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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s argument filed on 02 October 2025. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the application.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 in regard to communication antennas have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al. hereinafter Starr PGPUB Number 20210173414A1 Title: COOPERATIVE UNMANNED AUTONOMOUS AERIAL VEHICLES FOR POWER GRID INSPECTION AND MANAGEMENT and Priest US patent Number 12030630 B2 Titled Systems and Methods for Coordinating Initiation, Preparing, Vetting, Scheduling, Constructing, and Implementing a Power Plant Implementation.
As per claim 1, Starr teaches a method for identifying communication issues, the method comprising: electronically dispatching an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to a location (see par 033 and 0043; “a network of unmanned autonomous aerial vehicles (UAVs) with onboard sensor packages would serve to provide continuous, unmanned surveillance of transmission and distribution electrical infrastructure or other units of relevant infrastructure. The system would consist of both UAVs operating continuously in order to perform inspections, as well as stationary docking stations mounted on, along, adjacent to, or nearby transmission lines, providing real-time data through communication networks to prevent failure and identify potential hazards”); receiving, via the UAV, reconnaissance data indicating there exists a specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna (see par 0032-0033, monitoring and surveillance of communication lines for potential hazards); and in response to receiving the reconnaissance data indicating there exists a specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna, performing an action to address the specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna (par 0008 discusses selecting strategy for action; see par 0079 which also discusses autonomous action of UAV 100; see par 0032 in regard to the action and intent of the inspection and monitoring system).
However, Starr UAV was deployed to inspect communications lines and other units of relevant infrastructure, Starr doe not discuss UAV deployment to inspect or identify antenna communication issues. Priest discloses these features (see fig 3-4 and 9; see col 14 lines 46-50, UAV can be used to determine a down tilt angle of individual antennas 30; col 15 lines 28-33, UAV can be used to visually inspect the antenna 30 including mounting brackets and associated hardware; col 15, lines 37-41).
It would be obvious to a skill artisan before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to Combine Priest antenna inspection and identification tasks to Starr system to prevent system failure or signal loss or and other issues pertaining to antennas. This method will reduce accidents associated with tower climbs and cost while improving safety, design and installation (see col 2 lines 3-27).
As per claim 2, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: electronically controlling the UAV remotely to visually inspect the at least one antenna via a camera of the UAV (see Starr fig 3 and 5; par 0047; sensors, cameras; Priest col 15 lines 28-33).
As per claim 3, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reconnaissance data indicating there exists a specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna includes aerial imagery received via the UAV (see Starr fig 3 and 5; par 0047-0048 which discuss imagery; see Priest col 15 lines 37-41).
As per claim 4, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the aerial imagery received via the UAV indicates the specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna is a line-of-sight issue from the antenna to a transmission source (see Starr fig 5 and 7; par 0071 and 0074 identify and classify objects; see Priest col 15).
As per claim 5, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 3 wherein the aerial imagery received via the UAV indicates the specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna is due to debris on the antenna (see Starr par 0032, fallen trees or branch etc; see Priest section 6.1 to 6.9 in regard to antenna).
As per claim 6, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: performing, by at least one computer processor, automated object detection analysis on the aerial imagery received via the UAV to detect an object in the aerial imagery that may be causing the specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna (see Starr fig 5; par 0038, field detectors 512, signature analyzers; see Priest section 6.1 to 6.9 in regard to antenna).
As per claim 7, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the at least one antenna is a satellite dish that receives satellite signal from a satellite (see Starr par 0049 which discuss satellite; see Priest section 10.0 and fig 9 which discuss satellite).
As per claim 8, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: electronically causing the UAV to automatically: proceed from a UAV station to the location of the at least one antenna in response to a signal electronically dispatching the UAV (see Starr par 0047-0048; locations throughout the UVA); recognize the at least one antenna at the location (see Priest section 6.1-6.9); capture (see Starr par 0010, 0067), selecting sensor data to be captured) still or video aerial imagery of the at least one antenna in response to the recognition of the at least one antenna (see fig 3, 5-7; par 0033, 0071, and 0074; see Priest section 6.1 to 6.9); transmit the still or video aerial imagery of the at least one antenna to a backend system for analysis to determine there exists the specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna (see Starr fig 3, 5-7; par 0009, 0038); and return to the UAV station after transmitting the still or video aerial imagery of the at least one antenna (see Starr fig 6, docking platform; fig 2 par 0037, resting dock 201; see Priest section 6.1 to 6.9).
As per claim 9, Starr-Priest teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the performing the action to address the specific issue affecting wireless communication involving the at least one antenna includes transmitting a message to a user of the at least one antenna regarding the specific issue (see Starr par 0062, notify the end user …; see priest section 6.1-6.9).
As per claims 10-20, they are a system and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of the method claims 1-9 discussed above. They contain the same features and limitations. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZ B JEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached at 571272390549. 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.
/FRANTZ B JEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights