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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04/07/2026 for Application No. 18/498,965
Claims 23 – 28, 30 – 33, 35 – 38, and 40 – 45 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 23, 30, 32 and 36 have been amended.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 – 28, 30 – 33, 35 – 38, and 40 – 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 states: “cause a first boundary to move at a first speed along a travel path of an unmanned aerial vehicle during flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle, the first speed based on an expected speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle;”, however it is indefinite on how the “expected speed” is determined. The specification states a mission profile includes predetermined speeds in which the first boundary travel speed and the UAV speed is expected to be aligned (Specification: Paragraph 0065). Within the claim limitation however, it is indefinite if this is what a “expected speed” is referring to. Therefore the first speed will be interpreted to be based on the set speed of an unmanned vehicle.
Claim 30 states: “cause a first boundary to move at a first speed along a travel path of an aircraft, the first boundary encompassing a first portion of the travel path at a first time, the first speed based on an expected speed of the aircraft”, however, like for claim 23, it is indefinite on how the “expected speed” is determined. Per the same reasons of indefiniteness as stated above for claim 23, the first speed will be interpreted to be based on the set speed of an unmanned vehicle.
Claim 36 states: “cause a first boundary to move at a first speed to encompass different portions of the travel path at different times during the movement of the unmanned aerial vehicle along the travel path, the first speed based on the expected position of the unmanned aerial vehicle over time” however it is indefinite to what is an “expected position” is. The specification states a mission profile includes a travel path in which the first boundary and the UAV are to travel along (Specification: Paragraph 0065). Within the claim limitation however, it is indefinite how a “first speed” is based on an “expected position” over time. For example, what would the first speed be if the expected position can be any of the points along a travel path? What expected point is the UAV to travel and from which expected point are they traveling from? Therefore the first speed will be interpreted to be based on the set speed of an unmanned vehicle.
The remainder of the claims are rejected per their dependency on these independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 – 28, 30 – 33, 35 – 38, and 40 – 45 have no 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) or 103 prior art rejections but are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness. Please see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claims 23, 30 and 36 all teach a “first speed” of a “first boundary” which causes the boundary to move “along a travel path of an unmanned aerial vehicle” in which the “first speed is based on an expected speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle” (as recited in claims 23 and 30) or in which the “first boundary to move at a first speed to encompass different portions of the travel path at different times during the movement of the unmanned aerial vehicle along the travel path, the first speed based on the expected position of the unmanned vehicle over time” (as recited in for claim 36). Newly found prior art of Paget (US 20170313332 A1) teaches the ability of an aerial vehicle to follow a train within a set boundary however that cannot be interpreted as the boundary moving along the travel path of the unmanned aerial vehicle as the boundary is following the train and not unmanned aerial vehicle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the REMARKS, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejection of claims 23 – 28, 30 – 33, 35 – 38, and 40 – 45 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paget et al. (US 20170313332 A1) – teaches the ability of an aerial vehicle able to be docked on a train. The aerial vehicle is then fly along the boundary of the train while moving.
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 SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights