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 . Claims 1-14 were previously pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 6-14 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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, 6-7, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wake (WO 2020/162584 A1, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 9/10/2025 and is being relied upon) in view of Wang (CN 106547280 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 9/10/2025 and is being relied upon), Hamer (US 2023/0243620 A1), and Bayer (US 2022/0023904 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wake discloses a drone monitoring and control system, comprising: at least one drone (see at least Fig. 9, [0064] – drone 100) disposed with an operation payload (see at least [0053] – chemical tank 104) and at least one camera (see at least [0077] – camera 512, 513), the at least one camera configured to capture a first image (see at least [0077] - image), and the at least one drone configured to perform an output operation of the operation payload (see at least [0053-0054] – chemical tank 104 storing chemical to be sprayed by the drone 100); at least one mobile vehicle configured to carry the at least one drone (see at least [0055, 0060-0061] – drone 100 takes off and lands on the vehicle 406); a computing device connected to the at least one drone, the computing device configured to output a first environment image according to the first image captured by the at least one camera (see at least [0056, 0059, 0077] - analyze images of the field 403 taken by the drone 100), and generate a flight trajectory of the at least one drone and a movement trajectory of the at least one mobile vehicle according to an operation data set corresponding to the output operation (see at least [0067, 0108] - The control device 40 is a functional unit that determines the operation plan for the drone 100 and the mobile body 406a. The work plan includes the movement routes of the drone 100 and the moving body 406a, and the movement speeds on the movement routes. The drone 100's operation plan includes flight speed, flight acceleration, and landing position coordinates, as well as information on the timing and amount of pesticide spraying. The operation plan for the moving body 406a includes the movement speed, movement acceleration, and position coordinates of the moving body 406a when the drone 100 lands.), wherein the operation data set comprises a target location of a target object and three-dimensional terrain data of the target location (see at least [0057, 0059] – topography of the field 403), and the computing device is further configured to control the at least one drone to move to a set location according to the flight trajectory, and control the at least one drone (see at least [0061] – drone 100 takes off from a takeoff and landing point 406 outside the field 403... flight path (entry path) from the departure and arrival point 406 to the destination field 403); and a display device connected to the computing device, the display device configured to display the first environment image (see at least [0056] – displaying information…camera footage).
Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose control the at least one drone to stay at the set location when a distance between the target location and the set location is less than a preset distance; the display device configured to display the three-dimensional terrain data; wherein the preset distance is smaller than a height of the target object; or wherein the height of the target object is smaller than a preset height, and the preset distance is not smaller than the height of the target object.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: control the at least one drone to stay at the set location when a distance between the target location and the set location is less than a preset distance (see at least [0030] – drone (including unmanned helicopters and/or unmanned fixed-wing aircraft) takes off, and the remote control used to control the drone controls it to identify the crops to be sprayed and hovers 5-120 cm above the crops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a uniform spraying amount with high efficiency and high spraying coverage, while preventing over-spray (Wang – [0005, 0007]).
Hamer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the display device configured to display the three-dimensional terrain data (see at least [0133] – topography map be displayed on one or more of the display devices, e.g. the display device 218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hamer into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of communicating various data to an operator or user via the display. Since Wake already has a display and already utilizes a topographical map, it would have been obvious to display the topographical map because it allows an operator or other user to visualize the area and identify locations of interest, and displaying a topographical map would yield predictable results.
Bayer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the preset distance is smaller than a height of the target object (see at least Figs. 16-17, [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Bayer into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of surrounding an area of the object on which the liquid is to be dispersed so as to ensure the dose of liquid is received only at a desired portion of the object (Bayer – [0146]). Furthermore, selecting the distance from which to spray is greatly dependent on the chemical being sprayed and the type of plant being sprayed. For shorter ground cover crops that have no exposed soil it may be more desirable to spray a wider coverage from a greater height, while for certain larger plants like trees that are spaced far apart it may be more desirable to get closer to the tree so that overspray onto the ground is reduced.
Regarding claim 6, Wake discloses wherein the operation data set further comprises at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a type of the target object, a plurality of candidate parking locations of the at least one mobile vehicle (see at least [0064, 0108]), an available flight duration of the at least one drone (see at least [0117]), a current wind direction and a current wind speed at the target location (see at least [0076-0077]), and a default operation duration of the target object (see at least [0060, 0116-0117, 0131]).
Regarding claim 7, Wake discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to generate at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) an operation process corresponding to the output operation of the at least one drone (see at least [0108]), a shortest flight duration of the at least one drone, a take-off location and a landing location of the at least one drone (see at least [0108]), replenishment timing of the operation payload (see at least [0131]), charging time of the at least one drone and number of charging cycles of the at least one drone according to the operation data set.
Regarding claim 10, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to control the at least one drone to perform the output operation after controlling the at least one drone to stay at the set location.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing device is further configured to control the at least one drone to perform the output operation after controlling the at least one drone to stay at the set location (see at least [0030] – drone (including unmanned helicopters and/or unmanned fixed-wing aircraft) takes off, and the remote control used to control the drone controls it to identify the crops to be sprayed and hovers 5-120 cm above the crops).
The motivation to combine Wake and Wang are the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Wake discloses wherein the at least one drone is a plurality of drones, the at least one mobile vehicle is a plurality of mobile vehicles, the plurality of mobile vehicles are configured to carry the plurality of drones, respectively, and when the computing device determines the operation payload of a first drone among the plurality of drones is lower than a preset payload (see at least Fig. 9, [0065, 0070, 0109, 0112]), the computing device is further configured to control a second drone among the plurality of drones to perform the output operation of the first drone (see at least Fig. 9, [0057, 0095]).
Regarding claim 13, Wake discloses wherein the at least one drone is a plurality of drones, the at least one mobile vehicle is a plurality of mobile vehicles, the plurality of mobile vehicles are configured to carry the plurality of drones, respectively, and when the computing device determines power of a first drone among the plurality of drones is lower than preset power (see at least Fig. 9, [0065, 0070, 0109, 0112]), the computing device is further configured to control a second drone among the plurality of drones to perform the output operation of the first drone (see at least Fig. 9, [0057, 0095]).
Regarding claim 14, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the display device is further configured to display at least one of the distance between the target location and the set location, a current wind speed, a current wind direction, a current temperature and a current light direction.
Hamer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the display device is further configured to display at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) the distance between the target location and the set location, a current wind speed, a current wind direction (see at least [0135] - generate a display signal for showing the average wind condition 250 on a display device within image 200, the wind condition 250 may include the average direction and speed of the wind within the area concerned), a current temperature and a current light direction.
The motivation to combine Wake and Hamer is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since Wake already has a display and already utilizes wind data, it would have been obvious to display the wind data because it allows an operator or other user to visualize the environmental conditions in the locations of interest, and displaying wind speed and/or direction would yield predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wake in view of Wang, Hamer, Bayer, and Uskert (US 2015/0367957 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one camera is a plurality of cameras respectively disposed at different locations of the at least one drone, the plurality of cameras are configured to obtain a plurality of initial images, respectively, and the computing device is further configured to generate a plurality of sub-images corresponding to different fields of view based on the plurality of initial images, and combine the plurality of sub-images into the first environment image.
Uskert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the at least one camera is a plurality of cameras respectively disposed at different locations of the at least one drone, the plurality of cameras are configured to obtain a plurality of initial images, respectively, and the computing device is further configured to generate a plurality of sub-images corresponding to different fields of view based on the plurality of initial images, and combine the plurality of sub-images into the first environment image (see at least [0036-0037] - DSP circuitry 50 processes data from individual camera signals from the cameras 40 to form individual images or frames. The post processor 52 knits or combines the data of the individual images together to form a composite image (e.g., a mosaic or panoramic view including data from multiple images)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Uskert into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success because the image data can be used for surveillance purposes, military or defense purposes, topological purposes, research, exploration, training, and so on (Uskert – [0038]). Furthermore, compiling different fields of view into a combined image gives a more accurate picture of the entire surroundings.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wake in view of Wang, Hamer, Bayer, and Zhou (US 2021/0012520 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to perform image recognition on the first image captured by the at least one camera to obtain a target object image, and determine the distance between the target location and the set location according to the target object image and a reference size of the target object.
Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing device is further configured to perform image recognition on the first image captured by the at least one camera to obtain a target object image, and determine the distance between the target location and the set location according to the target object image and a reference size of the target object (see at least abstract - identifying a target object to be measured… calculating a distance between the target object and the UAV based on the movement information and the plurality of images captured by a camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhou into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing accurate measurement of the distance to a target object (Zhou – [0048, 0072]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wake in view of Wang, Hamer, Bayer, and Tang (CN 11037129 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 9/10/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 8, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device performs at least one of a particle swarm optimization algorithm, a genetic algorithm and an ant colony optimization algorithm on the operation data set to generate the flight trajectory and the movement trajectory.
Tang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing device performs at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a particle swarm optimization algorithm, a genetic algorithm and an ant colony optimization algorithm on the operation data set to generate the flight trajectory and the movement trajectory (see at least [0032, 0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Tang into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of generating the optimal operation path with the shortest flight distance (Tang – [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device performs at least one of a particle swarm optimization algorithm, a genetic algorithm and an ant colony optimization algorithm on the operation data set to generate the at least one of the operation process corresponding to the output operation of the at least one drone, the shortest flight duration of the at least one drone, the take-off location and the landing location of the at least one drone, the replenishment timing of the operation payload, the charging time of the at least one drone and the number of charging cycles of the at least one drone.
Tang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing device performs at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a particle swarm optimization algorithm, a genetic algorithm and an ant colony optimization algorithm on the operation data set (see at least [0032, 0045] - genetic algorithm and ant colony algorithm) to generate the at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) the operation process corresponding to the output operation of the at least one drone, the shortest flight duration of the at least one drone (see at least [0045] – shortest flight distance), the take-off location and the landing location of the at least one drone, the replenishment timing of the operation payload, the charging time of the at least one drone and the number of charging cycles of the at least one drone.
The motivation to combine Wake and Tang are the same as in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wake in view of Wang, Hamer, Bayer, and Stolarz (US 11,857,987 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Wake does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to control the at least one camera to capture a second image before controlling the at least one drone to perform the output operation, control the at least one camera to capture a third image after controlling the at least one drone to perform the output operation, and compare the second image and the third image to determine a cleanliness level of the target object.
Stolarz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the computing device is further configured to control the at least one camera to capture a second image before controlling the at least one drone to perform the output operation, control the at least one camera to capture a third image after controlling the at least one drone to perform the output operation, and compare the second image and the third image to determine a cleanliness level of the target object (see at least column 9, lines 30-43 and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Stolarz into the invention of Wake with a reasonable expectation of success because UAVs have been used to perform a variety of complex tasks such as cleaning which eliminates or reduces the need for an individual to perform the tedious and time-consuming task (Stolarz – column 1, line 64 – column 2, line 13), and the comparison of images ensures that the cleaning achieves the desired results without damage (Stolarz – column 9, lines 30-43).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7 filed 12/3/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues: that amended claim 1 now recites feature A "the preset distance is smaller than a height of the target object" and feature B "the height of the target object is smaller than a preset height and the preset distance is not smaller than the height of the target object". Because features A and B are opposing in nature, the cited references do not teach or suggest any embodiment that could simultaneously include both feature A and feature B. Bayer does not disclose the relationship between the height of the target object and a nearest distance used to determine whether to control the drone (guided attachment) to stay at a set location and therefore Bayer does not disclose feature A of the present application. Han does not disclose the relationship between the height of the target object and a nearest distance used to determine whether to control the drone (guided attachment) to stay at a set location and therefore Han does not disclose feature B of the present application.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. It is first noted, that amended claim 1 does not recite feature A "the preset distance is smaller than a height of the target object" and feature B "the height of the target object is smaller than a preset height and the preset distance is not smaller than the height of the target object" as Applicant asserts. Amended claim 1 recites feature A or feature B. According to broadest reasonable interpretation, amended claim 1 only requires feature A or feature B, and therefore Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited references not teaching or suggesting any embodiment that could simultaneously include both feature A and feature B (which are opposing in nature) are directed towards limitations that are not specifically recited in the claims and are therefore moot. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually (Bayer with regards to feature A and Han with regards to feature B), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner relies upon Wang for the limitation regarding controlling the at least one drone to stay at the set location when a distance between the target location and the set location is less than a preset distance for spraying crops. The examiner relies upon Bayer to teach that that the distance can be smaller than a height of the target object (i.e., feature A, which recites that the drone is spaced from the plant/crop by a distance less than the height of the plant/crop). The examiner relies upon Han to teach that a height of the target object is smaller than a preset height and the preset distance is not smaller than the height of the target object (i.e., feature B, which recites that the drone is higher than the plant/crop and spaced from the plant/crop by a distance greater than the height of the plant/crop). Selecting these heights/distances from which to spray is greatly dependent on the chemical being sprayed, the type/size of spraying device being used, and the type/size of crop/plant being sprayed. For shorter ground cover crops that have no exposed soil it may be more desirable to spray a wider coverage from a greater height (i.e., as in feature B). For certain more accurate spraying of specific parts of plants/crops or for larger plants/crops (such as trees) that are spaced far apart it may be more desirable to get closer to the tree so that overspray onto the ground is reduced (i.e., as in feature A). There are various scenarios where feature A would be advantageous and various scenarios where feature B would be advantageous.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669