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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/23/2026 has been entered.
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/02/2026. Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination. This action is made non-final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach all claim limitations of the independent claims 1, 19, and 20; as amended. Applicant alleges that the cited prior art does not teach, “sending, by the processing system in response to receiving a signal from the second unmanned aerial vehicle that indicates that the second unmanned aerial vehicle has captured the image of the flash of light, a dataset to a centralized computing device, wherein the dataset includes at least: the image of the flash of light and an elevation setting of the first unmanned aerial vehicle at a time of capture of the image of the flash of light by the second unmanned aerial vehicle.” Accordingly, independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are allowable as are dependent claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration the examiner would reject independent claim 1 as obvious under 35 USC 103. Yamada in view of Harvey (GB-2535162-A), previously included as relevant art with a copy provided with the office action mailed on 11/28/2025, would teach the new limitations. Pages 3-5 of Harvey teach a UAV system that is used to determine line-of-sight (LOS) between a first and second location. This is accomplished by using a transmitter to flash a beam of light to the location of the receiver capturing images of a transmitted beam of light at the second location. As Harvey teaches in “BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION” these LOS surveys using UAVs allow the survey to be completed before significant infrastructure is installed at the secondary location. This UAV system can substantially reduce the amount of time and effort required to find additional locations for mast locations. This Claims 19 and 20 would be obvious for the same rationale as they use similar language. Please see the section below titled, “Claim Rejections 35 USC 103,” for detailed mapping and explanation. Dependent claims 2-18 would remain rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP-2018074248-A) in view of Harvey (GB-2535162-A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a method comprising: determining, by a processing system of a first unmanned aerial vehicle including at least one processor, ([0041] teaches a first unmanned vehicle, equipped with a processor.) current coordinates and a current elevation setting of the first unmanned aerial vehicle, ([0050] teaches that the drone is equipped with a GPS system that can provide the latitude, longitude, and altitude information to the processing system of a drone) wherein the first unmanned aerial vehicle is to be deployed at a candidate location for a microwave radio dish; ([0033]-[0039], [0050], and [0058] teach the use of a pair of drones to determine the locations of possible relay stations for communication equipment based on a line-of-sight propagation test, where one drone is at a first position which corresponds to either a current or future antenna location and the other drone is at the corresponding current or future antenna location)
receiving, by the processing system, expected coordinates and an expected elevation setting of a second unmanned aerial vehicle ([0041] teaches the use of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles. [0059] teaches that the processor is aware of a first and second test position, one for each drone. These test positions have the coordinates and altitude of a drone associated with them. [0083] teaches the drones in communication with a network that shares with each drone the location information of the other drone) that is deployed to a location of an existing cellular base station; ([0033]-[0039], [0050], and [0058] teach the use of a pair of drones to determine the locations of possible relay stations for communication equipment based on a line-of-sight propagation test, where one drone is at a first position which corresponds to either a current or future antenna location and the other drone is at the corresponding current or future antenna location)
controlling, by the processing system, an optical system of the first unmanned aerial vehicle to generate a flash of light directed toward the expected coordinates and expected elevation setting of the second unmanned aerial vehicle ([0058] teaches the processor of the UAV determining the necessary angle to flash the second UAV with light. [0087] further teaches this is based on the location of the drones relative to each other) wherein the flash of light serves as a trigger that causes the second unmanned aerial vehicle to capture an image of the flash of light; ([0077] and [0087]-[0088] teach the second drone, in reaction to being flashed, as detected the flash and outputting an image of the flash location and information. [0123]-[0124] further teach the system determining that the drone has been flashed by the other drone) and
sending, by the processing system in response to receiving a signal from the second unmanned aerial vehicle that indicates that the second unmanned aerial vehicle has captured the image of the flash of light, ([0123] teaches the system determining that the drone has detected the flash. [0124] teaches the second drone sending a signal to the first drone that it has detected the flash of light) a dataset to a centralized computing device, wherein the dataset includes at least: ([0090] teaches the system collecting the coordinate information of the drone and storing it, at the time that the flash is detected. [0130] teaches the drones outputting their data in a “download step” to an external database. This databased includes all information relating to the testing such as latitude, longitude, altitude, additional photographs, etc. This download step occurs at the end of the test, which is not required to have more than one location tested. Additionally,[0088] and [0100] teach the system receiving stored data output from the detection device, which is the camera that detects the flash of light from the other drone.)
Yamada does not teach [wherein the dataset includes]…the image of the flash of light.
However, Harvey teaches “[wherein the dataset includes]…the image of the flash of light.” (Page 3, Paragraph 4, teaches a remote UAV having a receiver. This receiver captures data from a transmitter. This receiver, which is a camera, outputs the captured data to a remote system. This would include images/video of the transmitter, i.e. the flash of light. Page 4 paragraph 12 teaches that the transmitter is a high powered lamp that shines on the UAV. Page 5, paragraph 1 shows that the UAV is transmitting the signal to the outside device including the lamp in the image. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yamada with Harvey; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to drone based measurement systems. These systems employ one or more drones to observe and measure data at remote locations. As Harvey teaches in “BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION” these LOS surveys using UAVs allow the survey to be completed before significant infrastructure is installed at the secondary location or even the primary location. This UAV system can substantially reduce the amount of time and effort required to find additional locations for mast locations. The capturing of the images ensures that the LOS between points is clear of vegetation or other obstructions.
Claims 19 and 20 are substantially similar as claim 1 and would be rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the current elevation setting of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the expected elevation setting of the second unmanned aerial vehicle comprises an above ground level setting. ([0058] teaches the UAVs at locations that include an altitude, which is understood to mean a height above ground level)
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processing system, a plurality of elevation settings from the centralized computing device. ([0059] teaches the UAVs receiving a plurality of test positions, each test position has an altitude that, i.e. the system has a plurality of elevations)
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of elevation settings includes a starting elevation setting and an ending elevation setting that is different from the starting elevation setting. ([0028] and [0115] teach the system as testing multiple altitudes at many different heights with different starting and endings)
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the starting elevation setting is lower than the ending elevation setting. ([0028] teach the system as starting and ending at different elevations one is lower than the other)
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of elevation settings includes pairs of elevation settings, and wherein each pair of the pairs of elevation settings includes an elevation setting for the first unmanned aerial vehicle and a corresponding elevation setting for the second unmanned aerial vehicle. ([0059]-[0060] teaches the testing occurring at two corresponding positions, these include altitudes that the first and second UAV move to and occur in pairs of elevation)
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the starting elevation comprises an elevation at which the processing system is expected to perform a first iteration of the determining, the receiving, the calculating, the adjusting, and the sending, and the ending elevation setting comprises an elevation at which the processing system is expected to perform a final iteration of the receiving, the calculating, the adjusting, and the sending. ([0114]-[0115] teach the system as performing multiple tests at each location where the starting position is the first that the test is performed, including all the steps, and the system repeats at each location a number of times N)
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of elevation settings includes at least one elevation setting that is between the starting elevation setting and the ending elevation setting, and the processing system is expected to perform at least one additional iteration of the determining, the receiving, the calculating, the adjusting, and the sending at the at least one elevation setting. ([0114]-[0115] teaches the system performing the visibility test a number N of times, this would include intermediate elevation settings that the UAVs would perform the testing at.)
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the image is a video image. ([0088] teaches the image is a video image)
Regarding claim 12, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the flash of light is generated by a mirror mounted to the first unmanned aerial vehicle. ([0046] teaches the flash being generated by a mirror mounted on the UAV)
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches the method of claim 12, wherein an angle at which to position the mirror to reflect sunlight toward the second unmanned aerial vehicle to generate the flash of light is calculated by an on-board chip of the first unmanned aerial vehicle based on knowledge of a sun position and knowledge of a position of the second unmanned aerial vehicle. ([0058] teaches a sun position calculation unit that obtains information about the location of the UAV and the sun in relation in order to calculate the angle to adjust the mirror to reflect the sunlight)
Regarding claim 14, Yamada teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the position of the second unmanned aerial vehicle is transmitted in a plurality of coordinates sent by the centralized computing device to the processing system. ([0098]-[0100] teaches a central server that can communicate with the UAVs that includes sending test location information, i.e. UAV positions)
Regarding claim 15, Yamada teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the position of the second unmanned aerial vehicle is transmitted directly by the second unmanned aerial vehicle to the processing system. ([0083] teaches the second UAV communicating information directly to the first UAV)
Regarding claim 16, Yamada teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the second unmanned aerial vehicle communicate with each other over a cellular communications network. ([0053] teaches the UAVs communicating via a cellular network)
Regarding claim 17, Yamada teaches the method of claim 12, wherein a mount that couples the mirror to the first unmanned aerial vehicle performs rotations and pivots. ([0078]-[0079] teach that the mirror mount can be rotated/pivoted in relation to the first UAV)
Regarding claim 18, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the flash of light is generated by a light source mounted to the first unmanned aerial vehicle. ([0141]-[0143] teaches that the UAV can be equipped with a light outputting device rather than a mirror)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada and Harvey in view of Kreitinger (US PG Pub 2022/0082495).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamada and Harvey teaches the method of claim 7.
The combination of Yamada and Harvey does not teach wherein the corresponding elevation setting for the second unmanned aerial vehicle is equal to the elevation setting for the first unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Kreitinger teaches “wherein the corresponding elevation setting for the second unmanned aerial vehicle is equal to the elevation setting for the first unmanned aerial vehicle.” ([0036] teaches a pair of drones moving together at an equal height for a survey operation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yamada and Harvey with Kreitinger; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of a plurality of drones as they survey an area. Both UAV systems survey at multiple altitudes. Keeping the UAVs at the same height for a period ensures that the measurements are reliable and that the measured altitudes for a LOS survey are level. As [0036] of Kreitinger teaches the use of the same heights may be based on pathing in order to prevent excess movement.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada and Harvey in view of Singh (US PG Pub 2017/0013413).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yamada and Harvey teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Yamada and Harvey does not teach wherein the image is a still image.
However, Singh teaches “wherein the image is a still image.” ([0018] teaches a drone capturing a still image of a line of sight target during a survey operation)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Yamada and Harvey with Singh; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of UAVs for surveying in relation to a microwave dish. As Singh teaches in [0018] the use of a camera to take a picture can show a full Line-of-Sight for the operator. The use of the still image allows an operator to ensure that there is an uninterrupted lane between a position and a microwave dish.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohtomo (US PG Pub 2018/0081056) teaches the invention provides a UAV measuring apparatus, which comprises a flying vehicle, a laser scanner mounted on the flying vehicle and for performing two-dimensional scanning with a reference optical axis extending in an approximately vertically downward direction as the center, an image pickup unit having an image pickup optical axis parallel to the reference optical axis and a control arithmetic component, wherein the control arithmetic component is configured to synchronize the two-dimensional scanning performed by the laser scanner with an image pickup performed by the image pickup unit, and to correspond a scanning locus obtained by the two-dimensional scanning with an acquired image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights