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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection. This action is made final in view of the new grounds of 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg et al. (US 2023/0002046), hereinafter Pegg in view of Clise (US 11,790,313).
In re. claim 1, Pegg teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle system, comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (110A) that includes an attachment interface (304) (fig. 3); an electronic device (130) in communication with the unmanned aerial vehicle (via (134)) and that outputs a graphical user interface (132) (para [0066]); and an attachment (806) (fig. 8), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to access the accessory device in response to the attachment being removably coupled to the attachment interface to obtain data associated with the attachment (identification information (1204)) (para [0064]) and modify, based on the data associated with the attachment, one or more characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle that includes flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle to accommodate for an additional payload of the attachment based on the data associated with the attachment (mass of payload that affects flying operation) (para [0065]), wherein modifying the one or more characteristics further includes modifying the graphical user interface such that the graphical user interface is operable to control operation of the attachment (user interface 132 may display a notification to the user indicating which accessory device has been attached to the UAV 110 and list capabilities available to integrate into the operation of the UAV 110) (para [0066]).
Pegg fails to disclose the vehicle is configured to access a server to obtain the data.
Clise teaches the vehicle is configured to access a server (107) to obtain the data (e.g. cargo weight) (col. 12, ln. 31-43).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pegg to incorporate the teachings of Clise to have the unmanned aerial vehicle configured to access a server in response to the attachment being removably coupled to the attachment interface, for the predictable result of providing a means for determining whether or not the UAV has sufficient resources to reach its destination.
In re. claim 2, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristics include one or more of power consumption characteristics (propulsion system control) (para [0065]) or user interface characteristics (identification information communicated to base station) (para [0066]).
In re. claim 3, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 2, wherein the attachment is configured to transmit intrinsic characteristics associated with the attachment to the unmanned aerial vehicle (identification information (1204) retrieved from accessory device) (para [0074]) and the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to modify the flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the intrinsic characteristics.
In re. claim 4, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the attachment is configured to mechanically (via mechanical interface (304)) and electrically (via electrical interface (306)) couple to the unmanned aerial vehicle (para [0052]).
In re. claim 5, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 4, wherein the attachment is powered by a power source of the unmanned aerial vehicle (battery of the UAV) (para [0056]).
In re. claim 7, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device (130) (fig. 2) is a remote electronic device (figs. 1-2), and wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to modify the graphical user interface in response to the attachment being removably coupled to the attachment interface (user interface 132 may display a notification to the user indicating which accessory device has been attached to the UAV 110 and list capabilities available to integrate into the operation of the UAV 110) (para [0066]).
In re. claim 21, Pegg teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle system, comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (110a) that includes an attachment interface (304) (fig. 3); and an attachment (806) (fig. 8), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to access the accessory device in response to the attachment being removably coupled to the attachment interface to obtain data associated with the attachment (identification information (1204)) (para [0064]) and modify flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the data associated with the attachment (mass of payload that affects flying operation) (para [0065]), wherein the attachment is configured to transmit intrinsic characteristics associated with the attachment to the unmanned aerial vehicle to identify a unique product identification associated with the attachment (identification information (1204) (para [0064]); determine whether the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle based at least on identifying the unique product identification associated with the attachment (using communication protocol) (para [0064]); and when the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle, determine a weight of the attachment (mass of accessory device) (para [0065]), and wherein the flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle are adjusted to accommodate for the weight of the attachment (propulsion system control) (para [0065]).
Pegg fails to disclose the vehicle is configured to access a server to obtain the data.
Clise teaches the vehicle is configured to access a server (107) to obtain the data (e.g. cargo weight) (col. 12, ln. 31-43).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pegg to incorporate the teachings of Clise to have the unmanned aerial vehicle configured to access a server in response to the attachment being removably coupled to the attachment interface, for the predictable result of providing a means for determining whether or not the UAV has sufficient resources to reach its destination.
In re. claim 22, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 21, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to modify propulsion characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the data associated with the attachment (propulsion system control) (para [0065]).
In re. claim 23, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 22, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to automatically load flight parameters associated with the attachment to modify the propulsion characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle (upon attachment) (para [0064]).
In re. claim 24, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 21, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is further configured to modify power consumption characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the data associated with the attachment (propulsion system control) (para [0065]).
In re. claim 25, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 21, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is further configured to modify user interface characteristics associated with a user interface of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the data associated with the attachment (by sending identification information to the base station) (para [0066]).
In re. claim 26, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 25, further comprising a remote electronic device (130), wherein the remote electronic device includes the user interface (para [0066]).
In re. claim 27, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 21, wherein adjusting the flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle includes executing one or more protocols to request the intrinsic characteristics from the attachment (control signals may utilize a variety of networking protocols) (para [0049]).
In re. claim 28, Pegg as modified by Clise (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 21, wherein adjusting the flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle includes executing one or more protocols (control signals may utilize a variety of networking protocols) (para [0049]) to automatically receive the intrinsic characteristics associated with the attachment (based on detection signal) (para [0064]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg as modified by Clise as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Enke et al. (US 2019/0215457).
In re. claim 6, Pegg as modified by Clise fail to disclose the attachment is configured to electrically couple to the unmanned aerial vehicle via a universal serial bus connector.
Enke teaches the attachment (connector) is configured to electrically couple to the unmanned aerial vehicle (120) via a universal serial bus connector (USB type C) (para [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Pegg as modified by Clise to incorporate the teachings of Enke to have the attachment configured to electrically couple to the unmanned aerial vehicle via a universal serial bus connector, for the purpose of using a single connector that can transfer both power and data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues to incorporate Clise's server-based architecture into Pegg's system would necessitate replacing Pegg's local, direct data-retrieval mechanism (e.g., data retrieval directly from the attachment) with a remote, network-dependent lookup process. This is not a simple addition but a fundamental re-architecture.
The examiner notes that the previous citation to Clise stated that communication is made to the server, and the server determines the sufficient amount of resources. As the primary reference to Pegg already utilizes a communication system (120, 134), there is no requirement to change any of the structure of Pegg. The UAV and/or the base station of Pegg merely needs to communicate to a server to access software instruction that are able to be executed by the existing logic device (112,138), for example using the WiFi capabilities discussed in paragraph [0049]. Since it is unclear why any of the existing architecture would need to be changed, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the resulting system would no longer be the self-sufficient device that appears to be taught by Pegg. For example, instead of the accessory directly informing the UAV how to adapt, the UAV would have to detect the attachment, query a remote server, wait for a response, and then act. This modification appears to render Pegg's primary teachings towards data retrieval directly from the attachment entirely redundant and inoperable. As such, the principle of operation would shift from local autonomy to network dependency.
The examiner is unclear as to why the resulting system of Pegg would have to “wait” based on the proposed modification. As stated above, the modification would provide a means for determining whether or not the UAV has sufficient resources to reach its destination. That is, the modified system can communicate information, such as the weight of the attachment, to the server while operating as normal. Indeed, the communication to the server in Clise is stated to occur while the UAV is in-flight. When the information is received, such as insufficient resources to continue reconnaissance, the UAV may simply land to recharge its power supply. Even if the system had to wait prior to takeoff to retrieve the sufficient resource information, this would be preferrable to the UAV landing in an unintentional location due to insufficient resources associated with the additional weight of the attachment. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues a person or ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve Pegg's teachings would seek solutions related to onboard hardware/software, not a remote logistics server that manages delivery routes. Thus, Applicant submits that Pegg and Clise address different problems in different technical domains.
The examiner notes that both documents are in the field of managing flight of a UAV and display the level of ordinary skill in the art for managing UAV resources. The flight of a UAV is not limited to onboard hardware/software. Further, Pegg as modified by Clise would enable a program for resource management of the UAV to be implemented remotely, enabling resource management of the UAV while not removing memory for existing instructions. This is understood to improve the software capability of the system of Pegg. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647