DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 10, 2026, has been entered.
Status of the Claims
3. This action is responsive to the following communication: a Request for Continued Examination filed on June 10, 2026 along with Amended Claims, Specification Amendment, and Remarks. Claims 1-9 and 23-33 are pending in the case, and Claims 1, 29, and 32 are independent claims. In Amended Claims filed on June 10, 2026, Claims 10-15 and 18-22 were canceled, and Claims 23-33 were added as new claims. This action is made non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. An information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on May 22, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections (see Remarks filed on June 10, 2026, pgs. 9-11), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the written description requirement of § 112(a) is satisfied when the specification reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date (see Remarks, pg. 9) and cites to paragraphs 0140, 0005, 0057, 0143 of the instant Specification in support of this arguments (see Remarks, pg. 10). While the cited paragraphs state that “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 a flight path through the designated area, thereby eliminating the need for the user to manually enter the flight path,” there does not appear to be a sufficient description as to how this is achieved and how the resulting flight path is mapped – instead, the instant Specification merely states that this step is performed. Thus, a skilled artisan would not know be able to implement the recited “initial training flight” without undue experimentation or guesswork, in order to obtain sufficient data for the flight path. With respect to § 112(b) rejection, while Amended Claims appear to address who/what derives the flight path, the claims remain indefinite because the recited limitations do not sufficiently describe the step of deriving the flight path based on the initial training flight, as recited in Claim 1.
6. In the Final Rejection mailed on March 10, 2026, Claims 21 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form, but this rejection is rendered moot in view of Amended Claims filed on June 10, 2026, canceling these claims.
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to § 103 rejections, see Remarks filed on June 10, 2026 (pgs. 11-15), in view of Claim Amendments filed therewith, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Habibi (US 2008/0144884 A1), as further discussed below in § 103 rejection.
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.
8. Claims 1-9 and 23-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claims 29 and 32) 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 recites “wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV through the designated area; capturing, using one or more sensors of the UAV during the initial training flight, sensor data including image data associated with the designated area; and deriving, based on the sensor data, the flight path for subsequent autonomous flights of the UAV through the designated area,” but the instant Specification does not appear to describe how such initial training flight is configured or implemented, and in turn, does not appear to describe how the resulting flight path is created. The instant Specification merely states that this step is performed, but a skilled artisan would not be able to determine sufficient data for the flight path without undue experimentation or guesswork. While the instant Specification mentions sensors on a UAV, there appears to be no discussion as to how the initial training flight is, if at all, modified by the sensed data, and if the flight path is derived from a single pass of the initial training flight (or if the initial training flight is dynamically adjusted to ensure that sufficient data is obtained). Dependent claims do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Claim 1, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
9. Claims 1-9 and 23-33 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 (and similarly, independent Claims 29 and 32) recites “wherein creating the flight path includes: initiating, via the user interface, an initial training flight of the UAV through the designated area; capturing, using one or more sensors of the UAV during the initial training flight, sensor data including image data associated with the designated area; and deriving, based on the sensor data, the flight path for subsequent autonomous flights of the UAV through the designated area,” but it is not clear how the initial training flight is implemented or achieved, and in turn, how the flight path is derived (see § 112(a) rejection and § Response to Arguments, above). Dependent claims do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiencies of Claim 1, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
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.
10. Claims 1-9 and 23-33 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, and further in view of Habibi, US 2008/0144884 A1, published on June 19, 2008.
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).
receiving, via the user interface, a user designation of a designated area to be monitored by the UAV (see ¶ 0037, showing a request for a mission for a particular region – while Srivastava states that the request for a mission also includes a first location (origin) and a second location (destination) in the particular region, it is noted that neither Claim 1, nor the instant Specification, discloses whether there is an origin or destination, and how are those points determined or assigned (see § 112 rejections, above)).
creating, via the user interface, a flight path for the UAV … (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; see also discussion of Habibi, below).
…
generating, via the user interface, a flight schedule for the UAV, 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 UAV for the UAV 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 through the designated area; capturing, using one or more sensors of the UAV during the initial training flight, sensor data including image data associated with the designated area; and deriving, based on the sensor data, the flight path for subsequent autonomous flights of the UAV through the designated area (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 and/or Habibi.
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 a skilled artisan at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, 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.
In addition, Habibi is directed towards an aerial surveillance system where a guidance control signal is controlled in response to captured images (see Habibi, Abstract). Habibi suggests that a vehicle can follow an initial surveillance path while capturing sensor data (see Habibi, ¶¶ 0038, 0041, 0051, 0096). Habibi suggests that the surveillance data is analyzed and further suggests that the vehicle has an object avoidance capability, and in turn, the initial surveillance path is dynamically modified to establish a new surveillance path (see Habibi, ¶¶ 0044-45, 0052-53, 0055, 0064, 0091, 0093). Habibi suggests that such new/revised surveillance path is useful when surveilling a new region or when objects in the current region have been moved around (see Habibi, ¶¶ 0091; see also ¶ 0078). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify a model route for subsequent flights of Srivastava and Chen, to include a dynamically determined surveillance path in a given area, as suggested by Habibi, in order to ensure that the model path corresponds to arrangement of a particular area to be patrolled.
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 and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the user interface is a remote electronic device separate from the UAV (see Srivastava, Figs. 1A-B (“user device A”)).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi 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 UAV and the user interface (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0020, 0026).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein during flight, the UAV is configured to scan one or more objects using one or more image sensors of the UAV (see Habibi, ¶¶ 0038, 0041, 0044-45, 0051-53, 0055, 0064, 0091, 0093, 0096; see also 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 and Habibi discloses the method of claim 4, as discussed above, and further suggests providing a flight log to a user via the user interface based on the UAV flying the flight path (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 and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein during flight, the UAV 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; see Habibi, ¶¶ 0091, 0093, 0096).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi 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 UAV, installing a docking station configured to dock the UAV, 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; see Habibi, ¶¶ 0078, 0091).
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 7, as discussed above, and further suggests further comprising: responsive to the UAV 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 UAV along a service flight path from the docking station to a position in which the user can physically access the UAV, 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 and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein during flight, the UAV is configured to provide a live video feed from one or more image sensors of the UAV to a user via the user interface (see Srivastava, ¶¶ 0038, 0071, 0074).
With respect to dependent Claim 23, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the one or more sensors include one or more image sensors, and wherein capturing the sensor data during the initial training flight includes capturing image data of one or more objects within the designated area (see Habibi, ¶ 0041, 0093).
With respect to dependent Claim 24, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the flight path derived based on the sensor data captured during the initial training flight is stored for use during subsequent autonomous flights (see discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 25, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the flight schedule comprises a recurring schedule defining one or more times of day, one or more days of a week, or one or more recurring intervals for the UAV to autonomously fly the flight path (see Chen, ¶¶ 0055, 0060; see Habibi, ¶ 0098; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 26, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the designated area includes at least a portion of an interior of a structure, and wherein the UAV scans the portion of the interior during the subsequent autonomous flights (see Habibi, ¶¶ 0091, 0093, 0096; see also discussion of Claim 1, above).
With respect to dependent Claim 27, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 5, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the flight log includes at least one of image data, flight progress data, operation data, condition data, or inventory related data captured while the UAV autonomously flies the flight path (see Chen, ¶¶ 0058, 0064; Habibi, ¶ 0098).
With respect to dependent Claim 28, Srivastava in view of Chen and Habibi discloses the method of claim 9, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the live video feed is provided while the UAV autonomously flies the flight path according to the flight schedule (see Chen, ¶¶ 0008, 0064).
With respect to Claims 29-33, these claims are directed to a system and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising similar steps and/or features as recited in Claims 1, 3, and 24, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, 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
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
Prosecution Insights