DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-29, 31-37, and 39-40 are pending in this application.
Claims 40 is currently amended.
No claims are newly presented.
Claim 38 is newly cancelled.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 29, 31-32, 34-36, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara (US 20200348697 A1) in view of Deluca (US 20200242946 A1) (the combination of which is referenced as “combination Kuhara” hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 21, Kuhara teaches a method of:
providing location information, representing a geographic location, to a drone (Kuhara: ¶ 036; an obtainer that obtains area information indicating an area, entry to which by the moving object is undesirable;) to cause the drone to navigate to the geographic location; (Kuhara: ¶ 089; Flight controller 114 according to Embodiment 1 causes unmanned aircraft 1 to move to the position, determined by movement prohibition position determiner) processing images obtained at the geographic location (Kuhara: ¶ 237; the dangerous area information obtainer analyzes an image outputted from the camera included in unmanned aircraft 1 to determine whether the imaging area of the camera is a dangerous area.) to determine an exclusion area; (Kuhara: ¶ 256; entry prohibited area 4 is an dangerous area, etc. in the disaster-stricken area.) (Kuhara: Fig. 004; [[showing an exclusion zone]])
While Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
detecting a respective drone within a first threshold distance from the geographic location; generating, using the exclusion area and for the respective drone from one or more drones, respective instructions for a drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action to reduce a likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area; and in response to detecting the respective drone within the first threshold distance from the geographic location, providing, to the respective drone from the one or more drones, the instructions for the drone action to cause the respective drone to perform the drone action
with respect to a drone; however, Deluca does teach:
detecting a respective drone within a first threshold distance from the geographic location; (Deluca: ¶ 035-036; First UAV 100a advertises a task-oriented intent while executing the flight plan, e.g., while flying in the vicinity of the area . . . intent data may include . . . global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of area 101 [and] task category and/or task topic) (Deluca: ¶ 041; step 2.4 also includes determining whether the determined match (or matches) of the first intent data and the second intent data satisfy one or more threshold criteria [including] requiring a match in. . . region coordinates.) generating, using the exclusion area and for the respective drone from one or more drones, respective instructions for a drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action to reduce a likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area; and (Deluca: ¶ 051; after both operators agree to the collaboration . . . the first controller 120a may send configuration data to the first UAV 100a that causes the first UAV 100a to collect data from area 101a, and the second controller 120b may send configuration data to the second UAV 100b that causes the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b.) in response to detecting the respective drone within the first threshold distance from the geographic location, (Deluca: ¶ 041) providing to the respective drone from the one or more drones, the instructions for the drone action to cause the respective drone to perform the drone action. (Deluca: ¶ 039-040; second UAV 100b parses and analyzes the data included in the intent message that was received from the first UAV 100a. According to aspects of the invention, the operator of the second UAV 100b defines a flight plan for the second UAV 100b in a manner to that described with respect to step 2.1 [including] comparing the region coordinates of the first intent data to the region coordinates of the second intent data . . . similar region coordinates as defined by having overlapping coordinates or coordinates within a predefined distance of one another; similar task category)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Deluca with the teachings of Kuhara because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of more effective completion of tasks by “division of work [through] coverage boundaries (e.g., specific regions within the area” (Deluca: ¶ 011).
Regarding claim 22, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Deluca further teaches:
wherein generating the instructions for the drone action comprises: generating instructions that cause the drone to monitor the exclusion area. (Deluca: ¶ 053; the collaboration module 126 is configured to cause the first controller 120a to generate an alert (e.g., an audible and/or visual alert) that indicates the deviation from the terms of the collaboration plan.)
Regarding claim 23, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 22. Deluca further teaches:
wherein generating the instructions that cause the drone to monitor the exclusion area comprises: generating instructions that cause the drone to monitor an area that includes the exclusion area for an entity approaching or in the exclusion area. (Deluca: ¶ 055; techniques described herein may be used to discover when a third UAV comes within range of the first and second UAVs.)
Regarding claim 29, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Deluca further teaches:
wherein generating the instructions for the drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action comprises: generating a first instruction that causes the respective drone to move to an area within a second threshold distance from the geographic location; and generating a second instruction that causes the respective drone to capture audio emitted from the entity (Deluca: ¶ 051; after both operators agree to the collaboration . . . the first controller 120a may send configuration data to the first UAV 100a that causes the first UAV 100a to collect data from area 101a, and the second controller 120b may send configuration data to the second UAV 100b that causes the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b.) Deluca: ¶ 029; The at least one sensor 112 may comprise any suitable sensor(s) for capturing desired data, including but not limited to a video sensor (e.g., a camera) and/or an audio sensor (e.g., a microphone).)
Regarding claim 31, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Kuhara further teaches:
wherein providing the instructions for the drone action comprises: providing the instructions to the drone that navigated to the geographic location. (Kuhara: ¶ 089; flight controller 114 causes unmanned aircraft 1 to move to the position between entry prohibited area 4 and suspicious person 2 and fly at such destination position. Flight controller 114 controls the flight of unmanned aircraft 1 in accordance with: a flight program that is previously set; a flight control signal received from communication unit 105; control instructions from various components included in controller 11; and so forth)
Regarding claim 32, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Deluca teaches:
wherein processing the images obtained at the geographic location to determine the exclusion area (Deluca: ¶ 051; after both operators agree to the collaboration . . . the first controller 120a may send configuration data to the first UAV 100a that causes the first UAV 100a to collect data from area 101a, and the second controller 120b may send configuration data to the second UAV 100b that causes the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b.)
and Kuhara teaches
comprises: processing the images to identify a fire. (Kuhara: ¶ 237; the dangerous area information obtainer analyzes an image outputted from the camera included in unmanned aircraft 1 to determine whether the imaging area of the camera is a dangerous area.)
Regarding claim 34, Kuhara teaches a system comprising:
one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: (Kuhara: ¶ 261; executing the program by use of hardware resources of the computer, such a CPU, a memory, an input-output circuit,) providing location information, representing a geographic location, (Kuhara: ¶ 036; an obtainer that obtains area information indicating an area, entry to which by the moving object is undesirable;) to a drone to cause the drone to navigate to the geographic location; (Kuhara: ¶ 089; Flight controller 114 according to Embodiment 1 causes unmanned aircraft 1 to move to the position, determined by movement prohibition position determiner) processing images obtained at the geographic location to (Kuhara: ¶ 237; the dangerous area information obtainer analyzes an image outputted from the camera included in unmanned aircraft 1 to determine whether the imaging area of the camera is a dangerous area.)
While Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
detecting a respective drone within a first threshold distance from the geographic location; generating, using the exclusion area and for the respective drone from one or more drones, respective instructions for a drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action to reduce a likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area; and in response to detecting the respective drone within the first threshold distance from the geographic location
with respect to a drone; however, Deluca does teach:
detecting a respective drone within a first threshold distance from the geographic location; (Deluca: ¶ 035-036; First UAV 100a advertises a task-oriented intent while executing the flight plan, e.g., while flying in the vicinity of the area . . . intent data may include . . . global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of area 101 [and] task category and/or task topic) (Deluca: ¶ 041; step 2.4 also includes determining whether the determined match (or matches) of the first intent data and the second intent data satisfy one or more threshold criteria [including] requiring a match in. . . region coordinates.) generating, using the exclusion area and for the respective drone from one or more drones, respective instructions for a drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action to reduce a likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area;(Deluca: ¶ 051; after both operators agree to the collaboration . . . the first controller 120a may send configuration data to the first UAV 100a that causes the first UAV 100a to collect data from area 101a, and the second controller 120b may send configuration data to the second UAV 100b that causes the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b.) and in response to detecting the respective drone within the first threshold distance from the geographic location (Deluca: ¶ 041) providing, to the respective drone from the one or more drones, the instructions for the drone action to cause the respective drone to perform the drone action. (Deluca: ¶ 039-040; second UAV 100b parses and analyzes the data included in the intent message that was received from the first UAV 100a. According to aspects of the invention, the operator of the second UAV 100b defines a flight plan for the second UAV 100b in a manner to that described with respect to step 2.1 [including] comparing the region coordinates of the first intent data to the region coordinates of the second intent data . . . similar region coordinates as defined by having overlapping coordinates or coordinates within a predefined distance of one another; similar task category)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Deluca with the teachings of Kuhara because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of more effective completion of tasks by “division of work [through] coverage boundaries (e.g., specific regions within the area” (Deluca: ¶ 011).
Regarding claim 35, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 34. Deluca further teaches:
generating instructions that cause the drone to monitor the exclusion area. (Deluca: ¶ 053; the collaboration module 126 is configured to cause the first controller 120a to generate an alert (e.g., an audible and/or visual alert) that indicates the deviation from the terms of the collaboration plan.)
Regarding claim 36, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 35. Deluca further teaches:
wherein generating the instructions that cause the drone to monitor the exclusion area comprises: generating instructions that cause the drone to monitor an area that includes the exclusion area for an entity approaching or in the exclusion area. (Deluca: ¶ 055; techniques described herein may be used to discover when a third UAV comes within range of the first and second UAVs.)
Regarding claim 40, Kuhara teaches a system comprising:
computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: (Kuhara: ¶ 261; executing the program by use of hardware resources of the computer, such a CPU, a memory, an input-output circuit,) providing location information, representing a geographic location (Kuhara: ¶ 036; an obtainer that obtains area information indicating an area, entry to which by the moving object is undesirable;) to determine an exclusion area; (Kuhara: ¶ 256; entry prohibited area 4 is an dangerous area, etc. in the disaster-stricken area.) (Kuhara: Fig. 004; [[showing an exclusion zone]])
While Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
detecting a respective drone within a first threshold distance from the geographic location; generating, using the exclusion area and for the respective drone from one or more drones, respective instructions for a drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action to reduce a likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area; and in response to detecting the respective drone within the first threshold distance from the geographic location, providing, to the respective drone from the one or more drones, the instructions for the drone action to cause the respective drone to perform the drone action.
with respect to a drone; however, Deluca does teach:
detecting a respective drone within a first threshold distance from the geographic location; (Deluca: ¶ 035-036; First UAV 100a advertises a task-oriented intent while executing the flight plan, e.g., while flying in the vicinity of the area . . . intent data may include . . . global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of area 101 [and] task category and/or task topic) (Deluca: ¶ 041; step 2.4 also includes determining whether the determined match (or matches) of the first intent data and the second intent data satisfy one or more threshold criteria [including] requiring a match in. . . region coordinates.)generating, using the exclusion area and for the respective drone from one or more drones, respective instructions for a drone action that cause the respective drone to perform the drone action to reduce a likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area; (Deluca: ¶ 051; after both operators agree to the collaboration . . . the first controller 120a may send configuration data to the first UAV 100a that causes the first UAV 100a to collect data from area 101a, and the second controller 120b may send configuration data to the second UAV 100b that causes the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b.)and in response to detecting the respective drone within the first threshold distance from the geographic location, (Deluca: ¶ 041)providing, to the respective drone from the one or more drones, the instructions for the drone action to cause the respective drone to perform the drone action.(Deluca: ¶ 039-040; second UAV 100b parses and analyzes the data included in the intent message that was received from the first UAV 100a. According to aspects of the invention, the operator of the second UAV 100b defines a flight plan for the second UAV 100b in a manner to that described with respect to step 2.1 [including] comparing the region coordinates of the first intent data to the region coordinates of the second intent data . . . similar region coordinates as defined by having overlapping coordinates or coordinates within a predefined distance of one another; similar task category)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Deluca with the teachings of Kuhara because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of more effective completion of tasks by “division of work [through] coverage boundaries (e.g., specific regions within the area” (Deluca: ¶ 011).
Claims 24-26, 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Kuhara as applied to claims 21 and 34 respectively above, and further in view of Aker (US 20220221398 A1).
Regarding claim 24, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
comprises: obtaining weather data representing weather at the geographic location, wherein determining the exclusion area uses the obtained weather data.; however, Aker does teach:
wherein determining the exclusion area comprises: obtaining weather data representing weather at the geographic location, (Aker: ¶ 042; may include a humidity sensor, a wind and/or water temperature sensor, a barometer,) wherein determining the exclusion area uses the obtained weather data. (Aker: ¶ 132; Mobile platform 110 and/or other elements of system 100 may be configured to monitor and log motion of mobile platform 110 and/or various environmental conditions (e.g., a local wind velocity) and compensate for such sensor time lag by linking analyte sensor data spatially and temporally to position data associated with mobile platform 110 (e.g., provided by GNSS 118). By providing such temporal compensation, embodiments are able to survey an particular survey area and/or analyte plume much faster than conventional systems,)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Aker with the teachings of Kuhara because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Kuhara and Aker ’s base methods are similar emergency response methods using drones to minimize human danger; however, Aker ’s method has been improved by considering the impact of weather on the specific risk profile. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Aker ’s known improvement to Kuhara using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because “hazard exposure can be limited through automatic course adjustment, thereby protecting mobile platform 110 and it associated sensor suite” (Aker: ¶ 121).
Regarding claim 25, as detailed above, combination Kuhara in view of Aker teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 24. Aker further teaches:
wherein obtaining the weather data representing weather at the geographic location comprises: obtaining the weather data from data captured by the drone. (Aker: ¶ 042; may include a humidity sensor, a wind and/or water temperature sensor, a barometer,)
Regarding claim 26, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
wherein processing the images to determine the exclusion area comprises identifying an emergency event, wherein processing the images comprises processing an image representing a label affixed to a container at the geographic location; and identifying the emergency event comprises identifying the emergency event as a potential hazardous exposure using the processing of the image representing the label; however, Aker does teach:
wherein processing the images to determine the exclusion area comprises identifying an emergency event, wherein processing the images comprises processing an image representing a label affixed to a container at the geographic location; and identifying the emergency event comprises identifying the emergency event as a potential hazardous exposure using the processing of the image representing the label (Aker: ¶ 133; configured to capture images of various types of chemical placards and related information, process the images to determine associated analyte characteristics, and determine analyte situation report and/or safety directives associated with the indicated analyte)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Aker with the teachings of Kuhara because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Kuhara and Aker ’s base methods are similar emergency response methods using drones to minimize human danger; however, Aker ’s method has been improved by considering the impact of the exact chemicals on the specific risk profile. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Aker ’s known improvement to Kuhara using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because would allow more accurate definition of the exclusion zone because “recommend[ing] a safe perimeter [is based on] the composition and/or estimated volume of the analyte and associated environmental conditions, such as identified flashpoints near or in tanker truck” (Aker: ¶ 135).
Regarding claim 37, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 34. Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
wherein the operations comprise obtaining weather data representing weather at the geographic location, wherein determining the exclusion area uses the obtained weather data; however, Aker does teach:
wherein the operations comprise obtaining weather data representing weather at the geographic location, (Aker: ¶ 042; may include a humidity sensor, a wind and/or water temperature sensor, a barometer,) wherein determining the exclusion area uses the obtained weather data (Aker: ¶ 132; Mobile platform 110 and/or other elements of system 100 may be configured to monitor and log motion of mobile platform 110 and/or various environmental conditions (e.g., a local wind velocity) and compensate for such sensor time lag by linking analyte sensor data spatially and temporally to position data associated with mobile platform 110 (e.g., provided by GNSS 118). By providing such temporal compensation, embodiments are able to survey an particular survey area and/or analyte plume much faster than conventional systems,)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Aker with the teachings of Kuhara because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Kuhara and Aker ’s base methods are similar emergency response methods using drones to minimize human danger; however, Aker ’s method has been improved by considering the impact of weather on the specific risk profile. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Aker ’s known improvement to Kuhara using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because “hazard exposure can be limited through automatic course adjustment, thereby protecting mobile platform 110 and it associated sensor suite” (Aker: ¶ 121).
Regarding claim 39, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 34. Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
wherein processing the images to determine the exclusion area comprises identifying an emergency event, wherein processing the images comprises processing an image representing a label affixed to a container at the geographic location; and identifying the emergency event comprises identifying the emergency event as a potential hazardous exposure using the processing of the image representing the label; however, Aker does teach:
wherein processing the images to determine the exclusion area comprises identifying an emergency event, wherein processing the images comprises processing an image representing a label affixed to a container at the geographic location; (Aker: ¶ 133; configured to capture images of various types of chemical placards and related information, process the images to determine associated analyte characteristics, and determine analyte situation report and/or safety directives associated with the indicated analyte) and identifying the emergency event comprises identifying the emergency event as a potential hazardous exposure using the processing of the image representing the label (Aker: ¶ 111; first responders typically need to assess hazardous situations and determine an extent of a related contamination or threat. Elements of system 100 can autonomously map the extents of the hazard gas and overlay resulting sensor data onto a geospatial chart, such that an operator can visualize the full extent of the hazard (e.g., a gas cloud) . . . and relay information about warning placards and related information and report specific threats and locations visually.) I
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Aker with the teachings of Kuhara because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Kuhara and Aker ’s base methods are similar emergency response methods using drones to minimize human danger; however, Aker ’s method has been improved by considering the impact of weather on the specific risk profile. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Aker ’s known improvement to Kuhara using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because “hazard exposure can be limited through automatic course adjustment, thereby protecting mobile platform 110 and it associated sensor suite” (Aker: ¶ 121).
Claims 27-28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Kuhara as applied to claims 21 and further in view of Culver (US 20220194581 A1).
Regarding claim 27, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
wherein generating the instructions for the drone action comprises: generating instructions for a first action that causes the respective drone to direct vehicle traffic for one or more detected vehicles at the geographic location.; however, Culver does teach:
wherein generating the instructions for the drone action comprises: generating instructions for a first action that causes the respective drone to direct vehicle traffic for one or more detected vehicles at the geographic location. (Culver: ¶ 096; traffic control message 1130 may warn drivers ahead of an accident, or notify drivers of a lane closure.) (Culver: Fig. 011; [[showing a sign directing traffic to merge ahead]])
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Culver with the teachings of Kuhara because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Kuhara and Culver’s base methods are similar emergency response methods using drones to minimize human danger; however, Culver’s method has been improved by redirecting traffic to prevent it from entering the danger zone. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Culver’s known improvement to Kuhara using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because “diverting traffic [allows] the emergency responders [to] safely perform their duties.” (Culver: ¶ 008).
Regarding claim 28, as detailed above, combination Kuhara in view of Culver teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 27. While neither Kuhara or Culver explicitly teach:
wherein generating the instructions for the first action comprises: generating a first instruction that causes the respective drone to move against a direction of traffic along a road; and generating a second instruction that causes the respective drone to provide information indicating an emergency event or the exclusion area to a vehicle detected traveling on the road of the one or more detected vehicles.
Culver does teach:
A system in which, in response to an emergency, a drone seeks to notify drivers of the danger (Culver: ¶ 088; camera 830 may be used to detect gas leaks, overheating equipment, fires, water leakage, etc.) through the use of transporting a sign throughout the city (Culver: ¶ 096; UAVs 1110A and 1110B may fly above the highway with traffic control message 1130. Alternatively, the UAVs may fly throughout a city to provide traffic control messages) informing them of the danger (Culver: ¶ 096; traffic control message 1130 may warn drivers ahead of an accident, or notify drivers of a lane closure.) and giving specific rerouting instructions (Culver: Fig. 011; [[showing a sign directing traffic to merge ahead]])
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Culver teaches or suggest the limitation of:
wherein generating the instructions for the first action comprises: generating a first instruction that causes the respective drone to move against a direction of traffic along a road; and generating a second instruction that causes the respective drone to provide information indicating an emergency event or the exclusion area to a vehicle detected traveling on the road of the one or more detected vehicles.
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the process of flying throughout a city, the drone would travel with, against, and crossing traffic at various times and therefore the specific act of travelling against traffic is taught.
Regarding claim 33, as detailed above, combination Kuhara teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 21. Kuhara does not explicitly teach:
wherein processing the images obtained at the geographic location to determine the exclusion area comprises: processing the images to identify a chemical spill; however, Culver does teach:
wherein processing the images obtained at the geographic location to determine the exclusion area (Culver: ¶ 158; UAV may also determine the extent of the accident by counting the number of cars that are not moving around the accident.) (Culver: ¶ 100; When a certain event or vehicle 1240 is recognized, UAV 1210 may transmit data to the display screen 1230 to display a particular message (e.g., “warning, drive slowly”) that is targeted to the particular person or vehicle) comprises: processing the images to identify a chemical spill (Culver: ¶ 109; UAV 1510 may also detect the presence of any hazardous material surrounding emergency event 1530 (e.g., gas spill, oil spill, fire, toxic chemicals, etc)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Culver with the teachings of Kuhara because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Kuhara and Culver’s base methods are similar emergency response methods using drones to minimize human danger; however, Culver’s method has been improved by identifying a chemical spill. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Culver’s known improvement to Kuhara using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because the UAV could “transmit data indicating the type of emergency event along with the location of the event” (Culver: ¶ 119) to improve the emergency response by triggering spill experts to respond.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed November 24, 2025 and December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
First, that a second UAV collects data from area 101b when the first UAV collected data from area 101a does not disclose or suggest a determination to do anything, let alone "determining to reduce a likelihood that an entity enters the exclusion area" as recited by claim 21 or even "controlling a second drone to avoid the search area of the first drone." Merely sending instructions for UAVs to collect data from different areas does not disclose any determination, let alone the specifically claimed determination to "to reduce a likelihood that an entity enters the exclusion area." . . . Second, the Office asserts that "Deluca teaches preventing a second drone from entering area 101 by redirecting the second drone to area 10lb . . ." Advisory Action at continuation sheet. But this assertion appears to be a characterization of what Deluca disclosed. Merely causing "the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b" does not disclose or suggest "redirecting the second drone" and a search of Deluca did not identify the term "redirect". (Applicant’s Arguments filed Dec. 30, 2025, pg. 7).
Previously applied art Deluca teaches a system where a first drone “. . . may send configuration data to the first UAV 100a that causes the first UAV 100a to collect data from area 101a, and the second controller 120b may send configuration data to the second UAV 100b that causes the second UAV 100b to collect data from area 101b.” Deluca: ¶ 051 (emphasis added). Deluca further teaches that when “a UAV is flying and collecting data autonomously (i.e., using flight plan data that is stored onboard the UAV, without manual input from the operator), then step 2.8 may include modifying the onboard flight plan data based on the terms of the collaboration plan.” Deluca: ¶ 052 (emphasis added). This flight plan contains “conventional items such as geographic coordinates of flight, flight altitude, and flight duration [and in some] embodiments, the flight plan data also includes intent data that defines a task-oriented intent.” Deluca: ¶ 033 (emphasis added). In other words, the first UAV transmits a modification of the geographical coordinates comprising a flight plan to a second drone to cause the second drone to collect data from area [101b] instead of [101b]. As can be seen from Deluca Fig. 2, area 101a and 101b non-overlapping.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that part of purpose of updating the geographical coordinates comprising a flight plan such to alter data collection to another geographical region would be to move the second drone to the second region because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a camera based (Deluca: ¶ 029) data gathering system would be improved by moving closer to the assigned observational area due to how optics work, and that moving from area [101a] to [101b] consistent with that would “ . . . reduce a likelihood that an entity enters the exclusion area” because being tasked further away to a non-overlapping area would decrease the likelihood of being in the former area. The claims do not require absolutely prohibition of entering the area, merely decreasing the likelihood of entry, which reassigning the drone further away does.
Consequently, the teaching of modifying a flight plan data (Deluca: ¶ 052) comprising geographic coordinates of flight (Deluca: ¶ 033) to re-task a second UAV to non-overlapping second area (Deluca: Fig. 2) would teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art “. . . generating, using data representing the exclusion area and for a drone, instructions for a drone action to reduce the likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area. . . “ because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that (1) Deluca’s area [101a] is an “exclusion area” and (2) Deluca’s modifying the onboard flight plan data comprising geographic coordinates of flight that causes the second UAV to collect data from area [101b] is “instructions for a drone action to reduce the likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area” because sending flight modifications to re-task a drone to another location would reduce the likelihood of an entity entering the exclusion area because the second drone would move based upon the updated instructions.
Applicant further argues:
Third, if the Office is arguing that the claimed determination is somehow inherent in the above cited disclosure of Deluca, the Office has not provided "rationale or evidence to show inherency" and such inherency is not there (Applicant’s Arguments filed Dec. 30, 2025, pg. 8).
The rejection under 25 USC 103 supra does not require a finding of inherency. Applied prior art Deluca explicitly teaches modifying the second drone’s flight plan data (Deluca: ¶ 052) comprising geographic coordinates of flight (Deluca: ¶ 033) to re-task a second UAV to non-overlapping second area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested that moving closer to the newly assigned area [101b] would result in more efficient optical data gathering than moving in any other direction because it is easier to observe things that are closer. The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” MPEP ¶ 2141.03(I) (Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988)). In the instant case, the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the purpose of the drone is to observe using a camera and moving closer to the assigned observation area would be beneficial and Deluca’s teaching of updating geographic coordinates of flight was meant to achieve this purpose because applying a known technique (moving close to an object to observe) to a known device ready for improvement (the second UAV) to yield predictable results (improved observation) is obvious. MPEP § 2141(III).
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Russo (US 20200193166 A1) which discloses a system that creates an emergency zone based on optical recognition of a left behind object or bag.
Also made of record is Hamm (US 20250256845 A1) which teaches a plurality of perimeter devices adapted to deploy from a vehicle and establish a perimeter by the vehicle in response to a triggering event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663