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 .
1. This action is responsive to RCE received April 10, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 2-3, 8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siegal, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0370251.
As to claims 2 and 13-14, Siegal teaches a computer-implemented method, medium and device for facilitating payload transportation using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
at an electronic device, receiving input indicating a destination location for a delivery of a package, wherein the device is remote from the UAV (see para. 117 and 25, vehicle 110);
determining a takeoff location of the UAV associated with a first location of a vehicle supporting the UAV (see para. 25 and 118-119);
in response to receiving the first input and the determined takeoff location of the UAV, obtaining a viable flight route from the takeoff location to the destination location (see para. 25 and 118-119);
providing a takeoff command to the UAV based on the viable flight route (see para. 123);
receiving, after the UAV has taken off, a second location, the second location different than the first location and obtaining a second viable route from the destination location to the second location (see para. 127-129).
As to claims 3, Siegal teaches the method of claim 2. Bruno further teaches in response to not obtaining a determined viable flight route forgo providing a takeoff command to the UAV (see para. 121-122).
As to claim 8, Siegal teaches the electronic device includes one or more server devices (see para. 15).
As to claim 10, Siegal teaches the destination includes a drop location for the UAV to drop a payload (see para. 127-129).
As to claim 11, Siegal teaches the determined viable flight route from the takeoff location to the destination avoids known flight avoidance zones (see para. 54).
As to claim 12, Siegal teaches the method of claim 2. Bruno further teaches the determined viable flight route from the takeoff location to the destination is based on reducing flight time over high-density population areas (see para. 51, 93 and 104).
As to claim 15, Siegal teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the second viable flight route is determined after the UAV leaves the takeoff location (see para. 127-129).
As to claim 16, Siegal teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising providing the second viable flight route to the UAV (see para. 127-129).
As to claim 17, Siegal teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the second location is determined after the UAV leaves the takeoff location (see para. 127-129).
3. Claims 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegal in view of Dugan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0292874 (referred to hereafter as Dugan).
As to claim 4, Siegal teaches the method of claim 2. Siegal does not teach displaying the takeoff location, the destination, and the determined viable flight route overlaid with a displayed map. However, Dugan teaches displaying the takeoff location, the destination, and the determined viable flight route overlaid with a displayed map (see claim 20). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to edit one or more of the destination or determined viable flight route. However, Dugan teaches a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to edit one or more of the destination or determined viable flight route in Siegal as taught in Dugan. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dugan that doing so would allow the user to modify flight parameters using a touch screen which makes the controlling method more user friendly.
As to claim 5, Siegal teaches the method of claim 2. Siegal does not teach a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to edit one or more of the destination or determined viable flight route. However, Dugan teaches a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to edit one or more of the destination or determined viable flight route (see para. 68, 75 and 77).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to edit one or more of the destination or determined viable flight route. However, Dugan teaches a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to edit one or more of the destination or determined viable flight route in Siegal as taught in Dugan. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Dugan that doing so would allow the user to modify flight parameters using a touch screen which makes the controlling method more user friendly.
As to claim 6, Duggan further teaches a user may interact with the displayed viable flight route to add a waypoint for the UAV (see para. 68, 75 and 77).
As to claim 7, Duggan further teaches wherein the electronic device includes a portable electronic device (see para. 68, 75 and 77).
As to claim 9, Siegal teaches the method of claim 2. Duggan further teaches the destination includes a landing platform for the UAV (see claim 20).
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Gabbai, U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0011340 in view of
Prosecution Insights