DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed October 30th, 2025. Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Parissi et al. (US Pub. No. 20180354417 A1), herein after Parissi, and further in view of previously cited of record Zhang; Jiajun (US Pub. No. 20150073623 A1), herein after Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Parissi teaches [a] method of establishing a vehicle safety perimeter, comprising: operating a vehicle having at least one perimeter device associated with the vehicle, the perimeter device comprising a UAV, having a non-deployed configuration and a deployed configuration and adapted to transition from the non-deployed configuration to the deployed configuration... (Parissi: Para. 0003, teaching a vehicle with a cavity that has a UAV that can be deployed); deploying the perimeter device from the vehicle; and positioning the perimeter device at a deployment location away from the vehicle (Parissi: Para. 0018, teaching deploying the UAV and positioning it relative to the vehicle).
Parissi is silent to the UAV being deployed in response to a triggering event relating to a status of the vehicle or its environment.
In a similar field, Zhang teaches deploying a perimeter vehicle in response to a triggering event relating to a status of the vehicle or its environment (Zhang: Para. 0030, teaching deploying a perimeter vehicle when the host vehicle is immobilized) for the benefit of warning vehicles that the host vehicle is involved in an event without needing the driver of host vehicle to do anything.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify deployment of the UAV to establish a perimeter around the host vehicle from Parissi to deploy it when the vehicle is involved in an event, as taught by Zhang, for the benefit of warning vehicles that the host vehicle is involved in an event without needing the driver of host vehicle to do anything.
Regarding claim 2, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the perimeter device further comprises a signal member (examiner interprets the signal member can be a warning sign) (Parissi: Para. 0011, teaching the UAV has a warning sign).
Regarding claim 3, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 2, and Zhang goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 2, wherein the UAV is in a first position relative to the signal member when the perimeter device is in the non-deployed configuration and the UAV is in a second position relative to the signal member when the perimeter device is in the deployed configuration (Zhang: Para. 0030, teaching deploying the warning sign when it is a distance away from the vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, and Zhang goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event comprises a vehicle immobilizing event (Zhang: Para. 0030, teaching deploying a perimeter vehicle when the host vehicle is immobilized).
Regarding claim 7, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, further comprising acquiring information relating to one or more situational parameters relating to an environment around the vehicle (Parissi: Para. 0015, teaching the use of a camera to determine the situation of adjacent vehicles nearby the host vehicle during an event).
Regarding claim 8, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 7, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the perimeter device further comprises a sensor (Parissi: Para. 0015, teaching the use of a camera to determine the situation of adjacent vehicles nearby the host vehicle during an event).
Regarding claim 9, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 8, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 8, wherein the sensor comprises a camera, an infrared sensor, a radar sensor, or a LIDAR sensor (Parissi: Para. 0015, teaching the use of a camera to determine the situation of adjacent vehicles nearby the host vehicle during an event).
Regarding claim 10, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 8, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 8, wherein the sensor comprises a camera; and wherein the acquiring information comprises recording an image using the camera (Parissi: Para. 0015, teaching the use of a camera to determine the situation of adjacent vehicles nearby the host vehicle during an event).
Regarding claim 12, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the deploying is performed while the vehicle is stationary (Parissi: Para. 0003, teaching that the UAV is deployed when the vehicle is stationary).
Regarding claim 13, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 7, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 7, wherein the perimeter device further comprises a sensor; and wherein the acquiring information comprises acquiring readings from the sensor (Parissi: Para. 0015, teaching the use of a camera to determine the situation of adjacent vehicles nearby the host vehicle during an event).
Regarding claim 15, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring information relating to one or more situational parameters relating to an environment around the vehicle (Parissi: Para. 0015, teaching the use of a camera to determine the situation of adjacent vehicles nearby the host vehicle during an event); and defining a predetermined location away from the vehicle based on the information; wherein the deployment location is based on the predetermined location (Parissi: Para. 0018, teaching deploying the UAV and positioning it relative to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 15, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 15, further comprising adjusting the deployment location based on the information (Parissi: Para. 0018, teaching deploying the UAV and positioning it relative to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, and Parissi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 11, wherein the deployment location is a roadside position adjacent the vehicle (Parissi: Para. 0018, teaching deploying the UAV along the road and positioning it relative to the vehicle).
Claims 4, 6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parissi in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1, 3, and 13 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Abuelsaad et al. (US Pub. No. 20160059962 A1), herein after Abuelsaad.
Regarding claim 4, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 3, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 3, wherein the vehicle has an external surface; and wherein the perimeter device disposed on the external surface in the non-deployed configuration.
In a similar field, Abuelsaad teaches [t]he method of claim 3, wherein the vehicle has an external surface; and wherein the perimeter device disposed on the external surface in the non-deployed configuration (Abuelsaad: Para. 0014, teaching a UAV that is mounted on a user's vehicle to be deployed as needed) for the benefit of ease of deployment of the UAV.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the cavity for housing the UAV from Parissi in view of Zhang to be external to the vehicle, as taught by Abuelsaad, for the benefit of ease of deployment of the UAV.
Regarding claim 6, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event comprises one or more of image recognition by artificial intelligence, a GPS-based event, and an environment-based event.
In a similar field, Abuelsaad teaches [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event comprises one or more of image recognition by artificial intelligence, a GPS-based event, and an environment-based event (Abuelsaad: Para. 0020, teaching determining an event has occurred based on the environment such as a weather event, the location of the vehicle matches a GPS position where an event has occurred, or an event was detected by image recognition software) for the benefit of reacting to the event based on its type.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the trigger for deploying the UAV from Parissi in view of Zhang to identify the type of event based on environmental conditions, GPS coordinates, or image recognition, as taught by Abuelsaad, for the benefit of reacting to the event based on its type.
Regarding claim 11, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the deploying is performed while the vehicle is in motion.
In a similar field, Abuelsaad teaches [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the deploying is performed while the vehicle is in motion (Abuelsaad: Para. 0018 and 0019, teaching deploying a UAV from a vehicle in motion to determine the situation of the road ahead of the vehicle) for the benefit of reacting to events as the vehicle approaches them.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the deployment of the UAV from Parissi in view of Zhang to deploy while the vehicle is in motion, as taught by Abuelsaad, for the benefit of reacting to events as the vehicle approaches them.
Regarding claim 14, Parissi and Zhang remain as applied as in claim 13, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 13, wherein the acquiring information comprises acquiring map-based information about the environment near the vehicle.
In a similar field, Abuelsaad teaches [t]he method of claim 13, wherein the acquiring information comprises acquiring map-based information about the environment near the vehicle (Abuelsaad: Para. 0018, teaching that the determination of the event can be based on map data such as topological maps) for the benefit of robust situational awareness of the events around the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the deployment of the UAV based on trigger events from Parissi in view of Zhang to have the event determination include using information from maps, as taught by Abuelsaad, for the benefit of robust situational awareness of the events around the vehicle.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parissi in further view of Cho et al. (US Pub. No. 20160272317 A1), herein after Cho, and further in view of Abuelsaad.
Regarding claim 18, Parissi teaches [a] method of establishing a vehicle safety perimeter, comprising: operating a vehicle having a perimeter device associated with the vehicle, the perimeter device comprising a UAV and a camera and having a non-deployed configuration and a deployed configuration (Parissi: Para. 0003, teaching a vehicle with a cavity that has a UAV that can be deployed; and Para. 0015, teaching the use of cameras on the UAV): deploying the perimeter device from the vehicle by operating the UAV of the perimeter device to transition the perimeter device from the non-deployed configuration to the deployed configuration and to move the perimeter device to a deployment location away from the vehicle to establish the vehicle safety perimeter (Parissi: Para. 0018, teaching deploying the UAV and positioning it relative to the vehicle).
Parissi is silent to the vehicle safety perimeter comprising a continuous perimeter around the vehicle; recording imagery of the scene near the vehicle using the camera; and issuing a signal to a recipient when the vehicle safety perimeter is violated.
In a similar field, Cho teaches the vehicle safety perimeter comprising a continuous perimeter around the vehicle (Cho: Para. 0226, 0228, 0230-0231, also see FIG. 18B, teaching that when deployed to an accident the UAV marks an area around the vehicle involved in the accident) for the benefit of clearly warning the drivers of other vehicles where the accident area is.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 18B of Cho
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV deployment for establishing a perimeter around a vehicle from Parissi to have the perimeter be around the entirety of the vehicle in a continuous circle, as taught by Cho, for the benefit of clearly warning the drivers of other vehicles where the accident area is.
Parissi in view of Cho are silent to recording imagery of the scene near the vehicle using the camera; and issuing a signal to a recipient when the vehicle safety perimeter is violated.
In a similar field, Abuelsaad teaches recording imagery of the scene near the vehicle using the camera; and issuing a signal to a recipient when the vehicle safety perimeter is violated (Abuelsaad: Para. 0020, teaching monitoring the area around the vehicle and warning the driver if a hazard is detected) for the benefit of improving the safety of the driver before and during a trigger event.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV deployment for establishing a perimeter around a vehicle from Parissi in view of Cho to have the UAV monitor the area around the vehicle and warn the driver of any potential hazards, as taught by Abuelsaad, for the benefit of improving the safety of the driver.
Regarding claim 20, Parissi teaches [a] method of establishing a vehicle safety perimeter, comprising: operating a vehicle having a perimeter device associated with the vehicle, the perimeter device comprising a UAV and a camera and having a non-deployed configuration and a deployed configuration (Parissi: Para. 0003, teaching a vehicle with a cavity that has a UAV that can be deployed; and Para. 0015, teaching the use of cameras on the UAV): deploying the perimeter device from the vehicle by operating the UAV of the perimeter device to transition the perimeter device from the non-deployed configuration to the deployed configuration and to move the perimeter device to a deployment location away from the vehicle to establish the vehicle safety perimeter (Parissi: Para. 0018, teaching deploying the UAV and positioning it relative to the vehicle).
Parissi is silent to the vehicle safety perimeter comprising a continuous perimeter around the vehicle; recording imagery of the scene near the vehicle using the camera; and issuing a signal to a recipient located within the environment of the vehicle when the vehicle safety perimeter is violated, the signal comprising one or more of an audible signal, a visual signal, and a data signal.
In a similar field, Cho teaches the vehicle safety perimeter comprising a continuous perimeter around the vehicle (Cho: Para. 0226, 0228, 0230-0231, also see FIG. 18B, teaching that when deployed to an accident the UAV marks an area around the vehicle involved in the accident) for the benefit of clearly warning the drivers of other vehicles where the accident area is.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 18B of Cho
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV deployment for establishing a perimeter around a vehicle from Parissi to have the perimeter be around the entirety of the vehicle in a continuous circle, as taught by Cho, for the benefit of clearly warning the drivers of other vehicles where the accident area is.
Parissi in view of Cho are silent to recording imagery of the scene near the vehicle using the camera; and issuing a signal to a recipient located within the environment of the vehicle when the vehicle safety perimeter is violated, the signal comprising one or more of an audible signal, a visual signal, and a data signal.
In a similar field, Abuelsaad teaches recording imagery of the scene near the vehicle using the camera; and issuing a signal to a recipient located within the environment of the vehicle when the vehicle safety perimeter is violated (Abuelsaad: Para. 0020, teaching monitoring the area around the vehicle and warning the driver if a hazard is detected), the signal comprising one or more of an audible signal, a visual signal, and a data signal (Abuelsaad: Para. 0021, teaching that the driver is notified using audio and visual cues) for the benefit of improving the safety of the driver before and during a trigger event.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV deployment for establishing a perimeter around a vehicle from Parissi to have the UAV monitor the area around the vehicle and warn the driver of any potential hazards, as taught by Abuelsaad, for the benefit of improving the safety of the driver.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parissi in further view of Cho and in further view of Abuelsaad as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 21, Parissi, Cho, and Abuelsaad remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he method of claim 18, wherein the deployment location comprises a location on the ground.
In a similar field, Zhang teaches [t]he method of claim 18, wherein the deployment location comprises a location on the ground (Zhang: Para. 0030, teaching that the warning signs are placed on the ground) for the benefit of quickly warning other vehicles of the accident.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the deployment of the UAVs from Parissi in further view of Cho and in further view of Abuelsaad to have the unmanned vehicles deploy warning signs onto the ground near the vehicle, as taught by Cho, for the benefit of quickly warning other vehicles of the accident.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 30th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification filed October 30th, 2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and have rendered the objection to the specification moot. Therefore the objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 30th, 2025 with respect to the 103 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 13 line 16 through page 14 line 25, filed October 30th, 2025) that the prior art of Zhang is non-analogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the remote controlled vehicle of Zhang is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the BRI of field of endeavor of the claimed invention can reasonably be interpreted to be around establishing a safety area around a host vehicle using unmanned vehicles to warn other vehicles that the host vehicle is stopped and potentially experiencing an issue. Zhang is relevant to this as it teaches deploying an unmanned vehicle to warn other vehicles when the host vehicle is in an accident (Zhang: Para. 0002), thus one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably find the prior art of Zhang relevant to applicant’s invention and the problem applicant’s invention seeks to resolve (“establishing a perimeter around a vehicle when it becomes disabled or otherwise temporarily immobile”, see page 14 lines 19-20, filed October 30th, 2025).
Applicant contends (see page 15 line 20 through page 16 line 2, filed October 30th, 2025) that, with regards to the 103 rejection of claim 1 in the Non-Final Rejection dated July 30th, 2025, “The Examiner asserts Zhang teaches a UAV that is ‘adapted to transition from the non-deployed to the deployed configuration....’”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes with regards to the rejection of claim 1, the examiner did not assert Zhang teaches a UAV “adapted to transition from the non-deployed to the deployed configuration....”. The examiner notes that the rejection of claim 1 in the Non-Final Rejection dated July 30th, 2025 clearly states that the prior art of Parissi teaches the limitation of a UAV “adapted to transition from the non-deployed to the deployed configuration....” in page 4 lines 4-9. The examiner further notes that the prior art of Zhang was brought in in page 4 lines 14-18 to render obvious that a perimeter establishing device like the UAV of Parissi could be deployed in response to a triggering event such as the vehicle breaking down or it being involved in a traffic accident as taught by Zhang in paragraph 0030.
Applicant contends (see page 16 lines 4-9, filed October 30th, 2025) that the prior art of Parissi does not teach a perimeter device that is “adapted to transition from the non-deployed to the deployed configuration....” as it is launched in response to a request from a user. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In this case, it is unclear how the prior art of Parissi teaching that the UAV is launched from a cavity 20 in the vehicle in response to a user request does not read on a UAV that is adapted to transition from a non-deployed configuration to a deployed configuration.
Applicant contends (see page 18 line 24 through page 19 line 8, filed October 30th, 2025) that the prior arts of Parissi and Abuelsaad are deficient in teaching the newly amended limitations. The examiner respectfully agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Parissi in view of Cho in further view of Abuelsaad.
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 Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663