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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Reference of prior art
Juntunen et al. (US 20210235248, BLUETOOTH PERIMETER EXTENSION).
Kuo et al. (US 20210119692, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION RELAY SYSTEM FOR UNMANNED VEHICLES).
Bosworth et al. (US 20190321971, End-Effector For Workpiece Manipulation System).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 12, 13, 15, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juntunen in view of Bosworth.
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen discloses:
A system for transferring data from one or more sensors to a remote receiving station, the system comprising: a first communication interface for communicating with the one or more sensors via a first communication channel, wherein the first communication channel is capable of transmitting data at a first distance (fig.1 and ¶ 0018-0019, wherein the first communication device 14A can communicate with hub device 12 via BTLE 5.0 or other wireless protocol standard which each have specific range and a distance);
a second communication interface for communicating with the remote receiving station via a second communication channel, wherein the second communication channel is capable of transmitting data at a second distance greater than the first distance ( See fig.1 and ¶ 0018-0019, wherein the first communication device 14B can communicate with second devices/sensors 16E and 16F using wireless communication protocols such as BTLE 5.0 , Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth which each have difference communication channel and distance from the first communication channel);
and a computing device coupled to the first and second communication interfaces and configured to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors via the first communication interface, wherein the sensor data is received in a first format corresponding to the first communication channel, wherein the computing device is configured to convert the sensor data from the first format to a second format corresponding to the second communication channel, and wherein the computing device is further configured to transmit the sensor data in the second format to the remote receiving station via the second communication interface (¶ 0020, wherein sensor data received at devices 14 via the BTLE 5.0 protocol can be converted to different protocol such as IEEE 802.15.4 prior to relay to Hub 12).
However Juntunen fails to teach as disclosed by Bosworth: an aerial vehicle, wherein the aerial vehicle is configured to carry a payload, the payload comprising the one or more sensors (¶ 0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Bosworth teachings of an aerial vehicle, wherein the aerial vehicle is configured to carry a payload, the payload comprising the one or more sensors into the Juntunen, to include an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) payload such that the ISR data may be used to navigate the UAV.
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 12, wherein the first communication channel is a Bluetooth channel (Juntunen ¶ 0019 wherein blue tooth communication channel is disclosed).
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 12, wherein an intervening distance between the one or more sensors and the remote receiving station is greater than the first distance and less than or equal to the second distance .( Juntunen ¶ 0018-0019, wherein various communication protocols with varying distances are between sensors and receiving devices and HUB).
Re claim 21 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 12, further comprising an enclosure around one or more of the first communication interface, the second communication interface, and the computing device to protect against electrical hazards (Juntunen see fig.2, wherein all sensors/devices communicating are in enclosure for protection).
Re claim 22 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 12, wherein the computing device is a system-on-chip (SoC) (Juntunen ¶ 0082, wherein a process is disclosed; as taught by Juntunen).
Claim(s) 14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juntunen in view of Bosworth and further in view of Kuo.
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Kuo: The system of claim 12, wherein the second communication channel is a low-power long-range (LoRa) radio channel (¶ 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Kuo teachings of the second channel is a low-power long-range (LoRa) radio channel into the Juntunen, as modified above, as modified above, to transmit small chunks of data with low bit rates. Data can be transmitted at a longer range compared to technologies like WiFi, Bluetooth or ZigBee.
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Kuo: The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more sensors are mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (¶ 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Kuo teachings of the one or more sensors are mounted to the aerial vehicle and the aerial vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle into the Juntunen, as modified above, to improve the communication of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the second communication channel is separate from a software module or communication module associated with a support structure of the aerial vehicle. (Juntunen ¶ 0018-0019, describing various communication mediums and channels unrelated to any support structure of the aerial vehicle;).
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein one or more of the first communication interface, the second communication interface, and the computing device are mounted to the UAV (Kuo ¶ 0039).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 16, further comprising a battery that supplies electrical power to one or more of the first communication interface, the second communication interface, and the computing device, wherein the battery is separate from the UAV (Juntunen (¶ 0017).
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Kuo: The system of claim 12, wherein the remote receiving station comprises software to associate a Global Positioning System (GPS) location of the one or more sensors to the sensor data, wherein the GPS location corresponds to where the sensor data was generated by the one or more sensors UAV (¶ 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to add the Kuo teachings of the remote receiving station comprises software to associate a Global Positioning System (GPS) location of the one or more sensors to the sensor data, wherein the GPS location corresponds to where the sensor data was generated by the one or more sensors UAV into the Juntunen, as modified above, to improve the navigational accuracy of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642