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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/29/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1, 11 and 19 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 11 and 19 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to the Specifications for a minor informality is withdrawn.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action. To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations in A., B. and C.:
Claim 1 is amended to clarify that the drone take images and perform image segmentation to identify a new location of the edge node (i.e., “wherein the drone is configured to perform image segmentation to determine an new location of the edge node and update the flight path based on the new location”);
Claim 11 may drop to a lower altitude and try to establish a Bluetooth or other near field communication session (i.e., “wherein the drone is configured drop to a lower altitude and attempt to establish a Bluetooth or near field communication session”);
Claim 19 clarifies that the drone may take images that are analyzed by the infrastructure node to determine a new location or determine whether the edge node is damaged (i.e., “wherein the drone is configured to acquire images when the LiFi communication session cannot be established…wherein the infrastructure node analyzes the images to identify a new location of the edge node or determine whether the edge node is damaged.”).
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informality:
A portion of the claim amendment was not underlined to represent the added claim language: “wherein the drone is configured to acquire images when the LiFi communication session cannot be established”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanagarajan (US 10,727,941 B1), Manouchehri et al. (US 11,960,283 B1, henceforth Manouchehri) and Jing (US 2024/0331376 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kanagarajan explicitly discloses the limitations: a method comprising: causing a drone to travel a flight path to reach a designated region {aircraft approach an airfield/runway, as described in the Abstract and represented in Fig. 1} within which an edge node is located {airfield LiFi system 106, Fig. 1: “an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104”, Col. 4, Lns. 33-37}; while the drone is within the designated region, establishing a light fidelity (LiFi) communication session with the edge node {“The method (i) detects aircraft exterior lights including aircraft LED lamps, via a plurality of airfield photo detectors, wherein the airfield LiFi system comprises the plurality of airfield photo detectors positioned at intervals along a runway of the airfield; (ii) in response to detecting the aircraft exterior lights, establishes a communication connection to an aircraft LiFi system comprising the aircraft LED lamps and aircraft photo detectors, by the airfield LiFi system; and (iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}; collecting data from the edge node during the LiFi communication session; terminating the LiFi communication session {“(iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}; causing the drone to continue along the flight path until reaching an infrastructure node; and causing the drone to transmit the collected data to the infrastructure node {aircraft will move from runway to a docking position at the terminal, where one skilled in the art will appreciate wireless communication with the plane can also be via a LiFi system: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104. In practice, certain embodiments of the system 100 may include additional or alternative elements and components, as desired for the particular application.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-39}.
Kanagarajan does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the drone is configured to perform image segmentation to determine an new location of the edge node and update the flight path based on the new location; said terminating operates as a trigger event for the edge node to purge a memory buffer of the edge node.
However, Manouchehri explicitly recites the limitation: said terminating operates as a trigger event for the edge node to purge a memory buffer of the edge node {purging data stored in the memory: “The mitigation operation includes one or more of changing a communication frequency of the drone, temporarily ceasing communications, purging data stored in memory on the drone, transmitting data to a ground station”, Col. 18, Lns. 8-12 , and, communication with and edge device: “Another approach may be vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, where vehicles may also communicate with local infrastructure such as traffic signals, road sensors, or local edge computing devices.”, Col. 29, Lns. 4-9; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the teaching of data purging, and drone communication with an edge device, teaches purging of data on either the drone or edge device}.
Kanagarajan and Manouchehri are analogous art they both deal with aerial vehicle communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri before them, to modify the teachings of Kanagarajan to include the teachings of Manouchehri to purge data from a device with limited data storage capacity {“To accommodate limited storage capacity and to avoid data tampering, a sub-block concept can be implemented where only the latest few sub-blocks are stored on the drone”, Col. 10, Lns. 40-43}.
The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the drone is configured to perform image segmentation to determine an new location of the edge node and update the flight path based on the new location.
However, Jing explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is configured to perform image segmentation to determine an new location of the edge node and update the flight path based on the new location {as reflected in Fig. 2 and discussed in ¶[0022-0031], a drone uses image segmentation and object matching to identify a specific location, in this case a new landing site without obstructive objects (i.e., determining occupied versus unoccupied space and major versus minor obstructing objects, and the flight path is necessarily adjusted accordingly}.
The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri along with Jing are analogous art they deal with drone flight path control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri to include the teachings of Jing to use imaging techniques to enable a drone to locate and identify ground based locations and objects {Fig. 2}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is approximately stationary while the LiFi communication session is established {“(iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract; one skilled in the art will appreciate that an aircraft on the runway in Fig. 1 may have to stop during taxiing to the terminal to deal with the movements of other aircraft}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is mobile while the LiFi communication session is established {with respect to Fig. 1, the aircraft is taxiing along the runway and wirelessly communication with the control tower: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-37}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is mobile while the data is collected from the edge node {with respect to Fig. 1, the aircraft is taxiing along the runway and wirelessly communication with the control tower: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-37}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is positioned vertically above the edge node while the data is collected {with respect to Fig. 1, the aircraft is in communication with airfield LiFi system 106 while airborne during landing of the aircraft: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-37}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, during the LiFi communication session, the drone maintains a line-of-sight with the edge node collected {with respect to Fig. 1, the aircraft is in communication with airfield LiFi system 106 while airborne during landing of the aircraft: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-37}.
Claims 6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Jing and Audronis (US 2024/0319748 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the drone is caused to travel the flight path in accordance with a predefined route frequency.
However, Audronis explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is caused to travel the flight path in accordance with a predefined route frequency {collecting sensor data and storing data onboard: “ patrolling can include repeating a flight path to cover a sector while capturing information using sensors. In additional embodiments of the invention, drones can each include one or more sensors (e.g., camera, infrared sensor, etc.), collect sensor data using the sensor during flight, and store the collected sensor data onboard or transmit sensor data to a receiver (e.g., ground or air-based).”, ¶[0017]; one skilled in the art will appreciate the data storage capacity is limited, and thus flight time to gather and store data will be limited}.
The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing along with Audronis are analogous art because they all deal with aerial vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Jing and Audronis before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing to include the teachings of Audronis to repeatedly fly a drone over the same region {¶[0017]}.
Regarding Claim 19, Kanagarajan explicitly discloses the limitations: a method comprising: wherein the flight path includes a designated region within which an edge node {104, Fig. 1} is supposedly located {airfield LiFi system 106, Fig. 1: “an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104”, Col. 4, Lns. 33-37}; causing the drone to travel the flight path to reach the designated region {aircraft approach an airfield/runway, as described in the Abstract and represented in Fig. 1}; while the drone is within the designated region, establishing a LiFi communication session with the edge node; wherein the LiFi communication session is initiated by the drone {“The method (i) detects aircraft exterior lights including aircraft LED lamps, via a plurality of airfield photo detectors, wherein the airfield LiFi system comprises the plurality of airfield photo detectors positioned at intervals along a runway of the airfield; (ii) in response to detecting the aircraft exterior lights, establishes a communication connection to an aircraft LiFi system comprising the aircraft LED lamps and aircraft photo detectors, by the airfield LiFi system; and (iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}; collecting data from the edge node during the LiFi communication session; terminating the LiFi communication session {“(iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}; causing the drone to continue along the flight path until reaching an infrastructure node; and causing the drone to transmit the collected data to the infrastructure node {aircraft will move from runway to a docking position at the terminal, where one skilled in the art will appreciate wireless communication with the plane can also be via a LiFi system: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104. In practice, certain embodiments of the system 100 may include additional or alternative elements and components, as desired for the particular application.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-39}.
Kanagarajan does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path; wherein the drone is configured to acquire images when the LiFi communication session cannot be established; said terminating operates as a trigger event for the edge node to purge a memory buffer of the edge node; wherein the infrastructure node analyzes the images to identify a new location of the edge node or determine whether the edge node is damaged.
However, Manouchehri explicitly recites the limitation: said terminating operates as a trigger event for the edge node to purge a memory buffer of the edge node {purging data stored in the memory: “The mitigation operation includes one or more of changing a communication frequency of the drone, temporarily ceasing communications, purging data stored in memory on the drone, transmitting data to a ground station”, Col. 18, Lns. 8-12 , and, communication with and edge device: “Another approach may be vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, where vehicles may also communicate with local infrastructure such as traffic signals, road sensors, or local edge computing devices.”, Col. 29, Lns. 4-9; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the teaching of data purging, and drone communication with an edge device, teaches purging of data on either the drone or edge device}.
The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path; wherein the drone is configured to acquire images when the LiFi communication session cannot be established; wherein the infrastructure node analyzes the images to identify a new location of the edge node or determine whether the edge node is damaged.
However, Jing explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone is configured to acquire images when the LiFi communication session cannot be established; wherein the infrastructure node analyzes the images to identify a new location of the edge node {as reflected in Fig. 2 and discussed in ¶[0022-0031], a drone uses image segmentation and object matching to identify a specific location, in this case a new landing site without obstructive objects (i.e., determining occupied versus unoccupied space and major versus minor obstructing objects, and the flight path is necessarily adjusted accordingly} or determine whether the edge node is damaged.
The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path.
However, Audronis explicitly recites the limitation: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path {“One or more drones can be assigned to each sector. Furthermore, each drone can be programmed with a patrolling flight path (e.g., onboard or remotely controlled) within its sector. As will be discussed further below, patrolling can include repeating a flight path to cover a sector while capturing information using sensors.”, ¶[0017]}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Jing and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 19, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the drone remains approximately stationary while the LiFi communication session is active {“(iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract; one skilled in the art will appreciate that an aircraft on the runway in Fig. 1 may have to stop during taxiing to the terminal to deal with the movements of other aircraft}.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Jing and Rackshit et al. (US 2023/0231765 A1), henceforth Rackshit.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein, during the communication session, the drone hovers above the edge node by at least 5 meters.
However, Rackshit explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, during the communication session, the drone hovers above the edge node by at least 5 meters {edge device and hovering drone: “(i) analyzes the edge computing need; (ii) validates only if the participating edge devices have the required security configuration; (iii) identifies which participating far edge devices needs additional security configuration, and needs additional security software installed; (iv) identifies what additional security software is to be installed and what configuration is required; (v) identifies appropriate secondary far edge devices which have the required software installed; (vi) the secondary far edge devices can be drone or spot robots, and will hover over the participating far edge device”, ¶[0047]; one skilled in the art will appreciate that drones are designed to hover and hovering at a specific distance from an object is well known in the art}.
The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing along with Rackshit are analogous art because they all deal with aerial vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Jing and Rackshit before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing to include the teachings of Rackshit to hover a drone near an edge device during wireless communication with the edge device {¶[0047]}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein, during the communication session, the drone hovers above the edge node by at least 100 meters.
However, Rackshit explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, during the communication session, the drone hovers above the edge node by at least 100 meters {edge device and hovering drone: “(i) analyzes the edge computing need; (ii) validates only if the participating edge devices have the required security configuration; (iii) identifies which participating far edge devices needs additional security configuration, and needs additional security software installed; (iv) identifies what additional security software is to be installed and what configuration is required; (v) identifies appropriate secondary far edge devices which have the required software installed; (vi) the secondary far edge devices can be drone or spot robots, and will hover over the participating far edge device”, ¶[0047]; one skilled in the art will appreciate that drones are designed to hover and hovering at a specific distance from an object is well known in the art}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Jing does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein, during the communication session, the drone hovers above the edge node by at least 1 kilometer.
However, Rackshit explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, during the communication session, the drone hovers above the edge node by at least 1 kilometer {edge device and hovering drone: “(i) analyzes the edge computing need…(vi) the secondary far edge devices can be drone or spot robots, and will hover over the participating far edge device”, ¶[0047]; one skilled in the art will appreciate that drones are designed to hover and hovering at a specific distance from an object is well known in the art}.
Claims 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis (US 2024/0319748 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kanagarajan explicitly discloses the limitations: a method comprising: wherein the flight path includes a designated region within which an edge node {104, Fig. 1} is supposedly located {airfield LiFi system 106, Fig. 1: “an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104”, Col. 4, Lns. 33-37}; causing the drone to travel the flight path to reach the designated region {aircraft approach an airfield/runway, as described in the Abstract and represented in Fig. 1}; while the drone is within the designated region, establishing a LiFi communication session with the edge node {“The method (i) detects aircraft exterior lights including aircraft LED lamps, via a plurality of airfield photo detectors, wherein the airfield LiFi system comprises the plurality of airfield photo detectors positioned at intervals along a runway of the airfield; (ii) in response to detecting the aircraft exterior lights, establishes a communication connection to an aircraft LiFi system comprising the aircraft LED lamps and aircraft photo detectors, by the airfield LiFi system; and (iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}; wherein the drone is configured drop to a lower altitude and attempt to establish a Bluetooth or near field communication session {changing flight altitude (e.g., when approaching a landing site) is well known in the art, which will naturally assist in establishing short-range communication with ground based beacon, flight towers, etc.}; collecting data from the edge node during the LiFi communication session; terminating the LiFi communication session {“(iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}; causing the drone to continue along the flight path until reaching an infrastructure node; and causing the drone to transmit the collected data to the infrastructure node {aircraft will move from runway to a docking position at the terminal, where one skilled in the art will appreciate wireless communication with the plane can also be via a LiFi system: “The system 100 includes an aircraft 102 traveling on, or approaching, a runway 104 in an airfield associated with an air traffic control (ATC) tower or other ground station. The aircraft 102 is equipped with an aircraft LiFi system 108, and the ground station uses an airfield LiFi system 106 that includes LiFi device hardware positioned at intervals along the runway 104. In practice, certain embodiments of the system 100 may include additional or alternative elements and components, as desired for the particular application.”, Col. 4, Lns. 30-39}.
Kanagarajan does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path; said terminating operates as a trigger event for the edge node to purge a memory buffer of the edge node.
However, Manouchehri explicitly recites the limitation: said terminating operates as a trigger event for the edge node to purge a memory buffer of the edge node {purging data stored in the memory: “The mitigation operation includes one or more of changing a communication frequency of the drone, temporarily ceasing communications, purging data stored in memory on the drone, transmitting data to a ground station”, Col. 18, Lns. 8-12 , and, communication with and edge device: “Another approach may be vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, where vehicles may also communicate with local infrastructure such as traffic signals, road sensors, or local edge computing devices.”, Col. 29, Lns. 4-9; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the teaching of data purging, and drone communication with an edge device, teaches purging of data on either the drone or edge device}.
The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path.
However, Audronis explicitly recites the limitation: establishing a route frequency for a flight path of a drone equipped with a light fidelity (LiFi) transceiver, wherein the route frequency indicates how often the drone is to travel the flight path {“One or more drones can be assigned to each sector. Furthermore, each drone can be programmed with a patrolling flight path (e.g., onboard or remotely controlled) within its sector. As will be discussed further below, patrolling can include repeating a flight path to cover a sector while capturing information using sensors.”, ¶[0017]}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the route frequency is based on a size of the memory buffer of the edge node.
However, Audronis explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the route frequency is based on a size of the memory buffer of the edge node {collecting sensor data and storing data onboard: “ patrolling can include repeating a flight path to cover a sector while capturing information using sensors. In additional embodiments of the invention, drones can each include one or more sensors (e.g., camera, infrared sensor, etc.), collect sensor data using the sensor during flight, and store the collected sensor data onboard or transmit sensor data to a receiver (e.g., ground or air-based).”, ¶[0017]; one skilled in the art will appreciate the data storage capacity is limited, and thus flight time to gather and store data will be limited}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the route frequency is at least one flight per 24 hour cycle.
However, Audronis explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the route frequency is at least one flight per 24 hour cycle {collecting sensor data and storing data onboard: “ patrolling can include repeating a flight path to cover a sector while capturing information using sensors. In additional embodiments of the invention, drones can each include one or more sensors (e.g., camera, infrared sensor, etc.), collect sensor data using the sensor during flight, and store the collected sensor data onboard or transmit sensor data to a receiver (e.g., ground or air-based).”, ¶[0017]; one skilled in the art will appreciate the data storage capacity is limited, and thus flight time to gather and store data will be limited}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan and Manouchehri does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the route frequency is at least one flight per 1 hour cycle.
However, Audronis explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the route frequency is at least one flight per 1 hour cycle {collecting sensor data and storing data onboard: “ patrolling can include repeating a flight path to cover a sector while capturing information using sensors. In additional embodiments of the invention, drones can each include one or more sensors (e.g., camera, infrared sensor, etc.), collect sensor data using the sensor during flight, and store the collected sensor data onboard or transmit sensor data to a receiver (e.g., ground or air-based).”, ¶[0017]; one skilled in the art will appreciate the data storage capacity is limited, and thus flight time to gather and store data will be limited}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. Kanagarajan does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the designated region is a defined set of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates.
However, Manouchehri explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the designated region is a defined set of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates {“the one or more drones are active in a predefined geographical area 174”, Col. 7, Lns. 60-61, and “information which may be included in the mission assignment instructions 158 may include global positioning satellite (GPS) coordinates used to provide locations to capture content, battery life requirements, permissions needed to perform the drone actions, etc.”, and “”, Col. 7, Lns. 44-48}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Kanagarajan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein establishing the LiFi communication session is initiated by the drone {“The method (i) detects aircraft exterior lights including aircraft LED lamps, via a plurality of airfield photo detectors, wherein the airfield LiFi system comprises the plurality of airfield photo detectors positioned at intervals along a runway of the airfield; (ii) in response to detecting the aircraft exterior lights, establishes a communication connection to an aircraft LiFi system comprising the aircraft LED lamps and aircraft photo detectors, by the airfield LiFi system; and (iii) exchanges the optical wireless data communications via the communication connection, by the airfield LiFi system”, Abstract}.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Audronis and Sherry et al. (US 2024/0251222 A1), henceforth Sherry.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein the designated region is marked via a geo-fence.
However, Sherry explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the designated region is marked via a geo-fence {“The location information may comprise geographical positions such as GPS coordinates, latitude and longitude coordinates, altitude providing the height or elevation above sea level, speed, direction, geofenced area or boundaries associated with operations, addresses, location names, and/or locations associated with operators.”, ¶[0039]}.
The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis along with Sherry are analogous art because they all deal with aerial vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis and Sherry before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis to include the teachings of Sherry to aid in locating an area relevant to a drone by pre-marking the geographical area {¶[0039]}.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Audronis and Noack et al. (DE 102021212275 A1) henceforth Noack.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis discloses all the limitations of the method of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitations: wherein an aiming direction of a LiFi transceiver of the edge node is adjustable, and wherein the aiming direction is adjusted while the drone progressively moves overhead of the edge node during the LiFi communication session.
However, Noack explicitly recites the limitation: wherein an aiming direction of a LiFi transceiver of the edge node is adjustable, and wherein the aiming direction is adjusted while the drone progressively moves overhead of the edge node during the LiFi communication session {positional tracking: “the optical-wireless communication node can be designed to determine the position information 38 for tracking the movement 42 and to direct the optical signal 26 of the movement 42 to the communication partner 24.”, Pg. 8, Ln. 33 to Pg. 9, Ln. 2}.
The combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis along with Noack are analogous art because they all deal with aerial vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri, Audronis and Noack before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kanagarajan, Manouchehri and Audronis to include the teachings of Noack to maintain the optical signal by tracking the moving user/device {“the optical-wireless communication node 20 can include a so-called tracking system, such as a so-called pointing acquisition tracking system (PAT system), which is designed to use the position information 38 to direct the optical signal 26 to the communication partner 24 judge”, Pg. 9, Lns. 3-6}.
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 RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665