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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/380,851 is presented for examination by the examiner. Claims 46-65 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 46, 48, 49, 53, and 55-61 in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 57 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a period before the last limitation of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 of this title, 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 46, 48, 49, 53, and 55-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USP Application Publication 2020/0162434 to Tang et al., hereinafter Tang in view of USP Application Publication 2019/0333395 to Borshchova et al., hereinafter Borshchova.
As per claim 46, Tang teaches a controller mounted to a UAV to facilitate secure communications between the UAV and a flight management system (0028), the controller comprising:
a communications module, for communication with the flight management system (0030);
a memory (0030); and
a processor configured to:
encrypt, using an encryption key, one or more outgoing communications, the outgoing communication comprising at least a secret key [receiver’s public key used to encrypt a session key; 0037, 0038, 0040] ; and
transmit, via the communications module, the one or more outgoing communications to the flight management system [UAV acting as sender, sends the communication containing the new session key receiver; 0040].
Tang teaches a UAV that flies an authorized flight pattern but does not explicitly teach an autopilot input-output module. Analogous prior art Borshchova teaches an autopilot input-output module in the UAV (0047). It is obvious that the UAV of Tang could have used an autopilot module to control its automated flight along the flight path. This is precisely the function of autopilots. The claim is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art can combine methods known before the effective filing date which produce predictable results.
As per claim 48, Tang teaches a modem for cellular (0030), very high frequency (VHF), ultra-high frequency (UHF), or satellite communication with the flight management system.
As per claim 49, Tang teaches at least one of a polling system, a heartbeat module (0045 and 0046), an alert module, a compression module, a log-shipping module, and a key-request and encryption module.
As per claim 53, this module was presented as one optional member in a group. The prior art did not need to teach this module as it taught another one of the alternatives. Therefore, additional limitations directly solely to one of the alternatives in the group, are not afforded patentable weight.
As per claim 55, Tang teaches the one or more outgoing communications further comprises information to the flight management system in respect of one or more of the following: the operation of the controller and the operation of the autopilot [location information of where the controller is; 0046].
As per claim 56, Tang teaches the one or more outgoing communications further comprises one or more measurements from one or more sensors, wherein the sensors comprise at least one of a temperature sensor, current sensor, velocity sensor, airspeed sensor, altitude sensor (0046), and inertial measurement unit.
As per claim 57, Tang teaches the heartbeat module is operable to generate instructions for the processor for periodically transmitting heartbeat messages to the flight management system, wherein the heartbeat messages include information about one or more of the following: sensor status, status of one or more batteries, status of one or more sensors, battery reading field, GPS data, relative altitude, and altitude (0046);
the one or more outgoing communications further comprises the heartbeat messages (0045 and 0046).
As per claim 58, this module was presented as one optional member in a group. The prior art did not need to teach this module as it taught another one of the alternatives. Therefore, additional limitations directly solely to one of the alternatives in the group, are not afforded patentable weight.
As per claim 59, this module was presented as one optional member in a group. The prior art did not need to teach this module as it taught another one of the alternatives. Therefore, additional limitations directly solely to one of the alternatives in the group, are not afforded patentable weight.
As per claim 60, this module was presented as one optional member in a group. The prior art did not need to teach this module as it taught another one of the alternatives. Therefore, additional limitations directly solely to one of the alternatives in the group, are not afforded patentable weight.
As per claim 61, this module was presented as one optional member in a group. The prior art did not need to teach this module as it taught another one of the alternatives. Therefore, additional limitations directly solely to one of the alternatives in the group, are not afforded patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the enclosed PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 5:30pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL R VAUGHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights