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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Instant claims 1,7, 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4,7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,062,097 herein the *097 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1,7,13 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 4, 7 of the *097 patent.
The limitations from instant claims 1,7,13 “An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to provide a natural disaster response recommendation comprising: a display; a speaker; a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled with the processor, the non- transitory computer-readable memory storing executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: receive a flight path to a destination location, wherein the flight path is based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV; operate based on the flight path; and upon arriving at the destination location, provide, via the speaker and/or the display, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location” are present in claims 1,4,7 of the *097 patent.
Therefore, claims 1,4,7 of the *097 patent is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of instant claims 1,7,13. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a species within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Circ. 1993).
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 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.
2. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent 8948935 to Peeters et al, in view of in view of WO 2013/123944 to Carsten and further in view of US 2015/0336669 to Kantor et al, herein Kantor.
Regarding claim 1, Peeters discloses:
An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to provide a natural disaster response recommendation comprising:
a display (At least: column 15: lines 56-67; column 19: lines 25-29);
a speaker (At least: column 15: lines 56-67; column 19: lines 25-29);
a processor and a non-transitory computer readable memory coupled with the processor, the non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to (At least: column 12: lines 65-67; column 13: lines 1-5) :
receive a flight path from to a destination location, wherein the flight path is based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level associated with the UAV (column 1: lines 38-50, column 5: lines 27-36; column 17: 8-15; Fig 6 and associated text).
Kantor in the same field of endeavor discloses and adds further evidence for the
limitation (receive a flight path from to a destination location, wherein the flight path is based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level associated with the UAV) (At least: [0061], [0062]:
[0061] In some implementations, UAV platform 230 may determine to modify the flight path if the feedback indicates that the weather conditions may prevent UAV 220 from reaching the destination location. For example, the wind conditions may change and cause the flight time of UAV 220 to increase to a point where the battery of UAV 220 will be depleted before UAV 220 reaches the destination location. In such an example, UAV platform 230 may modify the flight path so that UAV 220 either stops to recharge (e.g., at a recharging station of a base station) or changes altitude to improve wind conditions. In another example, rain or ice may increase the weight of UAV 220 and/or its payload and may cause the battery of UAV 220 to work harder to a point where the battery of UAV 220 will be depleted before UAV 220 reaches the destination location. In such an example, UAV platform 230 may modify the flight path so that UAV 220 stops to recharge (e.g., at a recharging station of a base station) before completing the flight path.
Peeters further discloses operating, by the one or more processors, based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, providing, by the one or more processors via a speaker and/or display, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a medical emergency (At least: column 15: lines 56-67).
Peeters does not specifically disclose how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location.
Carsten in the same field of endeavor discloses operate based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, provide, via the speaker and/or the display, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location (At least: page 24: lines 24-31; page 25: lines 1-9; page 2 lines 13-14);
Page 2: lines 12-14:
However, this rescue equipment is often dropped at a distance from the person which requires the person to move to the drop site. The dropped equipment may drift away from a person at sea, particularly if there are high waves or a strong current, or it might be difficult for the person to reach this drop site
page 24: lines 24-31; page 25: lines 1-9:
If the device 1 has detected more than one person in distress 38, the data control unit
25 26 may carry one or more intelligent data decisions. The data control unit 26 may be
configured to analyse the extracted data from the unit 32 relating to each of the persons
in distress 3 8 in order to determine which of the people is in a must critical state.
The extracted data or parameters may be categorised according to a prioritised list, e.g.
movement, body temperature, audio/visual response to stimulus or instructions. Once
30 the data control unit 26 has determined which person is in the most critical state, the
data control unit 26 may send control signals to the flight control unit 28, 29 when then
positions the device relative to that person 38.
After dropping a rescue equipment 14 to the person 38, the device 1 may then be positioned
over the second must critical person. After which the device 1 drops another
rescue equipment 14 to that person 38. The device 1 may be configured to autonomously
hover over the person or person in distress 3 8 and continuously transmit data
5 back to the central station and/or remote unit. This allows the rescue service to follow
the progress and/or communicating with the person in distress 3 8 through audio and/or
visual communication means. The person in distress 3 8 may communicate with the
device 1 to guide it into position before dropping the equipment 14 and/or the central
station by predetermined gestures which recognised by the data control unit 26.
(These sections of Carsten disclose that due to the high waves (which are associated with a natural disaster), the drone is sent to the people who are in need of being rescued,, and the disaster location, the drone is able to communicate with the person through audio and video).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include operate based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, provide, via the speaker and/or the display, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location in order to ensure that the person is allowed to be rescued quickly , which increases the survival probability for the person in distress (Carsten: page 13: lines 32-33, page 14: lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Peeters discloses the UAV of claim 1. Peeters does not disclose, Kantor in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein to operate based on the flight path, the instructions cause the processor to dock the UAV with a power supply device for charging the battery associated with the UAV (At least: [0048], [0061], [0062]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include wherein to operate based on the flight path, the instructions cause the processor to dock the UAV with a power supply device for charging the battery associated with the UAV in order to ensure that the UAVs always have a place to stop and recharge even if the recharging is unexpected (Kantor: [0013]).
Claims 8&14 are being rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Peeters discloses:
A computer-implemented method for providing a natural disaster response recommendation via an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a flight path to a destination location based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV (At least: column 1: lines 38-50, column 5: lines 27-36; column 17: 8-15); Fig 6 and associated text);
Kantor in the same field of endeavor discloses and adds further evidence for the
limitation (receiving by more processors, a flight path from to a destination location, wherein the flight path is based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level associated with the UAV) (At least: [0061], [0062]).
Peeters further discloses operating, by the one or more processors, based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, providing, by the one or more processors via a speaker and/or display in the UAV, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a medical emergency (At least: column 15: lines 56-67).
Peeters does not specifically disclose how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location.
Carsten in the same field of endeavor discloses operating by the one or processors, based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, providing by the one more processors, via the speaker and/or the display in the UAV, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location (At least: page 2: lines 12-14; page 24: lines 24-31; page 25: lines 1-9).
(These sections of Carsten disclose that due to the high waves (which are associated with a natural disaster), the drone is sent to the people who are in need of being rescued,, and the disaster location, the drone is able to communicate with the person through audio and video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include operating by the one or processors, based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, providing by the one more processors, via the speaker and/or the display in the UAV, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location in order to ensure that the person is allowed to be rescued quickly , which increases the survival probability for the person in distress (Carsten: page 13: lines 32-33, page 14: lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Peeters discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable memory storing executable instructions for providing a natural disaster response recommendation that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (At least: column 12: lines 65-67; column 13: lines 1-5) :
receive a flight path for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to a destination location based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV (At least: column 1: lines 38-50, column 5: lines 27-36; column 17: 8-15; Fig 6 and associated text)
Kantor in the same field of endeavor discloses and adds further evidence for the
limitation (receive a flight path from to a destination location, wherein the flight path is based upon a geographic location of the UAV and a battery charge level associated with the UAV) (At least: [0061], [0062]:
Peeters further discloses:
operate based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, provide, via the speaker and/or the display in the UAV, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a medical emergency (At least: column 15: lines 56-67).
Peeters does not specifically disclose how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location.
Carsten in the same field of endeavor discloses operate based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, provide, via the speaker and/or the display in the UAV, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location (At least: page 2: lines 12-14; page 24: lines 24-31; page 25: lines 1-9).
(These sections of Carsten disclose that due to the high waves (which are associated with a natural disaster), the drone is sent to the people who are in need of being rescued,, and the disaster location, the drone is able to communicate with the person through audio and video).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include operate based on the flight path and upon arriving at the destination location, provide, via the speaker and/or the display in the UAV, a recommendation to one or more people at the destination location on how to respond to a natural disaster at the destination location in order to ensure that the person is allowed to be rescued quickly , which increases the survival probability for the person in distress (Carsten: page 13: lines 32-33, page 14: lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Peeters discloses the UAV of claim 2. Peeters does not disclose, Kantor in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive a command to follow the flight path to a location of the power supply device and to charge the power supply utilizing the power supply device at the power supply device location. (At least: [0071], Fig 5C:
[0071] As shown in FIG. 5C, UAV platform 230 may calculate a flight path 545 from Washington, DC to Fairfax, Virginia based on capability information 535 and/or other information 540. UAV platform 230 may identify base stations 550 (e.g., with recharging stations 555) on or near flight path 545 as potential waypoints for flight path 545. UAV platform 230 may select one or more base stations 550/recharging stations 555, from the identified base stations 550/recharging stations 555, as one or more waypoints for flight path 545 (e.g., based on the variety of factors described above). For example, assume that UAV platform 230 selects a base station 550-1 associated with wireless network 240, as a waypoint for flight path 545 where UAV 220 is to stop and recharge As further shown in FIG. 5C, base station 550-1 may include a recharging station 555-1 where UAV 220 may land and recharge (e.g., via inductive charging) before continuing on flight path 545. UAV platform 230 may generate flight path instructions 560 for flight path 545, and may provide. flight path instructions 560 to UAV 220 via one or more of networks 240-260. As an example, flight path instructions 560 may include information instructing UAV 220 to fly north at zero degrees for ten kilometers, stop and recharge at base station 550-1, fly northeast at forty degrees for three kilometers, at an altitude of one-thousand meters, etc. UAV 220 may take off from Washington, DC, and may travel flight path 545 based on flight path instructions 560.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: receive a command to follow the flight path to a location of the power supply device and to charge the power supply utilizing the power supply device at the power supply device location in order to ensure that the UAVs always have a place to stop and recharge even if the recharging is unexpected (Kantor: [0013]).
Claims 10&16 are being rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Peeters discloses the UAV of claim 1. Peeters does not disclose, Kantor in the same field of endeavor discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: transmit data indicative of the battery charge level of the battery associated with the UAV to a server device (At least: [0061]; and receive the flight path from the server device in response to the data indicative of the battery charge level (At least: [0061]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: transmit data indicative of the battery charge level of the battery associated with the UAV to a server device and receive the flight path from the server device in response to the data indicative of the battery charge level in order to ensure the UAVs always have a place to stop and recharge even if the recharging is unexpected (Kantor: [0013]).
Claims 11& 17 are being rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
3. Claims 3,9,15 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peeters in view of Carsten and further in view of Kantor and US 2012/0016538 to Waite et al, herein Waite.
Regarding claim 3, Peeters discloses the UAV of claim 2. Peeters does not disclose, Waite in the same field of endeavor discloses cause the processor to: land the UAV on a power line; and charge the battery associated with UAV using the power line (At least: [0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include cause the processor to: land the UAV on a power line; and charge the battery associated with UAV using the power line in order to ensure that the autonomous UAV navigation is able to follow the power lines with little or no information (Waite: [0006]).
Claims 9&15 are being rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
4. Claims 6, 12, 18 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peeters in view of Carsten and further in view of Kantor and of US 2013/0233964 to Woodworth et al, herein Woodworth.
Regarding claim 6, Peeters discloses the unmanned vehicle of claim 2. Peeters does not disclose, Woodworth discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: couple the unmanned vehicle to the power supply device via a tether (At least: [0014], [0015], [0053], [0058]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peeters’s invention to include wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: couple the unmanned vehicle to the power supply device via a tether in order to ensure that the safety and extending the horizontal range and overall flight space of a tethered aerial vehicle is improved upon (Woodworth: [0007]).
Claims 12&18 are being rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 9/15/2025
Prosecution Insights