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 . Claims 1-24 are currently pending. Species II (claims 15-25) are withdrawn due to an election of species, while species I (claims 1-14) are elected and have been examined in this application (see arguments and response below). This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers 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 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I and Ia (Claims 1-7 and 9-14) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal regarding Species I and II is on the grounds that both are complementary aspects of a single embodiment, rather mutually exclusive alternatives, and therefore restriction between them is improper. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While there may be similarities between the cited species, these species are still independent and distinct because each species requires a limitation that is not present in the other and each species presents a unique and different way of operating a vehicle swarm. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. As stated in the previous Office action, there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: Even though these two species pertain to control of a vehicle swarm, searching these two distinct and separate species would add burden to the examiner by requiring separate search strategies, separate search queries (including separate search terms and separate classification searches), and finally separate analysis.
The traversal regarding Species Ia and Ib is on the grounds that both can coexist in the same sortie specification, they are not alternative species but rather coexisting fields in a single sortie specification. After further consideration, the examiner agrees and withdraws the election required between Species Ia and Ib.
The requirement for “Election of Species” is still deemed proper between Species I and II and is therefore made FINAL. As stated above, species I (claims 1-14) are examined in this application and species II (claims 15-24) are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “autopilot system” in claims 11-12, “RF communication system” in claim 12, and “system controller” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “autopilot system” in claims 11-12, “RF communication system” in claim 12, and “system controller” in claim 12all use a generic placeholder “system” or “controller” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Autopilot system: [0040] - The autopilot 132 may be implemented using an embedded computer and may also include a GPS receiver, a gyro, and an accelerometer. In some embodiments, the autopilot 132 may be a commercially available autopilot system.
RF communication system: [0034] - Radio 124, radio channel 110 and radio 130 may form a radio frequency (RF) communication system.
System controller: [0034, 0036] - The bridge 106 includes a system controller 122 that communicates with the dongle 108 via a radio 124… The bridge 106 is a hardware device that acts as an interface between the tablet 104 and the swarm of vehicles 112.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system claim 9 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 9 recites the limitations of:
“A system configured to be coupled to a vehicle within a vehicle swarm, the system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, enable the processor to perform the following steps: receiving a sortie specification, the sortie specification specifying a desired behavior the vehicle swarm is to perform, obtaining a position identification within the vehicle swarm, and calculating a set of waypoints based on the received sortie specification and the position identification.”
The limitations of receiving, obtaining, and calculating, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “enable the processor to perform the following steps”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “enable the processor to perform the following steps” language, receiving, obtaining, and calculating, in the context of the claim encompasses a person receiving a sortie specification specifying a desired behavior includes a person receiving a maximum speed or a destination position, the person obtaining a position ID (i.e., vehicle #2), and a person drawing a route on a map that passes through waypoints. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using a memory storing instructions executed by a process. The memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing generic computer functions stored on a generic memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Receiving the sortie specification and obtaining a position identification are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as information that can be observed/received by a person. Alternatively these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering/receiving data/information used for the calculating step) and amounts to mere data/information gathering/receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 9 (and similarly claim 1) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-8 and 10-14 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 2 recites traversing the calculated set of waypoints, however this step is not recited as performed autonomously by the vehicle, and therefore encompasses a human driving the vehicle along the waypoints observed on a map.
Claims 3-5 and 8 recite further details of the sortie specification that are received and are still considered data/information gathering/reception.
Claims 6-7 recite further details of the position identification, which is still considered a mental process (or very simple mathematical process) because a person can count neighbor vehicles (i.e., count 3 vehicles) and add 1 to obtain their ID (i.e., 4).
Claim 10 recites “enable the processor to instruct the vehicle to traverse the calculated set of waypoints” however this is considered the processor transmitting an instruction, and the claim does not positively recite controlling the vehicle to traverse the calculated set of waypoints. Transmitting is an additional element recited at a high level of generality and is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of a dongle and an autopilot system, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic dongle and generic autopilot system).
Claim 12 further recites an RF communication system and a system controller, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic RF communication system and generic system controller).
Claims 13-14 recite a specific type of vehicle, and this is considered an additional element recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic drone or quadcopter).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by So (US 2015/0120126 A1).
Regarding claim 1, So discloses a method of operating a vehicle within a vehicle swarm (see at least abstract – controlling a plurality of vehicles to affect positioning of a common payload), the method comprising: receiving a sortie specification, the sortie specification specifying a desired behavior the vehicle swarm is to perform (see at least abstract, [0044, 0046-0049] – payload acceleration, velocity, position, and orientation… the path along which the payload 14 will travel); obtaining a position identification within the vehicle swarm (see at least abstract, [0049-0051] – position of each aircraft relative to the payload 14 and relative to each other); and calculating a set of waypoints based on the received sortie specification and the position identification (see at least abstract, [0044, 0046-0053] – generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path… using current position and velocity of the swarm 18 and the payload 14 to determine the flight path).
Regarding claim 2, So discloses further comprising: traversing the calculated set of waypoints (see at least abstract, [0044, 0053] – generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path).
Regarding claim 3, So discloses wherein the sortie specification comprises a recipe identification parameter associated with a predefined route sequence (see at least abstract, [0044, 0053, 0055, 0090] - generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path… transport the payload to the desired destination).
Regarding claim 4, So discloses wherein the recipe identification parameter is further associated with a predetermined action to be performed at a specified waypoint (see at least abstract, [0044, 0053, 0055, 0090] - generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path… transport the payload to the desired destination).
Regarding claim 8, So discloses wherein the sortie specification includes a velocity, an altitude, a spacing or a descent angle (see at least abstract, [0049-0051, 0056] - altitude… position of each aircraft relative to the payload 14 and relative to each other… position, velocity, and acceleration).
Regarding claim 9, So discloses a system configured to be coupled to a vehicle within a vehicle swarm (see at least abstract, Fig. 3 – controlling a plurality of vehicles to affect positioning of a common payload), the system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, enable the processor to perform the following steps (see at least abstract, Figs. 3, 5, and 8, [0035, 0044, 0046] – pilot station 16 may be located within one of the swarm’s aircraft… processor 510… memory 512 holds payload waypoint control algorithms and swarm waypoint control algorithms… pilot station processor 510 includes swarm waypoint controller 803): receiving a sortie specification, the sortie specification specifying a desired behavior the vehicle swarm is to perform (see at least abstract, [0044, 0046-0049] – payload acceleration, velocity, position, and orientation… the path along which the payload 14 will travel… this path is sent to the swarm waypoint controller 803), obtaining a position identification within the vehicle swarm (see at least abstract, [0049-0051] – swarm waypoint controller 803 determines the relative position and orientation of each aircraft), and calculating a set of waypoints based on the received sortie specification and the position identification (see at least abstract, [0044, 0046-0053] – swarm waypoint controller 803 generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path… using current position and velocity of the swarm 18 and the payload 14 to determine the flight path).
Regarding claim 10, So discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the processor to instruct the vehicle to traverse the calculated set of waypoints (see at least abstract, [0044, 0053] – generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path).
Regarding claim 13, So discloses wherein the vehicle is a drone (see at least [0034, 0067, 0085-0088]).
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 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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Sills (US 10,336,543 B1).
Regarding claim 5, So discloses wherein the action comprises the vehicle dropping a payload (see at least abstract, [0044, 0053, 0055, 0090] - generates waypoints to guide each aircraft while the payload 14 moves along the desired path… transport the payload to the desired destination).
Sills, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the action comprises the vehicle dropping a payload (see at least Fig. 11B, column 30, line 52 – column 31, line 15 – release the item 1180 upon delivery).
If there is any doubt to the inherency of So teaching wherein the action comprises the vehicle dropping a payload, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Sills into the invention of So with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to autonomously and accurately release or disengage the payload upon reaching the desired destination. This modification would yield predictable results and would be an expected step after reaching the destination location for the payload.
Regarding claim 14, So does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the drone is a quadcopter.
Sills, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the drone is a quadcopter (see at least Fig. 5, column 13, lines 46-53 - quadcopter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Sills into the invention of So with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of utilizing various types of airborne robotic devices (e.g., quadcopters) for tasks such as moving objects because quadcopters can take off and load vertically, maneuver in any direction, and hover (Sills – column 9, lines 1-4 and column 13, lines 59-67).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Chiba (JP 2008 175454 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, So does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the position identification comprises participating in an arbitration process.
Chiba teaches the following limitations: wherein obtaining the position identification comprises participating in an arbitration process (see at least [0037-0038] – The first terminal device (2a), which was selected first, transfers optical data to the second terminal device (2b), which was selected next, and the second terminal device (2b), which was selected next, recognizes the received ID number "1" and adds 1 to the received ID number "1," updating its own ID number to "2," which is then stored in memory together with the simple initial setting data "D." At this point, the second terminal device (2b) transfers the simple initial setting data "D" and ID "2" to the third terminal device (2c) as optical data. The third terminal device (2c) selected next by the transfer recognizes the arrived ID number "2", adds 1 to the arrived ID number "2", updates its own ID number to "3", and stores it in memory together with the simple initial setting data "D".).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Chiba into the invention of So with a reasonable expectation of success. It would be expected and necessary for each vehicle to have a unique ID for each vehicle to facilitate tracking and coordination. Using a particular type of process (i.e., arbitration) which is a known process in different applications is merely applying a known technique to a known application which is ready for improvement to yield predictable results. For example, Chiba demonstrates the obviousness of an arbitration process where the terminals are able to identify their ID number during communication with other devices. This process could be applied to coordinated vehicles in the invention of So to yield predictable results. Providing a unique ID for each vehicle would improve safety by uniquely identifying each vehicle when communicating parameters such as location, speed, altitude, or the like to facilitate each vehicle maintaining the desired path along the waypoints, since the path and waypoints for each vehicle will be different since each vehicle has a different and unique position relative to the payload.
Regarding claim 7, So does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein participating in the arbitration process comprises: counting a number of neighboring vehicles; and adding a constant to the counted number to determine the position identification.
Chiba, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein participating in the arbitration process comprises: counting a number of neighboring (groups of) vehicles; and adding a constant to the counted number to determine the position identification (see at least [0037-0038] – The first terminal device (2a), which was selected first, transfers optical data to the second terminal device (2b), which was selected next, and the second terminal device (2b), which was selected next, recognizes the received ID number "1" and adds 1 to the received ID number "1," updating its own ID number to "2," which is then stored in memory together with the simple initial setting data "D." At this point, the second terminal device (2b) transfers the simple initial setting data "D" and ID "2" to the third terminal device (2c) as optical data. The third terminal device (2c) selected next by the transfer recognizes the arrived ID number "2", adds 1 to the arrived ID number "2", updates its own ID number to "3", and stores it in memory together with the simple initial setting data "D".).
The motivation to combine So and Chiba is the same as in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Suvitie (US 2020/0363823 A1).
Regarding claim 11, So does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is a dongle configured to be coupled to an autopilot system of the vehicle.
Suvitie, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the system is a dongle configured to be coupled to an autopilot system of the vehicle (see at least [0101] – if the first unmanned vehicle does not have the onboard computer installed, but still has connectivity to a communications network (e.g. Long Term Evolution/LTE connectivity via a dongle), then the ground control station may communicate with the autopilot of the first unmanned vehicle directly using the MAVLink protocol).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Suvitie into the invention of So with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing for direct communication with the autopilot of an unmanned vehicle even when the unmanned vehicle does not have an onboard computer installed (Suvitie – [0101]). The use of dongles is well known in the field of UAVs and drones, and therefore integrating the system into a dongle would have been considered generally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and doing so would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, So discloses further comprising an RF communication system configured to communicate with a further vehicle and with a system controller (see at least Figs. 3, 5, and 8, [0044] – wireless communication media between the aircrafts, payload, and pilot station may include radio).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Szubbocsev (US 2019/0250636 A1) is directed to a system comprising a plurality of autonomous vehicles; a plurality of autonomous delivery structures configured to store a plurality of packages; and a central server configured to: receive requests for package transportation from a selected autonomous vehicle in the plurality of autonomous vehicles, identify a set of nearby packages, the nearby packages stored within a selected autonomous delivery structure in the plurality of autonomous delivery structures, transmit routing instructions to the selected autonomous vehicle, the routing instructions causing the selected autonomous vehicle to navigate to the selected autonomous delivery structure, instruct the selected autonomous delivery structure to deposit a selected package in the nearby packages into the autonomous vehicle upon detecting the presence of the selected autonomous vehicle calculate a waypoint for delivery of the selected package, and transmit transport routing instructions to the selected autonomous vehicle, the transport routing instructions causing the selected autonomous vehicle to navigate to the waypoint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669