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.
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 05/14/2026 has been entered.
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).
Bosworth et al. (US 20190321971, End-Effector For Workpiece Manipulation System).
Kuo et al. (US 20210119692, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION RELAY SYSTEM FOR UNMANNED VEHICLES).
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, 15-19, 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 wireless communication interface for wireless communicating with the one or more sensors via a first wireless communication channel, wherein the first wireless 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 wireless communication interface for communicating with the remote receiving station via a second wireless communication channel, wherein the second wireless communication channel is capable of transmitting data at a second distance greater than the first distance ( See fig.1 and ¶ 0018-0019, wherein the second 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 wireless communication interfaces and configured to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors via the first wireless communication interface, wherein the sensor data is received in a first format corresponding to the first wireless 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 wireless 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 that comprises: a mount for selectively mounting a payload to the aerial vehicle; when the one or more sensors are selectively mounted to the mount as the payload of the aerial vehicle (¶ 0062, payload item 126 ) ,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bosworth teachings of an aerial vehicle that comprises: a mount for selectively mounting a payload to the aerial vehicle; when the one or more sensors are selectively mounted to the mount as the payload of the aerial vehicle 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 wireless 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 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more sensors are mounted to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Bosworth ¶ 0062).
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Juntunen, as modified above, discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the second wireless 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 wireless communication interface, the second wireless 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 wireless communication interface, the second wireless communication interface, and the computing device, wherein the battery is separate from the UAV (Juntunen (¶ 0017).
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 wireless communication interface, the second wireless 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 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 wireless 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 filing 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 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 filed on 11/30/2018 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant made the following arguments:
Examiner respectfully disagrees; the combined references of Juntunen and Bosworth disclose the claim limitation as cited in the rejection, Bosworth discloses UAV 100 that carries reconnaissance (ISR) payload 126 that comprises multiple sensors (126a-126c) to be selectively attached to the UAV and using the system for transferring data from one or more sensors to a remote receiving station as disclose by Juntunen in 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 and the second 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.
Conclusion
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 during office hours. 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
Prosecution Insights