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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on January 29, 2026.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24-31 have been presented for examination.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24-31 are currently rejected.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 13, 18, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0091908).
Claims 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0091908) in view of Michini et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0357273).
Response to Argument
35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on January 29, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on January 29, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on January 29, 2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Goel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0091908) and Michini et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0357273).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the acronyms “ID” and “UAV.” However, these acronyms are not previously defined. The Examiner suggests amending the first instance of each of these acronyms to recite “identifier (ID)” and “unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV),” should this be aligned with the intended interpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a remote ID detection device” in at least claim 2, “a user smart device,” recited in at least claim 2, and “a smart device” in at least claim 2.
Structure is provided for the remote ID detection device in at least paragraphs 36-37 of the instant specification defining the remote ID detection device to include an antennae 110.
Structure is provided for the recited smart devices in at least paragraph 27 of the instant application defining the smart devices to include “a computer.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the following limitations:
continuously process the received remote ID information to determine a relative position, distance, velocity, and time-to-collision of the at least one UAV
automatically utilizing a flight deconfliction algorithm to determine the best course of action
avoid the collision directly to the user smart device to modify at least one of heading, altitude, or speed of the at least one detection device equipped UAV to avoid the collision
These limitations do not appear to be defined or expressly described in the instant specification. Specifically, to “continuously process” the information to determine a distance, velocity, or “time-to-collision” do not appear to be supported by written description. Further, the written description does not appear to expressly support an “automatic” utilization of a flight deconfliction algorithm. The instant specification merely describes utilizing the algorithm and does not reasonably suggest an automatic implementation. Last, the written description does not appear to support the “modifying” of at least one of a heading, altitude, or speed to avoid the collision. Rather, the instant specification and figures merely describe providing the user with a flight deconfliction avoidance recommendation or message, which merely encompasses providing a notification by recommendation or a message, and does not inherently include modifying a heading, altitude, or speed, which involves control of the vehicle or adjustment of the vehicle trajectory. Therefore, the subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 3, 7-8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24-31 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they rely on and are thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 and are dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, claims 25-28 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 13, 18, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0091908).
Regarding claim 2, Goel discloses a remote ID detection and deconfliction system for at least one UAV comprising:
a. at least one UAV capable of emitting remote ID information via a wireless network protocol using a wireless transceiver; (Goel in at least ¶ 24)
b. at least one detection device equipped UAV comprising a remote ID detection device capable of receiving the remote ID information via a wireless network protocol using a wireless transceiver (Goel ¶ 6 discloses “identifying a UAV based on an audio signature determined based on audio emitted by the UAV,” see ¶ 6 and Fig. 5. Also see ¶ 20 “the UAV services platform may then process or decode the audio signature to obtain the UAV identifier associated with UAV 1), wherein the remote ID detection device is affixed to the at least one detection device equipped UAV; (Goel ¶ 9 discloses “sensors aboard the UAV”)
c. a cloud server configured to receive the remote ID information, the cloud server having a cloud database; (Goel ¶¶ 29-30)
d. a user smart device having a user smart device application for displaying drone location information; and (Goel ¶ 25 “user device 210 may include ... a smart phone”)
e. the cloud server configured to continuously process the received remote ID information to determine a relative position, distance, velocity, and time-to-collision of the at least one UAV, and automatically utilizing a flight deconfliction algorithm to determine the best course of action to avoid a collision, and (Goel ¶ 75 “UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information, speed information, maximum acceleration, etc.)” such that “UAV services platform 230 detects compromised UAVs and modifies behavior of the compromised UAVs or other devices,” see ¶ 75, so that “the UAVs 220 perform the collision avoidance maneuver with sufficient time to avoid collision,” see ¶ 73)
transmit maneuver commands based on the best course of action to avoid the collision directly to the user smart device to modify at least one of heading, altitude, or speed of the at least one detection device equipped UAV to avoid the collision (Goel ¶ 74 “The airspace service provider may transmit the flight plan request, including the signature associated with the flight plan request, to UAV services platform 230,” wherein “When UAV services platform 230 detects anomalous behavior, UAV services platform 230 may notify a party associated with UAV 220, may deactivate UAV 220, may notify a law enforcement official, may route other UAVs 220 away from UAV 220,” see ¶ 75)
Regarding claim 3, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system for at least one UAV of claim 2, wherein:
the remote ID information further comprises an emergency status of aircraft and a takeoff location. (Goel ¶ 75 “when UAV 220 is controlled by a malicious party, behavior of UAV 220 may deviate from expected behavior based on the past and/or future flight information. UAV services platform 230 may compare the current behavior to the past and/or future flight information to identify anomalous behavior [i.e., emergency status]”)
Regarding claim 7, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 2 wherein:
said cloud server transmits a vector, coordinate, an altitude, and a velocity of the at least one UAV to an application on a computer. (Goel Fig. 1B and corresponding ¶ 19 discloses transmitting UAV information including the UAV identifier and location information to the user device 2, such that “The UAV services platform may identify the UAV based on the audio signature, and may provide the profile information for the UAV to the user device,” see ¶ 10, wherein the user device includes a computer, see Fig. 1A)
Regarding claim 8, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 2 wherein:
the cloud server transmits a vector, coordinate, an altitude, and a velocity of the at least one UAV to an application on a user smart device. (Goel Fig. 1B and corresponding ¶ 19 discloses transmitting UAV information including the UAV identifier and location information to the user device 2, such that “The UAV services platform may identify the UAV based on the audio signature, and may provide the profile information for the UAV to the user device,” see ¶ 10, wherein the user device includes a smart phone)
Regarding claim 9, Goel discloses a remote ID detection and deconfliction system for at least one UAV comprising:
a. a first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising a remote ID detection device affixed to the first UAV (Goel ¶ 9 discloses that the UAV is equipped with sensors), the remote ID detection device comprising a wireless transceiver, the remote ID detection device configured to receive remote ID information (Goel in at least Fig. 1B), wherein the remote ID information is transmitted from one or more nearby UAVs, via a wireless network protocol, using a wireless transceiver, wherein the remote ID information comprises a drone ID, GPS coordinates, a current location, and an altitude; (Goel Fig. 1B depicts that the information includes an audio signature based on a UAV identifier [i.e., remote ID], which further includes the location information, see ¶¶ 19-20. Goel ¶ 75 further discloses that “UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information...” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that GPS information includes coordinates, a current location, and an altitude.)
b. a flight controller in wireless communication with the first UAV; (Goel in at least Fig. 1A and 1B)
c. the remote ID detection and deconfliction system configured to continuously process the received remote ID information to determine a relative position, distance, velocity, and time-to-collision of the one or more nearby UAVs, and (Goel ¶ 25 “user device 210 may include ... a smart phone”) automatically generate, utilizing a flight deconfliction algorithm to determine the best course of action to avoid a collision, and transmit maneuver commands based on the best course of action to avoid the collision directly to the flight controller to modify at least one of heading, altitude, or speed of the first UAV to avoid the collision. (Goel ¶ 75 “UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information, speed information, maximum acceleration, etc.)” such that “UAV services platform 230 detects compromised UAVs and modifies behavior of the compromised UAVs or other devices,” see ¶ 75, so that “the UAVs 220 perform the collision avoidance maneuver with sufficient time to avoid collision,” see ¶ 73)
Regarding claim 10, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system for at least one UAV of claim 9 wherein:
said at least one UAV remote ID information includes a at least one UAV ID, at least one UAV coordinates, at least one UAV velocity, at least one UAV altitude and emergency status of aircraft. (Goel Fig. 1B depicts that the information includes an audio signature based on a UAV identifier [i.e., remote ID], which further includes the location information, see ¶¶ 19-20. Goel ¶ 75 further discloses that “UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information...” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that GPS information includes coordinates.)
Regarding claim 13, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 9 wherein:
the remote ID information further comprises a takeoff location. (Goel ¶ 27 discloses determining “an optimal control maneuver in order to follow a given path or go from one location to another location; regulate a trajectory of UAV 220”)
Regarding claim 18, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system for at least one UAV of claim 9 further comprising:
a cloud server configured to receive the remote ID information (Goel Fig. 2), wherein the cloud server transmits a vector, coordinate, altitude, and a velocity of the first UAV to an application on a computer. (Goel Fig. 2 depicts communication, therefore transmitting data between, the UAV and network 240, which may be a cloud computing network, see ¶ 30, wherein the information includes location information, see ¶¶ 19-20. Goel ¶ 75 further discloses that “UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information...” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that GPS information includes coordinates, a current location, and an altitude. Also see ¶ 66 “UAV services platform 230 may determine a velocity and/or direction of travel associated with UAV 220”)
Regarding claim 19, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 9 wherein:
said cloud server transmits the vector, the coordinate, the altitude, and the velocity of the first UAV to an application on a smart device. (Goel Fig. 1B and corresponding ¶ 19 discloses transmitting UAV information including the UAV identifier and location information to the user device 2, such that “The UAV services platform may identify the UAV based on the audio signature, and may provide the profile information for the UAV to the user device,” see ¶ 10, wherein the user device includes a computer, see Fig. 1A)
Regarding claim 20, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system for at least one UAV of claim 9 wherein:
said cloud server transmits vector, coordinate, altitude, and velocity of said at least one UAV to an application on a computer. (Goel Fig. 1B and corresponding ¶ 19 discloses transmitting UAV information including the UAV identifier and location information to the user device 2, such that “The UAV services platform may identify the UAV based on the audio signature, and may provide the profile information for the UAV to the user device,” see ¶ 10, wherein the user device includes a computer, see Fig. 1A)
Regarding claim 20, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 9, wherein:
the remote ID detection device is configured to store historical proximity location data (Goel ¶ 75 “UAV services platform 230 may store information identifying past and/or future flight information associated with UAV 220 (e.g., flight paths, flight floors or ceilings, hours of operation, typical maneuvers, maximum or minimum speeds, locations at which UAV 220 refuels or recharges, etc.).”), wherein the historical proximity location data comprises recorded positions of detected UAVs over time to enable analysis of flight patterns and proximity events. (Goel ¶ 75 “when UAV 220 is controlled by a malicious party, behavior of UAV 220 may deviate from expected behavior based on the past and/or future flight information. UAV services platform 230 may compare the current behavior to the past and/or future flight information to identify anomalous behavior”)
Regarding claim 24, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 9, wherein:
the remote ID detection and deconfliction system comprises a mechanism that immediately notifies a UAV operator once the system detects one or more of the one or more nearby UAVs within range, wherein the notification alerts the UAV operator when a new UAV enters detection range. (Goel in at least ¶ 75 “When UAV services platform 230 detects anomalous behavior, UAV services platform 230 may notify a party associated with UAV 220, may deactivate UAV 220, may notify a law enforcement official, may route other UAVs 220 away from UAV 220,” so as to “to change a heading to avoid a collision with another UAV 220),” see ¶ 73)
Regarding claim 30, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 2, wherein:
the remote ID detection and deconfliction system comprises a mechanism that immediately notifies a UAV operator once the system detects one or more of the one or more nearby UAVs within range, wherein the notification alerts the UAV operator when a new UAV enters detection range. (Goel in at least ¶ 75 “When UAV services platform 230 detects anomalous behavior, UAV services platform 230 may notify a party associated with UAV 220, may deactivate UAV 220, may notify a law enforcement official, may route other UAVs 220 away from UAV 220,” so as to “to change a heading to avoid a collision with another UAV 220),” see ¶ 73)
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 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0091908) in view of Michini et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0357273).
Regarding claim 22, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 9, wherein:
the remote ID detection device comprises a mechanism configured to switch between wireless network protocols to maintain continuous reception of remote ID information from the one or more nearby UAVs. (Michini in at least ¶ 3 discloses a handoff period, such as “establishing, by the UAV, a handoff period for transferring control of the UAV from the first ground control station to a second ground control station,” see the wireless network connection in Fig. 4A)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the wireless network of Goel with a mechanism configured to switch between wireless network protocols to maintain continuous reception of remote ID information from the one or more nearby UAVs, as disclosed by Michini, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable the operator to describe safe locations for a UAV to begin the flight plan (Michini ¶ 33), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 29, Goel discloses the remote ID detection and deconfliction system of claim 2, wherein:
the remote ID detection device comprises a mechanism configured to switch between wireless network protocols to maintain continuous reception of remote ID information from the at least one UAV. (Michini in at least ¶ 3 discloses a handoff period, such as “establishing, by the UAV, a handoff period for transferring control of the UAV from the first ground control station to a second ground control station,” see the wireless network connection in Fig. 4A)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the wireless network of Goel with a mechanism configured to switch between wireless network protocols to maintain continuous reception of remote ID information from the one or more nearby UAVs, as disclosed by Michini, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable the operator to describe safe locations for a UAV to begin the flight plan (Michini ¶ 33), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights