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:
The amendment filed March 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed March 10, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Namgoong.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Priest (US 20190035285 A1 and Priest hereinafter) in view of Namgoong et al. (US 20180165970 A1 and Namgoong hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Priest teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device, from a plurality of devices (“Generally, the servers 200 (i.e. computing device) are configured to receive communications from the UAVs 50”[0075] see FIGs 17, & 18, elements 200, FIG 19 element 902), associated with each device of the plurality of devices (“such as for continuous monitoring and of relevant details of each UAV 50 such as location, altitude, speed, direction, function, etc.”[0075] see FIG 8 element 454, FIG 19 element 902), wherein
location information, (see Fig. 10-12, 15, 16, “location information for a plurality of UAVs”, [0080] “location identifiers from GPS/GLONASS transmitted over the cell network by the UAVs” and [0087], “The maintained data can include location information received and updated periodically from each of the plurality of UAVs, and wherein the location information is correlated to coordinates and altitude”),
,
operation information (see Fig. 19, Fig. 31 and [0120], “UAV can be configured to…transmit summaries of the operational data…the UAVs can transmit delta information such that the servers can track the flight plan.”);
determining, based on the operation information associated with each device, a[[n]] of operation associated with [[the]] eac(see Fig. 37, 38 and [0214] and [0216], “servers configured to manage each geographic region which is predetermined based on a geographic boundary…” also see [0088], ”management system configures UAV to constrained flight, which can include one or more of pre-configuring the plurality of UAVs to operate only where the coverage exists, monitoring cell signal strength by the plurality of UAVs and adjusting flight based therein, and a combination thereof”);
determining, based on the associated with each device and of operation associated with [[the]] eac(“wherein the air traffic control system has one or more servers configured to manage each geographic region which is predetermined based on a geographic boundary, wherein the one or more UAVs are configured to maintain their flight (i.e. boundary of operation) in the plurality of geographic regions”[0216]), one or more hazards [[for]]associated with at least one device of the plurality of devices (“obtain data related to the one or more UAVs, wherein the data includes flight operational data, flight plan data, and sensor data related to obstructions (i.e. hazards) and other UAVs”[0216]) and see [0134] describing Fig. 20, [0137] describing Fig. 21 and [0044], [0051], [0052], [0053], [0056], [0092], [0135], [0136] for various hazards/obstructions and atmospheric conditions); [[and]]
sending, to a second computing device, based on the location information associated with [[the]] each(“The first set of data can include speed, altitude, location, direction, weather and obstacle reporting from individual UAVs (i.e. tracking information for each device)”[0112] Fig 15 and 16), tracking informationassociated with eachdevice[[s]] (“The obstruction detection and management method 900 includes receiving UAV data from a plurality of UAVs, wherein the UAV data comprises operational data for the plurality of UAVs and obstruction data from one or more UAVs (step 902); updating an obstruction database based on the obstruction data (step 904); monitoring a flight plan for the plurality of UAVs based on the operational data (step 906);”[0129] and FIG 19 & 22), wherein the second computing device displays the tracking information (“FIG. 15 is a screenshot of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) providing a view of the consolidated UAV air traffic control monitoring system. Specifically, the GUI can be provided by the consolidated servers 200A to provide visualization, monitoring, and control of the UAVs 50 across a wide geography, e.g., state, region, or national. A user can drill-down such as by clicking any of the circles or selecting any geographic region to zoom in. The present disclosure contemplates zooming between the national level down to local or even street levels to view individual UAVs 50”[0107-0108]);
Priest doesn’t explicitly teach
determining a first boundary of operation associated with a first device of the plurality of devices overlaps with a second boundary of operation associated with a second device of the plurality of devices; and
causing, based on the overlap, an update to the operation information associated with at least one of the first device or the second device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Namgoong teaches
determining a first boundary of operation associated with a first device of the plurality of devices overlaps with a second boundary of operation associated with a second device of the plurality of devices (“The geofence support server 740 may analyze the registered flight information of the unmanned aerial vehicles to determine whether the geofence regions 712 and 722 (i.e. boundaries of operation) overlap each other, assign a new geofence range to the unmanned aerial vehicles whose geofence regions overlap each other”[0113] FIGs 7 & 8 elements 712, 722, 730 and 743); and
causing, based on the overlap, an update to the operation information associated with at least one of the first device or the second device (“The collision zone determination module 743 may analyze the stored flight information to classify unmanned aerial vehicles by zone and determine whether an overlap zone 730 exists between geofence regions. The collision zone determination module 743 may transmit information regarding the unmanned aerial vehicles associated with an overlap zone to the geofence change module 744. The geofence change module 744 may analyze the flight information of the unmanned aerial vehicles associated with an overlap zone to identify the flight position, flight velocity, flight altitude and geofence region, and determine an adjustment value for changing the range of geofence regions (i.e. update operation information) so that no overlap zone is present.”[0078] FIGs 7 & 8 elements 712, 722, 730 and 743).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Priest with the method suggested by Namgoong. The motivation would be geo-fencing for unmanned aerial vehicle allows for security for unmanned aerial vehicles by allowing to fly within a designated region, which is set based on a location-based service, see Namgoong at [0004].
Regarding Claims 15 and 18, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the elements of claim 1 in method form rather than apparatus and system form. Priest also discloses a system and apparatus (see Fig. 3, [0009] and [0058]), which disclose the apparatus/device embedded within drone). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally to those elements of claims 15 and 18.
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 18 described herein. Further Priest discloses
wherein the operation information comprises an operation location, an operation altitude, and an operation schedule (see [0121] for location and altitude operation information, see [0093] - [0096] and Fig. 31 for “flight schedule” operation information).
Regarding Claims 5, 17 and 20, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 15 and 18, respectively, as discussed above. Further Priest teaches
wherein the one or more [[of]] hazards comprise at least one of a conflict (see [0191], “obstructions entering or expected to enter the flying lane”), an out-of-bounds location (see [0191], “temporary flight restrictions that may include restricted airspace”), a low battery status, a low fuel status, (see [0191],“a UAV experiencing a problem such as limited battery power or fuel left”) or an anomalous operation (See [0167]-[0170], more specifically [0168], ”configured to provide the emergency instructions from the ATC (Air Traffic Control) system for use in case of a network disturbance or outage. The UAV is configured to store the emergency instructions.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Namgoong teaches further comprising:
determining, based on [[first]]the operation information associated with [[a]]the first device
determining, based onthe operation information associated with [[a]]the second device(“The geofence support server 740 may analyze the registered flight information (i.e. operation information) of the unmanned aerial vehicles to determine whether the geofence regions 712 and 722 (i.e. boundaries of operation) overlap each other, assign a new geofence range to the unmanned aerial vehicles whose geofence regions overlap each other”[0113] FIGs 7 & 8 elements 712, 722, 730 and 743); and
determining, based on the [[first]] operation information associated with the first device and theinformation associated with the second device, [[the]]a conflict between the first operation(“The geofence support server 740 may analyze the registered flight information of the unmanned aerial vehicles to determine whether the geofence regions 712 and 722 overlap each other (i.e. conflict between operations)”[0113] FIGs 7 & 8 elements 712, 722, 730 and 743).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Priest with the method suggested by Namgoong. The motivation would be geo-fencing for unmanned aerial vehicle allows for security for unmanned aerial vehicles by allowing to fly within a designated region, which is set based on a location-based service, see Namgoong at [0004].
Regarding Claim 7, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 6 as described above. Further Namgoong teaches
causing, based on the conflict, the first operation (“The geofence support server 740 may analyze the registered flight information of the unmanned aerial vehicles to determine whether the geofence regions 712 and 722 overlap each other (i.e. conflict between operations), assign a new geofence range to the unmanned aerial vehicles whose geofence regions overlap each other, and notify the unmanned aerial vehicles of an adjustment value for the geofence range change (i.e. to deconflict).”[0113] FIG 3 elements 380 and 390, FIGs 7 & 8 elements 712, 722, 730, 743 and 744).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Priest with the method suggested by Namgoong. The motivation would be geo-fencing for unmanned aerial vehicle allows for security for unmanned aerial vehicles by allowing to fly within a designated region, which is set based on a location-based service, see Namgoong at [0004].
Regarding Claim 8, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 as described above. Further Priest teaches
determining, based on a location associated with a device of the plurality of devices and based on an boundary of operation associated with the device, that the device is in [[the]]an out-of-bounds location. (See [0216] and [0193], ”air traffic control system has one or more servers configured to manage each geographic region which is predetermined based on a geographic boundary, wherein the one or more UAVs are configured to maintain their flight in the plurality of geographic regions (i.e. the recited operation boundary)…obtain data related to the one or more UAVs, wherein the data includes flight operational data, flight plan data (i.e. the recited location of device), and sensor data related to obstructions and other UAVs; analyze and storing the data for each geographic region; and manage flight of the one or more UAVs in corresponding geographic regions based on the data (i.e. system manages flight of UAV after determining if it is in the recited out-of-bounds location).”)
Regarding Claim 9, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 as described above. Further Priest teaches
determining, based on system information of a device of the plurality of devices, [[the]] low battery status or [[the]] low fuel status associated with the device. (see Fig. 32 and [0191], “Based on the feedback (feedback being the recited “system information”) provided by the UAV, the ATC system can provide instructions to a UAV experiencing a problem such as limited battery power or fuel left.” The system would need to determine there is a low battery/fuel status before deciding to offering assistance to the UAV, so it is clear the system is aware of the recited low battery/fuel status.)
Regarding Claim 11, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 as described above. Further Priest teaches
receiving a registration request for an operation (See Fig. 34 [0199], “receiving a delivery request from a company”) associated with a device of the plurality of devices, wherein the registration request comprises device information and operation information associated with the device, wherein the device information comprises a device identity and a type of device (See Fig. 8 and [0081], “communicate to the plurality of cell towers, and wherein each of the plurality of UAVs include a unique identifier (step 452)”), and the operation information comprises an operation location, an operation altitude, and an operation schedule; (See Fig. 34 [0199], “…specifying a pickup location, a package, and a delivery location (step 2014);” where the pickup/delivery locations are the recited operation location information.)
assessing, based on the device information and the operation information associated with the device and based on device information and operation information associated with the other devices of the plurality of devices, the operation; (See Fig. 34 [0199] “communicating to one or more UAVs over one or more wireless networks…selecting a UAV of the one or more UAVs for the delivery requests (step 2016)”); and
sending, based on the assessment, a registration response indicative of the operation being registered, wherein the registration response comprises an authorized of operation associated with the device (See Fig. 34 [0199], “directing the UAV to pick up the package at the pickup location and to deliver the package to the delivery location (being the recited operation registered to the device), wherein the air traffic control system provides a flight plan (being the operation boundary) to the UAV based on the delivery request.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 as described above. Further Priest teaches
receiving an operation request to initiate an operation associated with a device of the plurality of devices, wherein the operation request comprises an operation location, an operation schedule, and an operation type; (See Fig. 34 [0199], “receiving a delivery request from a company specifying a pickup location, a package, and a delivery location (step 2014)”, where the pickup/delivery locations are the recited operation request and see Fig. 8 and [0081], “constrained flight can include one or more of pre-configuring the plurality of UAVs to operate only where the coverage exists.”)
sending, based on the operation request, an operation response indicative of an approval for the operation associated with the device (See Fig. 8 and [0081], “Transmitting data based on the processing to one or more of the plurality of UAVs to perform the plurality of functions (being the recited sending the device a registration response based on operation associated) (step 458).”); and
monitoring the operation associated with the device. (See Fig. 8 and [0081], “monitoring cell signal strength by the plurality of UAVs and adjusting flight based therein...”)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Priest-Namgoong, as applied in claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Brinkman (US 20100283635 A1 and Brinkman hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 14, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 as described above.
However Priest-Namgoong doesn’t teach
causing, based on the overlap, output of one or more safety alerts
In a similar field of endeavor Brinkman teaches
causing, based on the overlap, output of one or more safety alerts
(“Notably, in alternative embodiments, warning alerts may also be generated based upon the proximity of the host aircraft's time-projected error-compensated airspace (i.e. operator locations) relative to the neighboring aircraft flight characteristic or characteristics; as one example, if the host aircraft's time-projected error-compensated airspace overlaps with the neighboring aircraft's error-compensated airspace, a high priority alert may be generated.”[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Priest-Namgoong with the method suggested by Brinkman. The motivation would be so the neighboring aircraft's actual position resides within an airspace currently assigned to the neighboring aircraft, see Brinkman at Abstract.
Claims 2, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Priest-Namgoong, as applied in claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Guri (US 20240373193 A1 and Guri hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15, respectively, as described above. Further, Priest teaches
wherein the plurality of devices comprise one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), (see Fig. 8 and 19, #902 and [00081], “maintaining data associated with flight of each of the plurality of UAVs” and “communicating with a plurality of UAVs”),
Priest-Namgoong does not explicitly disclose
one or more ground vehicles, and one or more assets.
However, Guri teaches
one or more ground vehicles, and one or more assets (Fig. 1, “vehicles, mobile devices, cameras IoT and other assets used for location data in predetermined location”, (also see [0002], “These devices may be mobile or stationary and may include smartphones, tablets and handheld devices, or smart-home devices, IoT devices (IoT devices are the computing devices that connect wirelessly to a network and have the ability to transmit data physical objects with sensors, processing ability, software, and technologies that connect and exchange data with other devices and systems over the Internet or other communications networks), cameras, TV, and smart city (a smart city is a technologically modern urban area that uses different types of electronic methods and sensors to collect specific data.” and [0027], ”mobile devices are one or more of the following: smartphones; tablets; connected vehicles; wearable devices; drones; cameras; connected vehicles; and IoT devices”).
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the method of Priest-Namgoong with vehicles and assets in Guri to gather data. The motivation would be to provide a system and method for obtaining location data of users, based on identifiers transmitted from their mobile devices see Guri at [0007].
Regarding Claim 3, Priest-Namgoong in view of Guri, teach all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Further Guri teaches
wherein the one or more assets [[are]]comprise at least one of a portable asset or a fixed asset (see [0002] “devices may be mobile or stationary and may include smartphones, tablets and handheld devices, or smart-home devices, IoT devices.” Also, in [0036], “any connected devices in the areas of interest.”).
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the method of Priest-Namgoong with mobile or stationary devices in Guri to locate and track hazards. The motivation would be to provide a system and method for obtaining location data of users, based on identifiers transmitted from their mobile devices, see Guri at [0007].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Priest-Namgoong, in view of Korhonen (US 20160009392 A1 and Korhonen hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 10, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claim [[5]]1, as described above.
Priest-Namgoong does not explicitly disclose
determining, based on an authorized operation associated with a device of the plurality of devices and based on a current operation associated with the device, that the device is in [[the]]an anomalous operation.
However, Korhonen teaches
determining, based on an authorized operation associated with a device of the plurality of devices and based on a current operation associated with the device, that the device is in [[the]]an anomalous operation. (See Korhonen [0043], “the operation mode is associated with operating the UAV in a second mode, i.e. a safe landing mode when one or more non-critical components of the UAV are in a non-responsive mode or not working according to pre-defined conditions. The safe landing mode corresponds to some errors interrupting the normal operations of the UAV.”)
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the method of Priest-Namgoong with the operational data in Korhonen to log flight information for the UAVs. The motivation would be to track and record flight activity for each UAV using it respective operational data.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Priest-Namgoong, as applied in claim 1 above, in view of both Goossen (US 20140018976 A1 and Goossen hereinafter) and Patterson (US 20170124885 A1 and Patterson hereinafter)
Regarding Claim 13, Priest-Namgoong teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Priest also discloses:
generating, based on operation data associated with the plurality of devices, an operation report See Fig. 38 and [0076] “triangulation or other location identification techniques (GPS, GLONASS, etc.), the location, altitude, speed, and direction of each UAV can be continuously monitored and reported back to the servers (generating and reporting back to server)”, wherein the operation data associated with the plurality of devices comprise
a maximum altitude of operations (Priest, see [0087], “checking the coordinates and the altitude can further include assuring each of the plurality of UAVs is in a specified flying lane. (the UAV has a maximum altitude if it has to remain in a specified/assigned flying lane),
an average altitude of operations (Priest see [0110], “the UAVs are configured to provide a first set of data to the servers, such as speed, altitude, location, direction, weather and obstacle reporting.”),
a number of geo-fencing non-compliance [[of]] operations. (Priest [0191], detects entering into restricted geo-fence (i.e. Non-compliance operation)
Priest-Namgoong does not explicitly disclose
a number of operations,
duration of operations,
a travel distance of operations.
However, Goossen teaches
a number of operations, (Goossen see [0035] “flight logs)
duration of operations, (Goossen see [0061], “date and time for a particular flight… estimated operational time)
a travel distance of operations, (Goossen see [0061] departure point… destination for the flight)
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine the method of Priest-Namgoong with the operational data in Goossen to log flight information for the UAVs. The motivation would be to track and record flight activity for each UAV using it respective operational data.
Priest-Namgoong in view of Goossen does not explicitly disclose
one or more geographic hot-spots of operations.
However, Patterson teaches:
one or more geographic hot-spots of operations (Patterson see [0040], “the UAV is used to locate and record … locations (“hot spots”) within the operational area. As such the UAV 10 can have the capability to enter into a location, e.g., a building, or send a probe into the location, to more specifically locate, identify, categorize or otherwise quantify the hot spot”).
Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Priest-Namgoong-Goossen with the operational data in Patterson to log geographic hot-spots of operations. The motivation would be to locate, track, and record hot spots in a geographic area using the operational data gathered from the UAVs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shehata (WO 2013163746 A1) teaches a system for remotely controlling a plurality of UVAs, where there is a control system (computer with display) that displays each UAVs status and location and can send and receive data .
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 Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights