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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
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 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg et al. (US 2023/0002046), hereinafter Pegg, in view of Herf (US 7,873,765).
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 attachments that stores flight characteristic data (mass of the accessory type) (para [0065]) associated with a plurality of attachment types in response to the attachment being removably coupled to the attachment interface to obtain the flight characteristic data specific to the attachment based on a type of the attachment (respective identification information (1204) of accessory devices) (para [0064]) and modify, based on the flight characteristic data specific to 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 flight characteristic data associated with a plurality of attachment types.
Herf teaches the vehicle is configured to access a server (414) to obtain the characteristic data associated with a plurality of attachment types (data of peripheral devices (406) may reside at the server (414)) (col. 5, ln. 50-67).
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 Herf to have the vehicle configured to access a server to obtain the flight characteristic data associated with the plurality of attachment types, for the purpose of authenticating the data by checking the data for accuracy and relevancy (Herf, col. 6, ln. 18-22).
In re. claim 2, Pegg as modified by Herf (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 Herf (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 Herf (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 Herf (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 Herf (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 retrieve flight parameters from the attachment that are specific to the attachment (identification information (1204)) (para [0064]) and modify flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the flight parameters (mass of payload that affects flying operation) (para [0065]), wherein the attachment is configured to transmit, from the a data storage device of the attachment (data retrieved from accessory device) (para [0056]), 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 (detection of identification information (1204) allows determination) (para [0064]); and when the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle, determine a weight of the attachment based on the intrinsic characteristics transmitted by the attachment (mass of accessory device) (para [0065]) and retrieve the flight parameters from the logic (functional parameters of the propulsion system) (para [0065]), and wherein the flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle are adjusted based on the flight parameters and 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 flight parameters.
Herf teaches the vehicle is configured to access a server to obtain the flight parameters (data, such as program routine that links the operating system to the peripheral device (406), may reside at the server (414)) (col. 5, ln. 50-67).
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 Herf to have the vehicle configured to access a server to obtain the flight parameters, for the purpose of authenticating the data by checking the data for accuracy and relevancy (Herf, col. 6, ln. 18-22).
In re. claim 22, Pegg as modified by Herf (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 flight parameters associated with the attachment (propulsion system control) (para [0065]).
In re. claim 23, Pegg as modified by Herf (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 22, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to automatically load the 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 Herf (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 flight parameters associated with the attachment (propulsion system control) (para [0065]).
In re. claim 25, Pegg as modified by Herf (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 flight parameters associated with the attachment (by sending identification information to the base station) (para [0066]).
In re. claim 26, Pegg as modified by Herf (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 Herf (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 Herf (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]).
In re. claim 29, Pegg teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle system, comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (110A) that includes an attachment interface (304) (fig. 3) having a connector port (305); and an attachment (806) (fig. 8) that includes: a data storage device that is configured to store intrinsic characteristics associated with the attachment (as understood by data retrieved by the UAV) (para [0067]), the intrinsic characteristics including a unique product identification associated with the attachment (respective identification information (1204) of accessory device) (para [0064]), and a connector that is configured for insertion into the connector port to electrically couple the attachment to the unmanned aerial vehicle (para [0062]) (fig. 9), wherein responsive to the unmanned aerial vehicle determining that the connector is inserted into the connector port, the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to execute one or more protocols to verify the unique product identification and determine whether the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle (detection of identification information (1204) allows determination) (para [0064]), and responsive to determining that the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle, automatically modify one or more flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the intrinsic characteristics associated with the attachment (mass of payload that affects flying operation) (para [0065]).
Pegg fails to disclose the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to access a server to execute the one or more protocols.
Herf teaches the vehicle is configured to access a server (414) to obtain the characteristic data associated with the attachment (data of peripheral devices (406) may reside at the server (414)) (col. 5, ln. 50-67).
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 Herf to have the vehicle configured to access a server to obtain the characteristic data associated with the attachment (i.e. the communication protocol data described in Pegg), for the purpose of authenticating the data by checking the data for accuracy and relevancy (Herf, col. 6, ln. 18-22).
In re. claim 30, Pegg as modified by Herf (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 29, wherein automatically modifying the one or more flight characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle includes: processing, via the unmanned aerial vehicle, the intrinsic characteristics associated with the attachment to determine a weight of the attachment (mass of accessory device) (para [0065]); and modifying propulsion characteristics of the unmanned aerial vehicle to accommodate for the weight of the attachment (propulsion system control) (para [0065]).
In re. claim 31, Pegg as modified by Herf (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 29, further comprising an electronic device (130) in communication with the unmanned aerial vehicle (via (134)) that outputs a graphical user interface (132) (para [0066]), wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is further configured to modify the graphical user interface responsive to determining that the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle 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]).
In re. claim 32, Pegg as modified by Herf (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 29, wherein the attachment is powered by a power source of the unmanned aerial vehicle via the connector (battery of the UAV) (para [0056]).
In re. claim 33, Pegg as modified by Herf (see Pegg) teach the unmanned aerial vehicle system of claim 29, wherein the attachment is configured to store flight characteristic data associated with an attachment type (respective identification information (1204) of accessory device) (para [0064]), and wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle is configured to obtain the flight characteristic data specific to the attachment from the server based on determining that the attachment is approved for operation with the unmanned aerial vehicle (detection of identification information (1204) allows determination) (para [0064]).
Herf teaches the server (414) stores data associated with a plurality of attachment types (data of peripheral devices (406) may reside at the server (414)) (col. 5, ln. 50-67).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pegg as modified by Herf 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 Herf 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 Herf 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 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Applicant submits that displaying a notification and listing available capabilities is not the same as making the graphical user interface "operable to control operation of the attachment." That is, Pegg's alleged user interface appears to simply inform the user what attachment is present and does not provide active controls through which the user operates the attachment. Conversely, claim 1 states that the user interface is modified to include functional controls for the attachment's operations. As such, the rejection of claim 1 and all dependent claims is believed to be improper.
The examiner notes that claim 1 recites “modifying the graphical user interface such that the graphical user interface is operable to control operation of the attachment”. There is no recitation of including functional controls of the attachment as alleged by the applicant. Instead, Pegg recites a modification to the user interface (list capabilities) that allows integration of the attachment with normal operation of the UAV. As the user interface is able to control operation of the UAV via control signals (para [0037]), the modification made via the user interface to allow integration of the attachment with the normal operation of the UAV, provides the additional integrated functional controls to the user interface. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues The Office Action alleges that Pegg discloses determining whether the attachment is approved for operation with the UAV based at least on identifying the unique product identification associated with the attachment. In particular, the Office Action refers to par. [0064] of Pegg and its reference to "using communication protocol." However, Applicant submits that such a comparison is untenable. Applicant argues Pegg appears to make brief mention of only communication protocol, which would appear to simply govern how data may be transmitted between devices. Such protocols would not determine whether an attachment is authorized or approved for use. As such, Pegg appears to describe a data-retrieval operation, not an approval determination. This is further supported by Pegg's teachings of physical mistake-proof features (e.g., members 314, as described in par. [0053] of Pegg), whereby such features prevent incorrect mechanical installation. As such, Pegg in fact appears to teach away from any software-based approval check and instead describes mechanical error-proofing. Moreover, such deficiencies of Pegg are not cured by the addition of Clise. Thus, Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 21 and all dependent claims is believed to be improper.
The examiner notes that the claim recites the determination is made based on “identifying the unique product identification associated with the attachment”, which is disclosed in para [0064] of Pegg as retrieving identification information (1204). As the user may select which attachment to integrate in to the system based on the identification information from the list displayed on the user interface (para [0066]), the identification information provides the capability of making a determination. Therefore, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Further, applicant’s arguments directed towards Clise have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Clise for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van Niekerk (US 2019/0152597) discloses an authorization step for accessories (para [0056]) (fig. 3).
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
Prosecution Insights