DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Amended Claims, Specification Amendment, and Remarks, filed on November 24, 2025. Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are pending in the case; Claim 1 is independent claims; Claims 21 and 22 are new claims; Claims 16 and 17 are canceled; Claims 10-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to § 103 rejections, see Remarks filed on November 24, 2025 (hereinafter Remarks) (see pgs. 7-8), in view of Claim Amendments filed therewith, have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive (see further discussion below with respect to § 112 rejections and the updated § 103 rejection, below). Applicant argues that “Srivastava does not appear to disclose creating a flight path and instead appears to teach that a user may input a starting location and a destination location (i.e., a first location and a second location) and a specified mission, whereby the flight path appears to be preset based on such destinations” and further argues that “Srivastava also appears to fail to disclose creating a flight plan based upon initiating an initial training flight and mapping” (see Remarks, pg. 8). However, it is noted that Claim 1, as currently presented, recites “wherein the flight path is a path defined by a user,” which the above-emphasized portion of Srivastava (namely, stating that the user inputs a starting location and a destination, along with a mission) appears to read on. It is noted that the instant Specification does not appear to describe how the initial training and mapping is performed (i.e., whether the user specified the designated area and the UAV flies in a particular pattern (and/or altitude range) to properly map the area and optimize potential routes within the area, or if the user specified a path that the UAV follows and optimizes based on the traversal of the path). In addition, it is not clear in the claim if the flight path is mapped via the initial training flight each time the flight schedule is generated or only if it is a new flight path (i.e., it appears that each time a flight schedule is generated the claim would require an initial training flight). It is noted that preset paths in Srivastava had to be generated/created prior to their utilization in order to ensure that such paths are free from obstacles or other restrictions or hazards – Srivastava discloses receiving feedback from a UAV during performance of a mission and displaying/analyzing such feedback (see ¶¶ 0074-75), and a skilled artisan would understand that such feedback can be utilized to determine (or modify) the route for subsequent use (as suggested by the teachings of Chen et al. in the updated § 103 rejection below).
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 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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
3. Claims 1-9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement
Independent Claim 1, as amended, 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 was amended to recite “wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV; and mapping, via the UAV, the designated area during the initial training flight to derive the flight path,” but the instant Specification does not appear to describe what constitutes such mapping and/or how such mapping of the designated area during the initial training flight is performed. The only mention of the training flight is in Para. 0140 (stating “However, in certain circumstances, the flight path may be autonomously or at least partially autonomously established using the UAV 100. For example, the user may initiate an initial training flight of the UAV 100 so that the UAV 100 may autonomously map out a designated area and determine an optimized flight path through the designated area, thereby eliminating the need for the user to manually enter the flight path”), but there is no discussion as to how this is achieved and how the resulting flight path is mapped. It is not clear if a boundary for the designated area is provided and the UAV maps the entire area (and if so, it is not clear what altitude or at what speed), or if the user provides a starting/ending location and the UAV flies in a straight line; in addition, it is not clear what comprises an optimized flight path through the designated area. Dependent claims do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Claim 1, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
4. Claims 1-9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 recites “creating, via the user interface, a flight path for the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the flight path is a path defined by a user for the UAV to travel through a designated area, and wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV; and mapping, via the UAV, the designated area during the initial training flight to derive the flight path,” but it is not clear how these limitations are to be interpreted since it appears that the claim requires an initial training flight to be performed each time a flight schedule is generated. In addition, the claim requires the flight path to be user defined but also appears to require the flight path to be derived by the mapping step. Dependent claims do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Claim 1, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
5. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent Claim 1 recites “creating, via the user interface, a flight path for the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the flight path is a path defined by a user for the UAV to travel through a designated area, and wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV; and mapping, via the UAV, the designated area during the initial training flight to derive the flight path,” but dependent Claim 21 recites “wherein the UAV is configured to determine an optimized flight path through the designated area based upon mapping the designated area during the initial training flight to eliminate manual input of the flight path by the user,” but eliminating the manual input of the flight path by the user appears to contradict (i.e., does not further limit) “wherein the flight path is a path defined by a user” of Claim 1. In addition, dependent Claim 22 recites “wherein the flight path is entirely established by the user via the user interface such that the UAV travels via the designated area,” which appears to contradict (i.e., does not further limit) “wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV; and mapping, via the UAV, the designated area during the initial training flight to derive the flight path” of Claim 1. Perhaps further clarifying when the initial training flight occurs (and further clarifying what is meant by “wherein the flight path is a path defined by a user”) in Claim 1 would allow these claims to be interpreted as properly depending from Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al. (hereinafter Srivastava), US 2016/0111006 A1, published on April 21, 2016, in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen), US 2016/0266579 A1, published on September 15, 2016.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Srivastava teaches a method, comprising:
establishing a wireless connection between an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a user interface (see Figs. 1A, 2, see ¶¶ 0009, 0016-17, 0079-80, showing a wireless connection (or other network connection) between a UAV and user device/user interface).
creating, via the user interface, a flight path for the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the flight path is a path defined by a user for the UAV to travel through a designated area … (see ¶ 0037, showing that a request for a mission includes a traversal of a flight path, where the request specifies a first location (start) and a second location (end) in a particular region).
…
generating, via the user interface, a flight schedule for the unmanned aerial vehicle, the flight schedule being associated with the flight path and including one or more designated times (see ¶¶ 0070-71, showing that mission plan instructions are generated, including timing information as well as waypoint information; see also ¶¶ 0039, 0048, showing that mission constraints include time constraints); and
initiating, via the user interface, autonomous operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle for the unmanned aerial vehicle to autonomously fly the flight path at the one or more designated times (see ¶¶ 0072-73; see also ¶ 0019).
Srivastava does not appear to explicitly teach “wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV; and mapping, via the UAV, the designated area during the initial training flight to derive the flight path” (but see § 112 rejections, above) as Srivastava appears to suggest that a route is generated/provided via the user interface in response to the user inputting a request for a mission that includes starting and ending locations in a particular area (see ¶¶ 0037, 0055). However, a skilled artisan would understand that the routes generated/provided by Srivastava can be created in various ways and would further understand that previously flown routes can be repeated by subsequent flights, as suggested by Chen.
Chen is directed towards an automated drone system (see Chen, Abstract). Chen discloses that drones capture data that can be reviewed at a later time (see Chen, ¶ 0014). Chen discloses that previously executed operations (such as an initial flight) can be utilized for repeated operations (see Chen, ¶¶ 0060-63). It follows that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant application was filed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the generation of the flying path of Srivastava to include a previously flown path (i.e., the initial flight) in order to ensure that a selected path corresponds to a path that was previously deemed safe/efficient/satisfactory. In addition, a skilled artisan would understand that the previous (i.e., initial) flight would be “optimized” based on the sensor readings (i.e., feedback) obtained during that flight (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0074-76). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide for an option to create a model route (i.e., the initial flight) that subsequent (i.e., scheduled) flights would follow in order to ensure that the route conforms to desired travel and safety parameters, such as speed, altitude, avoidance of particular zones, etc., and/or that the route is executed within particular time or distance limits.
While Srivastava illustrates connecting the UAV and the user interface via the UAV platform (see Figs. 1A-B, 2, 5A), Srivastava nevertheless reads on “establishing a wireless connection” as recited in the claim (see also Fig. 4B (element 455).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the user interface is a remote electronic device separate from the unmanned aerial vehicle (see Srivastava, Figs. 1A-B (“user device A”)).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 2, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the wireless connection is a wireless network connection via a cloud-based system between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the user interface (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0020, 0026).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein during flight, the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to scan one or more objects using one or more image sensors of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0018, 0043; see also ¶¶ 0038, 0055, 0071, showing various missions that can be performed by the UAV using the corresponding sensors).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 4, as discussed above, and further suggests responsive to the unmanned aerial vehicle flying the flight path, providing a flight report to a user via the user interface (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0014, 0074-75, 0086, showing that UAV may provide feedback during the mission).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein during flight, the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to scan at least one of an interior or an exterior of a structure (see, for example, Srivastava, ¶ 0038; a skilled artisan would understand that different missions would achieve different goals and there is nothing in Srivastava preventing the UAV from being used inside a structure).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and while Srivastava does not appear to explicitly illustrate prior to initiating the autonomous operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle, installing a docking station configured to dock the unmanned aerial vehicle, a skilled artisan would understand that the UAV would be attached to some form of a docking station in order to charge it and/or to keep track of its location (see Chen, Figs. 5-6, ¶¶ 0101-02).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 7, as discussed above, and further suggests further comprising: responsive to the unmanned aerial vehicle detecting a fault in operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle, providing an error signal to a user via the user interface (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0074-76, showing that the UAV platform can track the mission performance and that a notification regarding the mission performance can be displayed on the user interface – while Srivastava does not appear to explicitly illustrate a “fault in operation,” a skilled artisan would understand that inability to complete a mission would be communicated to the user interface in the same manner as other notifications). While Srivastava does not appear to show after detection of the fault, initiating, via the user interface, flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle along a service flight path from the docking station to a position in which the user can physically access the unmanned aerial vehicle, a skilled artisan would understand that another mission (i.e., a rescue mission) can be assigned to the UAV in the same manner as the initial mission was assigned – the skilled artisan would understand that any desired flight path and/or destination can be selected for such mission (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0037, 0070, 0072; see also ¶ 0014, showing modifying the mission based on the change in conditions).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein during flight, the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to provide a live video feed from one or more image sensors of the unmanned aerial vehicle to a user via the user interface (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0038, 0071, 0074).
With respect to dependent Claim 21, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the UAV is configured to determine an optimized flight path through the designated area based upon mapping the designated area during the initial training flight to eliminate manual input of the flight path by the user (see Chen, ¶¶ 0060-63, Srivastava, ¶¶ 0074-76; see also discussion of Claim 1, above, as well as § 112 rejections, above, particularly with respect to interpretation of “mapping” and “optimized” in the claims).
With respect to dependent Claim 22, Srivastava in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the flight path is entirely established by the user via the user interface such that the UAV travels via the designated area (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0037, 0055; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, newly cited prior art of Matsunaga (US 2006/0155436 A1) and Chen (CN 113126613 A) illustrate mapping and optimizing of paths for a vehicle. Previously cited prior art of Raptopoulos et al. (US 2017/0129603 A1) illustrates determining a viable flight route after the user enters the takeoff and landing locations along with some additional parameters.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658