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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/25/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on April 1, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2021/084885 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 27, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, dated September 25, 2025, Examiner maintains the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that Mathews (US 20130085643 A1) lacks the flight control logic to track a proximal target while flying towards another target. However, the flight control path is taught by McIver (US 20120065881 A1) (Paragraph [0055], “Number of target points 244 may be points within number of waypoints 242 along route 220 at which aircraft 202 performs number of operations 209. For example, without limitation, a target point may be a point at which aircraft 202 collects surveillance information, generates sensor information”) A next target or final target in the route is a first target, and the current proximate target being tracked is a second target. Furthermore, the UAV will be flying towards or away from the first target, spatially, while progressing along this route. discloses that the aircraft performing a surveillance mission may be a winged aircraft (Figure 1, element 104). The UAV, while at a second target, is progressing along its route, which is a route toward a first target. Mathews then merely teaches that an aircraft observing a target can be fulfilled by pointing a camera at the target (Paragraph [0082], “For example, the gimbal 6 may point in a direction that maximises the chance of generating a detection observation, or simply point at the mean (average state) or mode (most likely state) of the distribution”). When the gimbaled camera of Mathews is applied to the flight control of McIver, the combination flies on a continuous trajectory toward a next target while a gimbal points at the proximal target. Furthermore, the motivation for mounting gimbal cameras onto vehicles, is, generally, so that a flight direction and a camera direction may diverge. If a flight direction was simply to be the same as a camera orientation, no gimbal would be necessary. Finally, in response to Applicant arguments regarding position of targets, McIver does teach that a target can be outside the trajectory (Paragraph [0097], “For example, if a mission indicates that a target point is to be approached by an aircraft from a given heading, a closed polygonal chain in control features 508 may be generated around the target point).
Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments and maintains the corresponding rejections The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIver (US 20120065881 A1), previously of record, in view of Mathews (US 20130085643 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as McIver and Mathews respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
McIver discloses the following limitations,
A control method comprising: generating a flight route for an aerial vehicle based on position information of a first target [and a second target], controlling the aerial vehicle to move according to the flight route; (Paragraph [0055], “Number of target points 244 may be points within number of waypoints 242 along route 220 at which aircraft 202 performs number of operations 209. For example, without limitation, a target point may be a point at which aircraft 202 collects surveillance information, generates sensor information, deploys a weapon, attacks a target, or performs some other suitable operation.” An aircraft is controlled to navigate to a number of targets, including a first target and a second target. Targets may be observed.)
and [a] second target is located outside the flight route (Paragraph [0007], “The unmanned aerial vehicle may collect information or perform other operations at or near these waypoints.” A drone being near a waypoint can be defined by a polygon, Paragraph [0097], “For example, if a mission indicates that a target point is to be approached by an aircraft from a given heading, a closed polygonal chain in control features 508 may be generated around the target point to indicate that the desired route for the aircraft should fall within the closed polygonal chain that is generated. In particular, the closed polygonal chain that is generated may be a bottle-shaped polygonal chain in which the aircraft is to approach the target point from the opening of the bottle-shaped polygonal chain.” The drone does not need to be directly over the target point, a target point may fall outside the trajectory.)
However, McIver does not disclose the following limitation,
and in response to detecting a change in a relative orientation between a second target and the aerial vehicle, controlling a sensor of the aerial vehicle to continuously track the second target according to position information of the second target, wherein the aerial vehicle continuously tracks the second target concurrently with moving according to the flight route
the sensor is arranged at the aerial vehicle via a gimbal, a flight direction of the aerial vehicle along the flight route is different from an orientation of the gimbal while the sensor continuously tracks the second target
However, Mathews, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a sensor on a gimbal may track a target (Paragraph [0082], “For example, the gimbal 6 may point in a direction that maximises the chance of generating a detection observation, or simply point at the mean (average state) or mode (most likely state) of the distribution.” and Paragraph [0079], “The above objective function includes an expectation E(·) over possible future observations and positions of the target.” – the probability distribution describes position information of the target). The UAV of McIver passes through multiple targets, where observations can be performed within a proximity of each target (Paragraph [0055], “For example, without limitation, a target point may be a point at which aircraft 202 collects surveillance information, generates sensor information”), A next target or final target in the route is a first target, and the current proximate target being tracked is a second target. Furthermore, McIver shows the vehicle can be a fixed wing aircraft (Figure 1, element 104). The UAV, while at a second target, is progressing along its route, which is a route toward a first target. Mathews shows that a UAV may point a sensor at the second target, as a particular manner of performing surveillance or generating sensor information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the target routing of McIver with the gimbal-mounted sensor of Mathews, as this allows a sensor to collect focused data and improves a data collection (Paragraph [0037], “In this embodiment, the sensor positioning process is a process of positioning a sensor 4 mounted on the UAV 2 relative to a target such that uncertainty in an estimate of the state (e.g. position and velocity) of a target is reduced or minimised.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of, as shown McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. McIver further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the flight route includes at least one of a route toward the first target, a route away from the first target, or a route around the first target; or, the first target is a target object or a target direction. (Paragraph [0055], “For example, without limitation, a target point may be a point at which aircraft 202 collects surveillance information, generates sensor information”, A next target or final target in the route is a first target, and the current proximate target being tracked is a second target. The UAV, while at a second target, is progressing along its route, which is a route toward a first target. Furthermore, the UAV will be flying towards or away from the first target, spatially, while progressing along this route.)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Mathews further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein: controlling the sensor continuously track the second target includes: controlling an orientation of the gimbal according to the position information of the second target to cause the sensor to continuously track the second target. (Paragraph [0082], “For example, the gimbal 6 may point in a direction that maximises the chance of generating a detection observation, or simply point at the mean (average state) or mode (most likely state) of the distribution.” and Paragraph [0079], “The above objective function includes an expectation E(·) over possible future observations and positions of the target.” – the probability distribution describes position information of the target)
Regarding Claim 4
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. McIver further discloses the following limitation,
wherein generating the flight route includes: generating the flight route for the aerial vehicle according to the position information of the first target and the position information of the second target. (Paragraph [0055], “Number of target points 244 may be points within number of waypoints 242 along route 220 at which aircraft 202 performs number of operations 209.” – the first and second targets each have position information)
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of claim 4. McIver further discloses the following limitation,
wherein generating the flight route according to the position information of the first target and the position information of the second target includes: determining a flight range of the aerial vehicle according to a position information of the first target, the position information of the second target, and position information of the vehicle, and generating the flight route within the flight range (Paragraph [0058], “Using policy 248, conditions 228, model 241, and route 220, resource allocation process 216 determines portion 247 of number of target points 244 to be reached during flight 210 and order 246 for portion 247 of number of target points 244. Order 246 and/or portion 247 are managed dynamically during flight 210 of aircraft 202.” – a flight range is calculated by generating a trajectory though a number of targets, including a first and second target. The route is updated dynamically, and thus, a current position of the vehicle is part of generating the flight range.)
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. McIver further discloses the following limitation,
wherein generating the flight route according to the position information of the first target and the second target includes: determining a starting trajectory point according to position information of the aerial vehicle, determining an ending trajectory point according to the position information of the first target; determining at least one intermediate trajectory point near the second target according to the position information of the second target; and generating the flight route using the starting trajectory point, the at least one intermediate trajectory point, and the ending trajectory point (Paragraph [0058], “Using policy 248, conditions 228, model 241, and route 220, resource allocation process 216 determines portion 247 of number of target points 244 to be reached during flight 210 and order 246 for portion 247 of number of target points 244. Order 246 and/or portion 247 are managed dynamically during flight 210 of aircraft 202.” – a flight range is calculated by generating a trajectory though a number of targets, including a first and second target, with an ending trajectory point and an intermediate trajectory point respectively. The route is updated dynamically, and thus, a current position of the vehicle is part of generating the flight range, which is a starter trajectory point. Further, Paragraph [0055], “Number of target points 244 may be points within number of waypoints 242 along route 220 at which aircraft 202 performs number of operations 209.” the target point can be part of the set of waypoints, and a waypoint can be a destination waypoint, Claim 3, “determining whether a destination waypoint in the route can be reached by the aircraft with the current resources for the aircraft; and responsive to a determination that the destination waypoint in the route cannot be reached with the current resources for the aircraft, selecting a landing zone for the aircraft.” An endpoint can be said to be the upcoming target after the current proximate target, or it can be interpreted as a final waypoint in the series of waypoints, which can also be a target point.)
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. McIver further discloses the following limitations,
wherein generating the flight route includes generating the flight route such that a distance between the aerial vehicle and the second target is not greater than a predetermined distance. (Paragraph [0097], “For example, if a mission indicates that a target point is to be approached by an aircraft from a given heading, a closed polygonal chain in control features 508 may be generated around the target point to indicate that the desired route for the aircraft should fall within the closed polygonal chain that is generated.” – the polygonal change defines a boundary around the object, which is or includes a predetermined distance, such that the route must approach the target within that distance.)
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. McIver further discloses the following limitations,
wherein a starting position of the aerial vehicle in the flight route is determined based on the predetermined distance (Paragraph [0097], “For example, if a mission indicates that a target point is to be approached by an aircraft from a given heading, a closed polygonal chain in control features 508 may be generated around the target point to indicate that the desired route for the aircraft should fall within the closed polygonal chain that is generated.” and Paragraph [0058], “Order 246 and/or portion 247 are managed dynamically during flight 210 of aircraft 202.” – the UAV is navigated within the predetermined distance, and the trajectory is dynamically updated. Thus, a UAV is brought to a current position based on the predetermined distance, which is a starting position when the trajectory is updated.)
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
when the aerial vehicle flies according to the flight route, in response to detecting an obstacle in the flight route, controlling the aerial vehicle to fly on a side close to the second target to avoid the obstacle.
However, this is also taught by Mathews, which teaches that the vehicle may maneuver around an obstruction of the line of sight, (Paragraph [0087], “A further advantage is that gimballed sensors and/or environmental constraints on the line of sight 16 are taken into account in the generation of movement instructions for the control units 20, 21.”). The obstruction is based on explicitly detecting an obstacle, Paragraph [0080], “Obstructions on the side of the road 12, which could impair line of sight to the target between the UAV 2 and the target 10 (e.g. buildings 14), are modelled as “fences” defined at a given distance from the road centreline with an appropriate height.”). In avoiding the obstacle to connect a line of sight, a UAV will fly on a side which is close to a second target, for example, in the scenario or routing around a building 14.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the target tracking of McIver, as previously modified by Mathews, with the obstacle obstruction avoidance of Mathews, as this improves a tracking of a target (Paragraph [0005], “Conventional target tracking algorithms tend to encounter problems when implemented in situations in which a path between a sensor and a target, i.e. a line of sight of the sensor, may become obstructed.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 10. McIver further discloses the following limitations,
wherein controlling the aerial vehicle to fly … includes: determining a trajectory point … ; updating the flight route according to the trajectory point to obtain an updated flight route; and controlling the aerial vehicle to fly according to the updated flight route to avoid the obstacle (Paragraph [0097], “a closed polygonal chain in control features 508 may be generated around the target point to indicate that the desired route for the aircraft should fall within the closed polygonal chain that is generated.” and Paragraph [0058], “Order 246 and/or portion 247 are managed dynamically during flight 210 of aircraft 202.” – the UAV is navigated via a trajectory, and the points can be updated.)
Mathews, as shown, already teaches the following limitations,
controlling the aerial vehicle to fly on the side close to the second target to avoid the obstacle includes: determining a trajectory point on the side close to the target … (Paragraph [0087], “A further advantage is that gimballed sensors and/or environmental constraints on the line of sight 16 are taken into account in the generation of movement instructions”)
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all of the limitations for Claim 11. McIver further discloses the following limitations,
wherein determining the trajectory point … includes: generating a plurality of candidate trajectory points (Paragraph [0100], “Further, in this illustrative example, routing analysis and planning process 500 uses Dijkstra's algorithm to form desired route 502. Of course, in other illustrative examples, other algorithms, techniques, and/or methods may be used to form desired route 502.” – Dijkstra’s algorithm performs an iterative construction of a route by building and then optimizing a set of tentative solutions, which, when applied to the creation of a route, would thus include a plurality of candidate trajectory points.)
determining a trajectory point from the plurality of candidate trajectory points with a distance to the second target being less than a predetermined threshold (Paragraph [0057], “In this depicted example, policy 248 includes a number of rules for performing mission 208 during flight 210 of aircraft 202. For example, policy 248 may include a rule indicating a minimum number of target points in number of target points 244 required to be reached during a single flight of aircraft 202. Policy 248 may also identify priorities 250 for each of number of target points 244. These priorities may change during flight 210 as a function of time, changes in environment 230, changes to the objectives of mission 208, and/or other suitable factors” – the aircraft routing can be constrained to include a route which addresses a certain number of targets, or optimizes that number. Operating at target can require flying within a distance of that target, Paragraph [0097], “For example, if a mission indicates that a target point is to be approached by an aircraft from a given heading, a closed polygonal chain in control features 508 may be generated around the target point to indicate that the desired route for the aircraft should fall within the closed polygonal chain that is generated.” The trajectories generated by McIver can be chosen if that candidate trajectory falls within a distance threshold for the second target. The trajectory is comprised of points and a point within the threshold is chosen from the set of candidate points.)
Mathews, as shown, already teaches the following limitation,
determining the trajectory point on the side close to the second target (Paragraph [0087], “A further advantage is that gimballed sensors and/or environmental constraints on the line of sight 16 are taken into account in the generation of movement instructions for the control units 20, 21.”)
Regarding Claims 19 and 21,
Claims 19 and 21 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claims 1 and 2 respectively, merely in the form of an apparatus. Over and above those limitations which are essentially the same, Claim 19 recites generic computer technology (one or more processors, and one or more memories which store instructions for the one or more processors). McIver discloses the use of a computer to control the UAV (Paragraph [0069], “Processor unit 304 serves to execute instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 306.”). Therefore, the combination of McIver and Mathews teaches the limitations of Claims 19 and 21.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McIver and Mathews as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Sabe (US 20190037141 A1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Sabe. Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
wherein generating the flight route includes generating the flight route such that a size of the second target in an image collected by the sensor is not smaller than a predetermined size
However, Sabe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a UAV can be controlled to capture an image of a target which is of a size which can be determined by a user (Paragraph [0152], “By flying backward as described above, the flying device 100 can change its position and attitude in a position at which an image can be captured in a size desired by the user through the pinch operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the autonomous target imaging of McIver with the size determination of Sabe, as this produces an imaging quality which is desirable for a user (Paragraph [0152], “a size desired by the user”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McIver and Mathews as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Koch (US 10488860 B1), previously of record, herein after referred to simply as Koch.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of McIver and Mathews, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. However, the combination does not teach the following limitations,
in a target mode, determining the first target and the second target based on different selected points in an image collected by the sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Koch teaches that an UAV operator can select multiple targets in an image or video stream, (Column 33, Lines 27-30, “Where an operator wishes to select a target from an image or video stream, a computer vision or image processing algorithm can identify possible targets within the image or video stream for selection by the operator.”). The camera data is taken from a camera sensor of the UAV (Column 33, Lines 13-15, “In various embodiments, an operator can select a target from an image or video stream provided by the AV 2709 during operation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the UAV target selection of McIver with the point selection of Koch, as this improves the convenience of identifying targets, (“Additionally, it may be difficult or time consuming to regularly collect or geocode such data, particularly when the object to be visually inspected is not easily accessible or disposed over rough or difficult terrain. Systems and methods for collecting and geocoding such data at regular intervals are therefore desirable.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of McIver, Mathews, and Koch, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13. McIver further discloses the following limitations,
wherein in the target mode: the aerial vehicle is configured to fly toward, away from, or around the first target; Paragraph [0055], “For example, without limitation, a target point may be a point at which aircraft 202 collects surveillance information, generates sensor information”, A next target or final target in the route is a first target, and the current proximate target is a second target. The UAV, while at a second target, is progressing along its route, which is a route toward a first target. Furthermore, the UAV will be flying towards or away from the first target, spatially, while progressing along this route.)
and the sensor is configured to track the second target (Paragraph [0082], “For example, the gimbal 6 may point in a direction that maximises the chance of generating a detection observation, or simply point at the mean (average state) or mode (most likely state) of the distribution.” and Paragraph [0079], “The above objective function includes an expectation E(·) over possible future observations and positions of the target.” – the probability distribution describes position information of the target)
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of McIver, Mathews, and Koch, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13. Koch further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the different selected points include points obtained from different images collected by the sensor. (Column 33, Lines 27-30, “Where an operator wishes to select a target from an image or video stream, a computer vision or image processing algorithm can identify possible targets within the image or video stream for selection by the operator.” If a user performs a first selection and then a second selection upon a UAV camera livestream, then the points will be obtained from different images collected by the camera sensor.)
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of McIver, Mathews, and Koch, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13. Koch further already teaches the following limitations,
one of the different selected points is for determining the first target and is at any position in the image; and/or another one of the different selected points is for determining the second target and is at a position of an object in the image (Column 33, Lines 27-30, “Where an operator wishes to select a target from an image or video stream, a computer vision or image processing algorithm can identify possible targets within the image or video stream for selection by the operator.” – the target is an object in view of the UAV camera. A singular image can be operated upon to select multiple targets. Because a plurality of targets can be selected, at least a first and second target can be selected)
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of McIver, Mathews, and Koch, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13. Koch further already teaches the following limitations,
the first target includes a target object or a target direction; and the first target is determined according to at least one or more selected points in the image collected by the sensor (Column 33, Lines 27-30, “Where an operator wishes to select a target from an image or video stream, a computer vision or image processing algorithm can identify possible targets within the image or video stream for selection by the operator.” – the target is an object in view of the UAV camera. Because a plurality of targets can be selected, at least a first and second target can be selected)
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of McIver, Mathews, and Koch, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 17. Mathews further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein the aerial vehicle includes a pointing flight mode used to indicate a flight towards the target object or the target direction (Paragraph [0082], “For example, the gimbal 6 may point in a direction that maximises the chance of generating a detection observation, or simply point at the mean (average state) or mode (most likely state) of the distribution.” – while the UAV points on a heading, indicating flight towards the first target, the camera tracks the second target.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US 20190011921 A1), previously of record, teaches that a UAV can navigate based on a pointing mode or a target mode (Abstract, “The movable object may be configured to move towards or follow a selected target when the selected mode is the target mode. The movable object may be configured to move in a selected direction when the selected mode is the directional mode.”). Roh (US 20130325222 A1), previously of record, teaches that a UAV trajectory can head towards a next waypoint before passing a first waypoint (Paragraph [0034], “To prevent this, a new reference trajectory for going toward the next waypoint is generated before passing the waypoint, and guidance command for following this new reference trajectory is issued.”). Khosla, (US 20110046837 A1), newly of record, teaches than an aircraft may survey a region with an unknown number of targets (Paragraph [0030], “As indicated, there may be a known area of interest (AOI) 14. The AOI 14 may have a size, or area A, and the AOI 14 may be specified using a known geographic location and boundaries. The AOI 14 may contain multiple targets 22 for investigation by the sensors 10. The number and location of the targets 22 may be initially unknown.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665