Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banga (US 20180197420 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Banga teaches an alert device (Banga, Fig. 3) comprising: at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (Banga, Para. 34, The aerial system identification module 613 is preferably a dynamic model that is updated with each new aerial system identification, but can alternatively be a substantially static model. The model is preferably developed using machine learning techniques on a processor 612, and the models may be stored on a local database 610 or a remote database 611) to: identify, from measurement data of a flying object by a sensor, a position of the flying object (Banga, Fig. 6, Para. 75, sensor measurements 306 (e.g., acoustic, visual, or electromagnetic measurements) from a set of sensors with known locations, wherein the aerial system location can be triangulated from the sensor measurements 306 (e.g., wherein the airspace identifier identifies the triangulated region)); determine whether the flying object is located within a predetermined region (Banga, Para. 58, determining that an aerial system has entered restricted airspace 200); determine whether a signal of a predetermined pattern assigned to a mission in the predetermined region is received from the flying object determined to be located within the predetermined region (Banga, Para. 39, In a first embodiment, the set of light emitting elements 604 emit modulated light, wherein the modulated light can be interpreted into the aerial system identifier 310. In a second embodiment, the set of light emitting elements 604 emit light pulses according to a predetermined pattern, wherein the predetermined pattern functions as the aerial system identifier 310); determine, in a case where no signal of the predetermined pattern is received from the flying object, that the flying object is an unpermitted flying object that is not permitted to enter the predetermined region (Banga, Para. 13, In operation, the wireless communication system receives an aerial system identifier signal 300 broadcast from an aerial system 100. The aerial system identifier 300 is checked against the permissions module 103, which determines whether the aerial system identifier 300 is associated with an authorized or unauthorized UAV; Para. 82, the disruption system 105 may thus be preemptively enabled if certain conditions are met (e.g. aerial system detected w/o an identifier 500, identifier is received but is invalid 501, identifier is valid but is not permissioned 502, etc.). Such a configuration would minimize any delays associated with powering on the disruption system 105 and thus allow the system to respond to fast moving aerial systems 100); and cause a light projection device to irradiate a position of the object with light (Banga, Para. 52, the interdiction module 304 includes collated light (e.g., a laser) that physically intercepts and burns the aerial system motive mechanism and/or electronics. The interdiction module 304 can include a single light source, multiple light sources (concurrently or asynchronously operated), or any suitable number of light sources arranged in any suitable configuration. The light sources can be part of a single stage system, wherein the light sources are mounted to and/or function as the firing mechanism. Alternatively, the light sources can be part of a two-stage system, wherein the light sources are encapsulated within a casing, the casing is launched from the launching mechanism 303, and the light sources emit light out of the casing while the casing is in flight. However, the light can be otherwise directed toward the target).
In regard to claim 2, Banga teaches the alert device according to claim 1, wherein the flying object to which the mission is given is configured to transmit a signal of the predetermined pattern assigned to the mission (Banga, Para. 39, the identification transmitter is a set of light emitting elements 604 (e.g., optical signal emitting elements). The light emitting elements 604 can be LEDs, OLEDs, incandescent light, or any other suitable light emitting element. The wavelength of the emitted light can be in the visual range and/or outside of the visual range. The emitted light can be encrypted, unencrypted, or otherwise secured. In a first embodiment, the set of light emitting elements 604 emit modulated light, wherein the modulated light can be interpreted into the aerial system identifier 310), the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine, in a case where the signal of the predetermined pattern is received from the flying object, that the flying object is a permitted flying object permitted to enter the predetermined region (Banga, Fig. 2, if the aerial system is permitted, disabling the disruption system 206; Para. 13, the wireless communication system receives an aerial system identifier signal 300 broadcast from a aerial system 100. The aerial system identifier 300 is checked against the permissions module 103, which determines whether the aerial system identifier 300 is associated with an authorized or unauthorized UAV); cause the light projection device not to irradiate a position of the flying object determined to be the permitted flying object (Banga, Para. 80, Controlling disruption system operation can include: selecting a disruption system operation mode based on the determined aerial system permission and controlling the disruption system operation to meet the selected mode. Selecting a disruption system operation mode based on the determined aerial system permission preferably includes: selecting an enabled operation mode in response to aerial system classification as not permitted (e.g., prohibited) and selecting a disabled operation mode in response to aerial system classification as permitted).
In regard to claim 3, Banga teaches the alert device according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined pattern is assigned in advance individually to the mission of the flying object in the predetermined region (Banga, Para. 17, The aerial system 100 is preferably associated with an aerial system identifier or ID 310 which may be transmitted via an aerial system identifier signal 300, but can alternatively be unidentified. The aerial system identifier signal 300 can be that transmitted by the identifier transmission system 101, be a permanent identifier for the aerial system 100 (e.g., a manufacturer-assigned identifier), or can be a different identifier).
In regard to claim 4, Banga teaches the alert device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive an identification signal indicating flying object identification information that is an identifier of the flying object, the identification signal being transmitted from the flying object (Banga, Fig. 6, Para. 40, the identification transmitter is an electromagnetic wave transmitter. The electromagnetic wave transmitter can include a chipset 605, an antenna 606, and/or any other suitable component. The chipset 605 can function to determine the aerial system identifier 310 (e.g., store the aerial system ID, generate the aerial system ID using an onboard processor 602, select an ID from a stored whitelist of SSIDs 603 etc.) and control the antenna 606 to broadcast a signal representative of the aerial system identifier 310).
In regard to claim 5, Banga teaches the alert device according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine the flying object indicated by the flying object identification information as the unpermitted flying object in a case where the flying object identification information indicated by the detected identification signal is not included in a working flying object list that is a list of flying object identification information about a flying object to which a mission in the predetermined region is assigned (Banga, Para. 79, the aerial system is deemed not permitted when the aerial system lacks an identifier, the identifier is not on the list of permitted aerial system identifiers for the airspace, or the identifier is on a list of prohibited aerial system identifiers for the airspace).
In regard to claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
In regard to claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3 as stated above.
In regard to claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4 as stated above.
In regard to claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5 as stated above.
In regard to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3 as stated above.
In regard to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4 as stated above.
In regard to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5 as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banga (US 20180197420 A1) in view of Shuichi (JP 04340583 A).
In regard to claim 6, Banga teaches the emitted signal is directed toward the aerial system 100, the aerial system identifier transmission system 101 reflects the signal, and the identification receiver 102 reads the reflected signal. In one example, the emitted signal can read a visual indicator (e.g., a barcode, flashing light, etc.) from the aerial system 100. The signal-emitting element can be: a light source (e.g., white light, spotlight, laser, etc.), an acoustic source (e.g., ultrasound source, 3m acoustic wave source, etc.), an electromagnetic wave source (e.g., radio wave source), or be any other suitable element capable of emitting a signal. The signal-emitting element can emit a directional signal, omnidirectional signal, or any other suitable signal (Para. 29); the identification transmitter is a set of light emitting elements 604 (e.g., optical signal emitting elements). The light emitting elements 604 can be LEDs, OLEDs, incandescent light, or any other suitable light emitting element. The wavelength of the emitted light can be in the visual range and/or outside of the visual range. The emitted light can be encrypted, unencrypted, or otherwise secured. In a first embodiment, the set of light emitting elements 604 emit modulated light, wherein the modulated light can be interpreted into the aerial system identifier 310. In a second embodiment, the set of light emitting elements 604 emit light pulses according to a predetermined pattern, wherein the predetermined pattern functions as the aerial system identifier 310. The aerial system 100 can include a single light emitting element on the aerial system exterior, a ring of light emitting elements, or any suitable number of light emitting elements arranged in any other suitable configuration. However, the light emitting elements 604 can otherwise function as the identification transmitter (Para. 39).
Banga does not specifically teach the alert device according to claim 1, wherein the flying object includes a predetermined shaped reflection site that emits light when irradiated with light of a predetermined wavelength in any direction, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to detect the predetermined shaped reflected light, as the signal of the predetermined pattern, from an image of the flying object irradiated with the light of the predetermined wavelength.
However, the concept of using identification sticker for identifying an object is well known in the art as also taught by Shuichi. Shuichi teaches an identification sticker characterized by being provided with a light-reflecting surface portion having a unique diffraction characteristic, and an identification structure using the identification sticker for identifying an object, the light-reflecting surface portion having a unique diffraction characteristic on its surface. an identification sticker provided with an identification sticker, a means for irradiating illumination light toward the light reflection surface portion, a means for receiving reflected light of the illumination light irradiated toward the light reflection surface portion, and the reflection received by the light reception means. An identification structure using an identification sticker, characterized in that the object has a means for identifying that the object is a legitimate object from the state of light, and an identification method using an identification sticker for identifying an object, irradiating illumination light toward the light-reflecting surface portion of an identification sticker, the surface of which is provided with a light-reflecting surface portion having unique diffraction characteristics, and receiving reflected light of the illumination light irradiated toward the light-reflecting surface portion (Para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known identification method with another (attach an identification sticker to an object for identifying an object as taught by Shuichi) resulting in predictable result of identifying the flying object.
In regard to claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6 as stated above.
In regard to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6 as stated above.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banga (US 20180197420 A1) in view of Hye Ri (KR 2020-0095416 A).
Banga does not teach the alert device according to claim 1, wherein the light projection device is mounted on another flying object.
However, the concept of having a search light mounted on a drone is well known in the art as also taught by Hye RI. Hye Ri teaches the search light 220 is mounted on the drone 200 to irradiate LED light (Page, 7, Para. 10); the leader drone 510 and the second sub-drone 532 to the n-th sub-drone 53n may irradiate a target using a searchlight and take a picture of the target through an infrared camera (Page 9, Para. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have light projection mounted on a flying object (as taught by Hye Ri) resulting in predictable result of irradiate a target.
In regard to claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7 as stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In that remarks, applicant's argues in substance:
Applicant argues: " In Banga, the predetermined pattern functions as an "aerial system identifier" that identifies a specific aerial system itself. See Banga, paragraph [0039]. Different aerial system identifiers are assigned to different aerial systems. As Banga explains, "[t]he aerial system identifier 310 preferably identifies an aerial system 100, and is preferably globally unique." See Banga, paragraph [0036]. Thus, in Banga, the predetermined pattern is device-specific that identifies the particular aerial system (i.e., the drone itself).
In contrast, the independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite "a signal of a predetermined pattern assigned to a mission in the predetermined region." The predetermined pattern is assigned to a mission, not to a specific flying object. As a result, a plurality of flying objects assigned to the same mission would transmit the same signal of the predetermined pattern assigned to that mission. This is fundamentally different from Banga, where each aerial system has its own unique identifier pattern.”
Examiner's Response: Examiner respectfully submits that claim is interpreted as multiple predetermined patterns associated with a plurality of flying objects can be assigned to a mission and claim recites determining whether a signal of a predetermined pattern associated with one flying object is received. Banga teaches the permissions module 103 can additionally function to determine whether the aerial system 100 has permission for a physical volume (e.g., restricted airspace 301ab) or a mission, and/or generate operation permissions for the disruption mechanism 105 based on whether the aerial system identifier 310 is permitted (Fig. 3, Para. 44).
Banga also teaches the aerial system identifier 310 preferably identifies an aerial system 100, and is preferably globally unique, but can alternatively be unique for a geographic region, unique for a period of time, generic, or otherwise related to other aerial system identifiers. The aerial system identifier 310 is preferably dynamic, but can alternatively be static. Dynamic aerial system identifiers can be generated, re-assigned, calculated (e.g., based on a static identifier and a changing equation; based on changing identifier and a static equation; based on static identifier, a static equation, and a changing factor, such as a timestamp or a GPS coordinate, etc.), or otherwise determined at a predetermined frequency, in response to the occurrence of a trigger event (e.g., upon user reassignment of the identifier transmission system 101 to a different aerial system), or at any other suitable time. The dynamic aerial system identifier can be generated on-board the aerial system 100, generated remotely (e.g., at a remote computing system, etc.; updated in-flight or when connected to a predetermined communication connection type, etc.), or generated by any other suitable system (Para. 36). Therefore, it would be obvious to have same identifier being associated with a plurality of flying objects for a restricted airspace.
Applicant argues: " Shuichi discloses identification using a diffraction grating and hologram attached to an object. As shown in Shuichi's Figures 2 and 6, the diffraction grating and hologram only produce significant reflected light when illuminated from a specific angle. Specifically, Shuichi states that when illumination light is irradiated from a direction at angle 01 to the hologram surface, the light is "mainly diffracted and reflected in a direction at angle 02." See Shuichi, paragraph [0012]. This means that the diffraction grating and hologram of Shuichi can only emit significant light when light is irradiated from a limited emission direction, and the reflected light is only observable at a limited observation angle.
In contrast, claim 6 as amended recites a reflection site that "emits light when irradiated with light of a predetermined wavelength in any direction." This means the reflection site emits light regardless of the direction from which the light is irradiated. The diffraction grating and hologram of Shuichi cannot emit light "in any direction" because they rely on specific angular relationships for diffraction to occur. Accordingly, Shuichi fails to teach the amended limitation of claim 6.”
Examiner's Response: Examiner respectfully submits that Shuichi ref is used to show it’s obvious in the art to use identification sticker for identifying an object. Shuichi teaches an identification sticker characterized by being provided with a light-reflecting surface portion having a unique diffraction characteristic, and an identification structure using the identification sticker for identifying an object, the light-reflecting surface portion having a unique diffraction characteristic on its surface. an identification sticker provided with an identification sticker, a means for irradiating illumination light toward the light reflection surface portion, a means for receiving reflected light of the illumination light irradiated toward the light reflection surface portion, and the reflection received by the light reception means. An identification structure using an identification sticker, characterized in that the object has a means for identifying that the object is a legitimate object from the state of light, and an identification method using an identification sticker for identifying an object, irradiating illumination light toward the light-reflecting surface portion of an identification sticker, the surface of which is provided with a light-reflecting surface portion having unique diffraction characteristics, and receiving reflected light of the illumination light irradiated toward the light-reflecting surface portion (Para. 6).
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 SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. 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.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights