DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/02/2026. Claim(s) 1, 6, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination. This action is made final.
It appears that claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended more than the applicant has indicated. Looking at claim 1, new changes to the limitations now recite, “determining, by a processing system of a first unmanned aerial vehicle including at least one processor, current coordinates and a current elevation setting of the first unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the first unmanned aerial vehicle is to be deployed at a candidate location for a microwave radio dish;” (completely new limitation) “receiving, by the processing system, expected coordinates and an expected elevation setting of a second unmanned aerial vehicle that is deployed to a location of an existing cellular base station;” (large revisions to the language) and multiple removals throughout the claims of the phrase, “a location of” (changes in scope). These newly added/amended limitations are not properly marked up to indicate the changes they introduce to the claims, see MPEP 714.II.C.(B). However, as applicant included a listing of the claims in the remarks, see Pages 9-11, as well, which recites these limitations, the examiner has examined the claims with these limitation amendments as presented. Claims 19 and 20 recite similar in scope limitations also missing the proper markings.
Claims 2, 8, and 9 had minor amendments, as well, which were not properly identified with markings and the claims not properly identified with the correct status identifiers, see MPEP 714.II.C.(A).
Applicant is reminded that they must properly mark all amendments and is warned that any further correspondence that fails this will be treated as a non-compliant amendment.
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 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 filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner cited Yamada (JP-2018074248-A) to teach these limitations. Looking at the teachings of Yamada the examiner finds the applicant’s argument unpersuasive. Applicant has laid out three reason’s that Yamada fails to teach this.
First the applicant alleges that, “the signal received by the first unmanned arial vehicle of Yamada from the second unmanned aerial vehicle indicates that the second unmanned aerial vehicle has detected the flash, and not that the second unmanned aerial vehicle has captured an image of the flash.” (Emphasis provided by applicant.) The applicant appears to be making a distinction without a difference. The cited portions of Yamada about detecting the flash are [0077] and [0087]-[0088]. In [0088] Yamada says, “The detection determination unit 186 receives the video information output from the detection unit 158.” Yamada teaches the second vehicle continuously capturing images of the flash direction. [0088] further teaches the system, “determine whether or not the image information contains reflected light 118 emitted from the mirror.” Looking at [0123]-[0124] of Yamada, the system “determines whether or not the detection unit 158 has detect the reflected light,” and “outputs a signal indicating that it has determined that the reflected light 118 has been detected.” As this is a video capture system, it would be implicit that if the signal detects a light the system has also captured an image of the light. Therefore the first point of the applicant’s argument fails to persuade the examiner.
Second the applicant alleges that, “the image captured by the second unmanned aerial vehicle of Yamada is an image of the area vertically below the second unmanned aerial vehicle, and not an image of the flash generated by the first unmanned aerial vehicle.” (Emphasis provided by applicant.) Looking again at the portions of Yamada cited about capturing the flash, not sending the signal, it recites, “The detection determination unit 186 receives the video information output from the detection unit 158.” Furthering this [0077] teaches, “the detector 158 is a detector that detects the reflected light 118 emitted from the mirror 110. The detection unit 158 is, for example, a camera equipped with an image sensor.” [0087] adds, “the detection unit 158 faces the direction of the first unmanned aerial vehicle 102.” Looking at the cited portions of Yamada it clearly lays out a system in which a second aerial vehicle adjusts its detector to face a first vehicle and capture an image of the area that the first vehicle is occupying. The images captured by Yamada would include the flash, the fact that the system of Yamada can further capture images of the ground does not preclude it from teaching the claims, rather it is an additional feature that Yamada has. Therefore the second point of the applicant’s argument fails to persuade the examiner.
Third the applicant alleges that, “the action taken by the first unmanned aerial vehicle of Yamada in response to the signal from the second unmanned aerial vehicle is to take a photo of the area vertically below the first unmanned aerial vehicle, and not to send a centralized computing device an elevation setting of the first unmanned aerial vehicle at a time of the image capture by the second unmanned aerial vehicle.” (Emphasis provided by applicant.) However, the examiner believes that Yamada does teach the sending of data. While the first drone will capture images in response to receiving the signal, it will also save the relevant data. Looking at [0090] Yamada teaches the system to store all relevant data to the visibility test performed, including altitude. As [0130] adds, “the controller control device 208 downloads the information stored…in the visibility result.” Yamada stores the altitude of the vehicles captured at every instance in time and will transmit this data at the conclusion of the test. The test does not require more than one location therefore it would be implicitly understood that the aerial vehicles in Yamada could transmit information relating to themselves to a central processor at any point in time, after concluding the test, i.e. receiving the flash signal determination. Accordingly, the third point of the applicant’s argument fails to persuade the examiner.
In light of the above, the examiner is not persuaded by the applicant. Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 would remain rejected by Yamada. Dependent claims 2-18 would remain rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP-2018074248-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)
calculating, by the processing system, an angle necessary to direct a flash of light from the first unmanned aerial vehicle 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)
adjusting, by the processing system, a current angle of an optical system of the first unmanned aerial vehicle to match the angle that is calculated; ([0047]-[0048] and [0059]-[0067] teaches the UAV controlling a series of motors to adjust the optical system in order to match the calculated angle)
controlling, by the processing system, the optical system to generate the flash of light once the current angle of the optical system matches the angle that is calculated, ([0059] teaches that the optical system is a mirror that flashes light to illuminates the second drone. As it is a mirror the flash is triggered when the angle matches) 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 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. ([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)
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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kreitinger (US PG Pub 2022/0082495).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches the method of claim 7.
Yamada 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 with Kreitinger; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both 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 in view of Singh (US PG Pub 2017/0013413).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches the method of claim 1.
Yamada 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 with Singh; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both 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.
Hernandez (US PG Pub 2021/0166376) teaches systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media that allow a user to easily generate survey mission plans for one or more UAVs and to capture high quality survey images, including those in the near infra-red, and stitch them into an orthomosaic having reduced geometric distortion. The generation of such orthomosaics allows the systems and methods disclosed herein to be particularly useful in applications where separation from the background of high reflective near infrared surfaces is important, such as identifying plants on soil and generating vegetation indices for precision agriculture applications.
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 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