DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and are presented for examination, and claims 9-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding drawing objections:
The drawing objections are overcome by the filed amendment to the specification. The examiner has withdrawn these objections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant has argued that Jones does not anticipate independent claims 1 and 6 because “Jones is entirely silent regarding the capabilities of the UAV to carry both smart payload (i.e., capable of data processing transmitted to the UAV avionics), and a ‘dumb’ payload (incapable of data processing and transmission).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, as Jones ¶ 73 discloses an authentication process in which “The individual payload, or central computer system, verifies the vehicle using an identifier code unique to each vehicle.” The individual payload verifying the vehicle teaches that the UAV can carry a smart payload, while the central computer system verifying the vehicle teaches that the UAV can carry a dumb payload. Also, Jones ¶ 75 discloses a visual handshake process in which “A camera on the payload or landing receptacle can recognize and identify a feature or printed identification number unique to a vehicle. Both the vehicle and payload or landing receptacle then communicate through a wireless or wired communication network to security subsystem 310. If the vehicle identifier identified by the payload, and the payload identifier identified by the vehicle match the configuration prescribed in the mission by, for example control subsystem 312, then the visual handshake is successful, and the payload is released from the landing receptacle.” This disclosure further demonstrates that the UAV can carry a smart payload as required by the instant claims. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: In line 5 of claim 6, it appears that “a payload” should be changed to “[[a]]the smart payload.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US 2019/0389577 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jones.
Regarding claim 1:
Jones discloses the following limitations:
“A system for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the system comprising: a UAV ladened with multiple payloads having at least one smart payload.” (Jones ¶ 18 discloses “a single drone with multiple, modular, and automatically detachable sprayer payloads.” Additionally, Jones ¶ 75: “A camera on the payload or landing receptacle can recognize and identify a feature or printed identification number unique to a vehicle. Both the vehicle and payload or landing receptacle then communicate through a wireless or wired communication network to security subsystem 310. If the vehicle identifier identified by the payload, and the payload identifier identified by the vehicle match the configuration prescribed in the mission by, for example control subsystem 312, then the visual handshake is successful, and the payload is released from the landing receptacle.” It is implied that the payload is a “smart payload” since it can recognize and identify information.)
“a UAV microprocessor-based controller.” (Jones ¶ 12: “Embodiments of systems and methods provide one or more unmanned aerial vehicles configured to automatically attach and carry various payloads.” Also, Jones ¶ 93: “a trajectory tracking algorithm executing on the vehicle's flight computer determines the motor commands necessary to achieve close tracking of the desired path.”)
“configured to receive information from the smart payload and configured to provide control signals for the UAV based on the information from the smart payload.” (Jones ¶ 60: “sprayer payloads can be identified within ground station 300 by a UAV. For example, a wired or wireless communication connection between the UAV and payload can identify a particular payload, as well as particular spray and actuation functions provided by the particular sprayer.” Further, Jones ¶ 80: “Control subsystem 312 can receive inputs from each of the subsystems of ground station 300 to coordinate vehicle flight, landing, and general refilling while docked with ground station 300.”)
“and a payload adaptor configured to couple the smart payload to the UAV, the payload adaptor including a communications link between the smart payload and the UAV microprocessor-based controller.” (Jones ¶ 50: “First UAV 104a can be secured to first landing pad 108a with any number of attachment/detachment hardware mechanisms, such as mechanical mating interfaces on the flight vehicle and the sprayer payload. … a communication link between the flight vehicle and the sprayer payload can accompany the mechanical mating.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Jones discloses the following limitations:
“A system for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the system comprising: a UAV ladened with multiple payloads having at least one smart payload.” (Jones ¶ 18 discloses “a single drone with multiple, modular, and automatically detachable sprayer payloads.” Additionally, Jones ¶ 75: “A camera on the payload or landing receptacle can recognize and identify a feature or printed identification number unique to a vehicle. Both the vehicle and payload or landing receptacle then communicate through a wireless or wired communication network to security subsystem 310. If the vehicle identifier identified by the payload, and the payload identifier identified by the vehicle match the configuration prescribed in the mission by, for example control subsystem 312, then the visual handshake is successful, and the payload is released from the landing receptacle.” It is implied that the payload is a “smart payload” since it can recognize and identify information.)
“a UAV microprocessor-based controller.” (Jones ¶ 12: “Embodiments of systems and methods provide one or more unmanned aerial vehicles configured to automatically attach and carry various payloads.” Also, Jones ¶ 93: “a trajectory tracking algorithm executing on the vehicle's flight computer determines the motor commands necessary to achieve close tracking of the desired path.”)
“configured to a) receive information from at least one communication circuit of a payload and b) provide control signals for the UAV based on the received information.” (Jones ¶ 60: “sprayer payloads can be identified within ground station 300 by a UAV. For example, a wired or wireless communication connection between the UAV and payload can identify a particular payload, as well as particular spray and actuation functions provided by the particular sprayer.” Further, Jones ¶ 80: “Control subsystem 312 can receive inputs from each of the subsystems of ground station 300 to coordinate vehicle flight, landing, and general refilling while docked with ground station 300.”)
“and a payload adaptor including an electrical interconnect configured to couple with a payload electrical interconnect and configured to couple the smart payload to the UAV, the payload adaptor including a communications link from the smart payload to the UAV microprocessor-based controller.” (Jones ¶ 60: “a wired or wireless communication connection between the UAV and payload can identify a particular payload.” Further, Jones ¶ 50: “First UAV 104a can be secured to first landing pad 108a with any number of attachment/detachment hardware mechanisms, such as mechanical mating interfaces on the flight vehicle and the sprayer payload. … a communication link between the flight vehicle and the sprayer payload can accompany the mechanical mating.”)
Regarding claim 7:
Jones discloses “The system of claim 6,” and Jones further discloses “wherein the UAV microprocessor-based controller is configured to interrogate the UAV-attached smart payload with a verification protocol based at least in part on payload-identification data received from the smart payload.” (Jones ¶ 73: “Security subsystem 310 can implement an authentication process for a wired or wireless communication scheme. For example, the payload mating process using a wireless communication network can be implemented as follows: A sprayer vehicle approaching landing receptacle 302 establishes a connection to a wireless network of ground station 300. The vehicle lands on the desired sprayer payload, which is locked to a specific pad or receptacle. The individual payload, or central computer system, verifies the vehicle using an identifier code unique to each vehicle. If the vehicle identifier matches the expected code, the payload is unlocked from its receptacle.” Further, Jones ¶ 75: “a camera in the vehicle can recognize and identify a feature or printed identification number unique to a chemical payload. … If the vehicle identifier identified by the payload, and the payload identifier identified by the vehicle match the configuration prescribed in the mission by, for example control subsystem 312, then the visual handshake is successful, and the payload is released from the landing receptacle.” Also, Jones ¶ 74 discloses that it is known in the art to apply this method for a mechanically mated UAV and payload.)
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liani et al. (US 2025/0028335 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liani.
Regarding claim 1:
Liani discloses the following limitations:
“A system for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the system comprising: a UAV ladened with multiple payloads having at least one smart payload.” (Liani ¶¶ 108 and 193: “a single UAV is capable of connecting to both smart (e.g., those payloads with data processing capabilities) and dumb payloads (e.g., those payloads without data processing capabilities),” where “There may be multiple payloads attached to a UAV.”)
“a UAV microprocessor-based controller configured to receive information from the smart payload and configured to provide control signals for the UAV based on the information from the smart payload.” (Liani ¶ 3: “a UAV microprocessor-based controller may be configured to receive information from a payload and configured to provide control signals for the UAV based on the information from the payload.”)
“and a payload adaptor configured to couple the smart payload to the UAV, the payload adaptor including a communications link between the smart payload and the UAV microprocessor-based controller.” (Liani ¶ 5: “processor(s) may be configured to acquire one or more coded or non-coded identifiers associated with the attached payload visually or over a communications link using a payload adaptor configured to couple the payload to the UAV. In some embodiments of the system, a payload adaptor may include the communications link between the payload and a UAV microprocessor-based controller.”)
Regarding claim 2:
Liani discloses “The system of claim 1,” and Liani also discloses “wherein the information received from the smart payload comprises at least one payload-specific mode, and wherein the at least one payload-specific mode comprises at least one navigation mode, including at least one of a road-avoidance mode or a UAV avoidance mode.” (Liani ¶¶ 21-22: “the information from the payload may include at least one payload-specific mode. … the at least one payload-specific mode may include at least one navigation mode, including at least one of a road avoidance mode or a UAV avoidance mode.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Liani discloses “The system of claim 2,” and Liani also discloses “wherein the at least one payload-specific mode comprises at least one virtual-reality (VR) mode, wherein the at least one virtual-reality (VR) mode includes at least one of a target-centric mode, a UAV-centric mode, a payload-centric mode, a camera-changing mode, an automatically changing view mode, a view-selection-user-interface (UI) mode, an interception mode, an end-game mode, a change-in-control-dynamics mode, a clear-display-but-for-marker mode, an edit-presets mode, or a changing-presets mode.” (Liani ¶ 23: “the at least one payload-specific mode may include at least one virtual reality (VR) mode, including at least one of a target-centric mode, a UAV-centric mode, a payload-centric mode, a camera-changing mode, an automatically changing view mode, a view selection user interface (UI) mode, an interception mode, an end game mode, a change in control dynamics mode, a clear display but for marker mode, an edit presets mode, or a changing presets mode.”)
Regarding claim 4:
Liani discloses “The system of claim 2,” and Liani also discloses “wherein the at least one payload-specific mode comprises at least one defense mode, the at least one defense mode including at least one of: a camouflage mode, an evasion mode, an intercept mode, a counterattack mode, and a self-destruct mode.” (Liani ¶ 25: “the payload-specific mode may include at least one defense mode, including at least one of a camouflage mode, an evasion mode, an intercept mode, a counterattack mode, or a self-destruct mode.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Liani discloses “The system of claim 4,” and Liani also discloses “wherein the payload-specific mode comprises at least one failure mode, including at least one of a self-destruct mode, a drop-payload mode, an abort mode, an electromagnetic-pulse mode, a user-defined mode, and a programming-state mode.” (Liani ¶ 26: “the payload-specific mode may include at least one failure mode, including at least one of a self-destruct mode, a drop payload mode, an abort mode, an electromagnetic pulse mode, a user defined mode, or a programming state mode.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Liani discloses the following limitations:
“A system for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the system comprising: a UAV ladened with multiple payloads having at least one smart payload.” (Liani ¶¶ 108 and 193: “a single UAV is capable of connecting to both smart (e.g., those payloads with data processing capabilities) and dumb payloads (e.g., those payloads without data processing capabilities),” where “There may be multiple payloads attached to a UAV.”)
“a UAV microprocessor-based controller configured to a) receive information from at least one communication circuit of a payload and b) provide control signals for the UAV based on the received information.” (Liani ¶ 27: “a UAV microprocessor-based controller configured to a) receive information from at least one communication circuit of a payload and b) provide control signals for the UAV based on the information.”)
“and a payload adaptor including an electrical interconnect configured to couple with a payload electrical interconnect and configured to couple the smart payload to the UAV, the payload adaptor including a communications link from the smart payload to the UAV microprocessor-based controller.” (Liani ¶ 27 discloses “a payload adaptor including an electrical interconnect configured to couple with a payload electrical interconnect and configured to couple the payload to the UAV, the payload adaptor including a communications link from the payload to the UAV microprocessor-based controller.”)
Regarding claim 7:
Liani discloses “The system of claim 6,” and Liani further discloses “wherein the UAV microprocessor-based controller is configured to interrogate the UAV-attached smart payload with a verification protocol based at least in part on payload-identification data received from the smart payload.” (Liani ¶ 31: “the UAV microprocessor-based controller may be configured to interrogate a UAV-attached payload with a verification protocol based at least in part on payload identification data received from the payload.”)
Regarding claim 8:
Liani discloses “The system of claim 6,” and Liani further discloses “wherein the UAV microprocessor-based controller is configured to confirm a mechanical connection between the UAV and an attached smart, or dumb payload.” (Liani ¶ 32: “the UAV microprocessor-based controller may be configured to confirm a mechanical connection between the UAV and an attached payload.” Additionally, Liani ¶ 108: “a single UAV is capable of connecting to both smart (e.g., those payloads with data processing capabilities) and dumb payloads (e.g., those payloads without data processing capabilities).”)
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shannon et al. (US 2018/0257779 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shannon.
Regarding claim 8:
Jones discloses “The system of claim 6,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the UAV microprocessor-based controller is configured to confirm a mechanical connection between the UAV and an attached smart, or dumb payload.” However, Shannon does teach this limitation. (Shannon ¶ 400: “when the control system determines that the payload coupling apparatus is not mechanically coupled to the payload, the control system can cause the UAV to repeat the lowering of the payload coupling apparatus and the attachment verification process in order to reattempt pickup of the payload, and in some embodiments these processes may only be repeated up to a predetermined number of times.” Since the processing steps of Shannon are performed by the UAV rather than the payload, this implies that the payload is a “dumb” payload. Therefore, Shannon at least teaches that the controller is configured to confirm a mechanical connection between the UAV and an attached dumb payload as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 8, consistent with the specification, the controller being “configured to confirm a mechanical connection between the UAV and an attached smart, or dumb payload” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “dumb payload” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Jones by having the UAV confirm connection with an attached dumb payload as taught by Shannon with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Shannon ¶ 400 teaches that this modification allows the UAV to reattempt to pick up the payload if failure occurs, and move on to a new payload in the case of repeated failures. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would save time and energy to verify the attachment of the payload before the UAV flies off to start the mission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ippolito et al. (the non-patent article “Applications of Payload Directed Flight”) Abstract discloses that “Tighter integration between sensor and machine require the definition of specific sensor directed control modes to tie the sensor data directly into a vehicle control structures throughout the entire control architecture, from low-level stability and control loops, to higher level mission planning and scheduling reasoning systems. Payload directed flight system provide guidance, navigation, and control for vehicle platforms hosting a suite of onboard payload sensors, performing missions that require observation of external partially observable systems or phenomena.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662