Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-37 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 26 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-37 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 26 recite, in part, “… based on (i) an active laden flight profile, (ii) a current UAV context; and predicted response envelopes under payload load; and (iii) to modify…” but should instead recite --…based on (i) an active laden flight profile, (ii) a current UAV context; and (iii) predicted response envelopes under payload load; and
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitations “execute sensor fusion algorithms to fuse environmental sensor inputs with onboard UAV sensors and, where available, payload data; to estimate at least one of position, orientation and velocity of the UAV from fused sensor data; to generate flight modes, maneuver constraints and speed vectors based on (i) an active laden flight profile, (ii) a current UAV context; and predicted response envelopes under payload load; and (iii) to modify, constrain or block pilot commands based on at least one of said flight modes, maneuver constraints and speed vectors” is not described in the specification. The specification separately mentions sensor fusion, various sensors, and payload data. The specification also separately mentions estimating position, orientation or velocity. The specification also separately mentions a laden flight profile and speed vectors. However, the specification does not appear to support these specific limitations recited in amended claims 1 and 26 as a whole.
In view of the above, dependent claims 2-25 and 27-37 are also rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim(s) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required to remedy the above-referenced deficiencies.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1 and 26, the phrase “where available” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 26 also recite “maneuver constraints and speed vectors” in the final line of the claims. It is unclear if these are the same as the maneuver constraints and speed vectors that were previously introduced in the claims, or different. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claims will be interpreted to read --the maneuver constraints and the speed vectors--.
In view of the above, dependent claims 2-25 and 27-37 are also rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim(s) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required to remedy the above-referenced deficiencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have properly overcome the previous double patenting and obviousness and thus they have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAVID MEHDIZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-7691. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, James Trammell can be reached on (571)-272-6712. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights