel established between the first control entity exercising control over the drone and a drone connectivity management system, said transmission channel supporting a communication session established between the first control entity exercising control over the drone and the drone, an insufficient service quality of the transmission channel established between the first control entity exercising control over the drone and a drone connectivity management system, a reception of a request to transfer control of the drone emitted by a drone traffic management entity, a reception of a request to transfer control of the drone emitted by a drone fleet management entity to which the drone belongs, a reception of a request to transfer control of the drone emitted by a control entity belonging to a list of control entities, a reception of a request to transfer control of the drone emitted by the drone itself, an automatic detection of an alert on an infrastructure that justifies a control entity change, or a detection of an injunction from accredited authorities. ([0012] “The drone receives the control request from the first remote controller and sends a handover negotiation message to the second remote controller currently controlling it.”, and [0013] “The drone receives a switching response from the second remote controller. If the switching response indicates that the switching is approved, the drone sends a control permission message to the first remote controller”) Examiner Notes: the Examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that only one item from the list is required to be part of the limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Tu Jian-Feng in view of Cantrell et al. discloses The method according to
claim 1,
Cantrell et al. teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program stored thereon comprising program code instructions for implementing the method according to claim 1, when executed by a processor of the device. ([0007] “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured as disclosed herein can have instructions stored which, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform operations…”, [0067] “The drives and the associated computer-readable storage media provide nonvolatile storage of computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules and other data for the computing device 700.”, and see at least claim 19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to implement conventional hardware (e.g. a computer program comprising program instructions) for Tu Jian-Feng as taught by Cantrell et al. for the purpose of performing/implementing the intended functionality.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu Jian-Feng (CN 105261189 A), in view of Cantrell et al. (US 20190235489 A1), and further in view of Russell et al. (US 20190051190 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tu Jian-Feng in view of Cantrell et al. discloses The method of
transferring control of a drone according to claim 1,
Tu Jian-Feng discloses wherein the at least one parameter relating to a condition for transferring control of said drone to said second control entity is a transfer priority level associated with said second control entity. ([0039] “After the second remote controller receives the switching negotiation message, it will display a prompt message asking "Do you want to allow switching?" The user can select "Yes" or "No" according to the actual situation and feedback the selection result to the drone. The drone determines whether to continue the switching process based on the switching response. Specifically, if the switching response is to agree to the switching, it sends a control permission message to the first remote controller; otherwise, it rejects the control of the first remote controller.”). Examiner Notes: See “transfer priority level associated said second control entity” as being included in the prompt message.
However, Tu Jian-Feng in combination with Cantrell et al. may be alleged to not explicitly disclose priority level associated with said
Russell et al. teaches priority level associated with said ([0014] “authorisation management and flight compliance system which uses a certificate-based encryption scheme, and where the system includes all controllers (user agents) as well as the flight compliance authority. By assigning an explicit level of authority to each controller, it enables the source of restrictions to be identified when flight plans are filed or modified.”, and [0075] “different roles that a controller (107,108,109) may have within this hierarchical structure”, and see at least [0076] -[0080])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention Tu Jian-Feng in combination with Cantrell et al. to incorporate a list of controllers associated with priority levels as taught by Russell et al. for the purpose of “providing for the control of unmanned aerial vehicle by one or more persons, ensuring compliance with safety and regulatory conditions”. (Russell et al., [0054])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights