CTFR 18/768,081 CTFR 97518 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below. Response to Amendment The drawings were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the drawings accordingly; therefore, the drawings objection is withdrawn. The specification was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the specification accordingly; therefore, the specification objection is withdrawn. Claims 5, 7, 12, and 14 were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; as such, the objection is withdrawn. Claims 1-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. Response to Arguments 07-38-02 Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-19 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Van Der Berg and Johnson. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “…wherein the anti-rotation mechanism engages the cable spool upon deceleration of the drone, the anti-rotation mechanism…”, which appears to contain a comma splice . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 11-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites “the drone flight path” in line 17. It is unclear if the “drone flight path” is referring to the same flight path as the “directional flight path” recited earlier in the claim. Claim 13 recites “…the light weight cable tensioner…”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “cable tensioner” introduced in parent claim 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg of US 20240332925 A1 , filed 07/29/2022, hereinafter “Van Der Berg”, in view of Johnson of US 20200218288 A1 , filed 08/22/2019, hereinafter “Johnson” . Regarding claim 1, Van Der Berg teaches: A method for laying a cable with the cable carried by a drone, comprising: (See at least [0002]: “The present disclosure further relates to a transmission tower anchoring system and method for assisting with the installation process for power line cables on transmission towers. In particular, the present invention further relates to a system, device, and method that facilitate the anchoring of a line at the end of a stringing run” & [0036]: “Preferably, the steps of installing the line and releasing the line are performed by a drone or unmanned aerial vehicle.”) laying the cable on a ground surface between or around the ground based obstacles. (See at least [0083]: “As with the embodiments described above in relation to FIGS. 9 to 11, in particular FIG. 11, the end portion 502 of the line 506 can then be dropped or lowered to the ground by the aerial vehicle where it can be secured to a ground anchor point (such as point 230 in FIG. 11)…”) Van Der Berg does not explicitly teach: flying a drone along a directional flight path to lay the cable; recognizing obstacles above the drone that define a ceiling of the flight path and below the flight path defining a floor for the flight path, adjusting the altitude; recognizing ground based obstacles; Johnson teaches: flying a drone along a directional flight path to lay the cable ; (See at least [0150]: “At step 2006, the UAV to follow the set of fiducial points that define the flight path. Further processing the detected sensor data to adjust speed, direction, and altitude of the UAV using the set of fiducial points that define a selected flight path. More particularly, instructions are transmitted over a communications bus on the UAV to configure the UAV to follow the set of fiducial points…”) recognizing obstacles above the drone that define a ceiling of the flight path and below the flight path defining a floor for the flight path, (See at least [0149]: “At step 2004, the UAV (e.g., an onboard processor and/or SOM) filters noise from the sensor data to generate a set of fiducial points in the operating space describing a flight path for the UAV. In one embodiment, the set of fiducial points are based on a distance of one or more objects detected by the sensor arrays, wherein the set of fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space” & [0159]: “…the bumper 2104 includes a plurality of sensor arrays mounted to the circular bumper ring 2208 of the frame component 2202, as shown in FIGS. 24-25C…multiple sensors are placed on the unmanned aerial vehicle 2302 in order to get a full 360° image. The plurality of sensors arrays may be used to detect surroundings. In another embodiment, the sensor arrays are positioned on the unmanned aerial vehicle 2302 to provide a field of view in at least 3 directions that are at least 90 degrees apart to have a clear and unobstructed field of view…”. See also Fig. 46A & [0257] regarding the OCU display which shows the proximity of the UAV to the “surface around and above and below”.) adjusting the altitude; (See at least [0149-0150]: “…the set of fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space…Further processing the detected sensor data to adjust speed, direction, and altitude of the UAV using the set of fiducial points that define a selected flight path…For example, in one embodiment, a processor embedded on the UAV transmits signals over a communications bus to one or more motors of the one or more rotors to adjust a configuration of the one or more rotors. Such command signals can be sent to follow the set of fiducial points or in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. The UAV can maneuver through the flight path by altering rotor speed, or altering rotor tilt angle, or a combination of both.” See also Fig. 46A & [0256] regarding the OCU display which shows the “current altitude, a home altitude, a range covered during flight, and the starting altitude”.) recognizing ground based obstacles; (See at least [0148]: “…At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view…” & [0265]: “FIG. 46G depicts a screenshot of the OCU display 4600 displaying an image taken by a video camera on the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is in assist mode. Bars located on the screen of the image indicate a distance 4670 between the unmanned aerial vehicle and objects, such as walls…”) Although Johnson does not explicitly teach that the directional flight path is for laying cable, Van Der Berg teaches lowering a cable to a ground surface, as discussed above. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to lay cable on the ground, as taught by Van Der Berg, using the directional flight path of Johnson “to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space” while laying cable (See at least [0120] of Johnson) . One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg’s method with Johnson’s technique of flying the drone along a directional flight path, recognizing obstacles above and below the drone to define a ceiling and a floor for the flight path, adjusting the altitude, and recognizing flight path obstacles at the adjusted altitude and altering the flight path to avoid the flight path obstacles. Doing so would be obvious “to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space” (See at least [0120] of Johnson) . Regarding claim 3, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Johnson additionally teaches: wherein the recognition of obstacles is by at least one sensor in communication with a controller. (See at least [0148]: “…At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view…”) Regarding claim 4, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Johnson additionally teaches: wherein the one or more sensors are one or more of GPS, camera , LIDAR, IMU, accelerometer, and tension sensor. (See at least [0103]: “Unmanned aerial vehicle 1202 includes a plurality of sensors arrays 1204 to detect surroundings. Sensors arrays 1204 are located on each spar 1208 and may include, but not limited to, cameras and/or range finders, such as sonar, Lidar, or proximity sensors…”) Regarding claim 5, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Johnson additionally teaches: wherein the controller has a map representing three dimensions (“3D map”). (See at least [0248]: “…Visual displays that provide partial or full information of the shape of the environment and the vehicle position and orientation in the environment are included. These maps may be two dimensional or three dimensional, and include point clouds or rendered structure models…”) Regarding claim 6, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Der Berg additionally teaches: wherein there is an additional step of tensioning the cable. (See at least [0070]: “As shown in FIG. 11, the end portion 216 of the line 210 can then be dropped or lowered to the ground by the aerial vehicle 202 where it can be secured to a ground anchor point 230. The tension can then be increased on the line 210 by winding the line 210 onto a cable winch at one end…”) Regarding claim 8, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Johnson additionally teaches: wherein the flight path is an initial flight path determined by a map to avoid ground based obstacles. (See at least [0120]: “…The set of fiducial points are based on a distance of one or more objects detected by the sensor modules 1510, wherein the fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Fisk of US 20230236381 A1 , filed 06/22/2021, hereinafter “Fisk” . Regarding claim 2 , Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the cable is optical fiber. Fisk teaches: wherein the cable is optical fiber. (See at least [0129]: “FIG. 1a also shows a crawler 190 as it navigates the surface of the tank to lay a fiber optic cable 104…”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to perform Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with any type of cable, such as the optical fiber cable taught by Fisk, which “reduces the need to have people working on the structures, and may provide a better way of accurately, quickly and easily mapping the route or path of the cable as it is laid/installed” (See [0119] of Fisk) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Schuett of US 20180354618 A1 , published 12/13/2018, hereinafter “Schuett” . Regarding claim 7, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the method further comprises an additional step of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. Schuett teaches: wherein the method further comprises an additional step of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0031]: “In a particular embodiment, the target 131 to which the UAV is directed includes a tower 132 carrying one or more antennae 133, and the belay point 456 can be located at the tower 132…In yet another embodiment, the belay point 456 can be created by the UAV 110 without the need for a belay device 457. For example, the UAV 110 can fly several times around the tower 132, wrapping the tether 153 tightly around the belay point 456.”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with Schuett’s technique of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. Doing so would be obvious for “further restrain[ing] the motion of the UAV 110 in the event of a failure” via the belay point (See at least [0030] of Schuett) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Berg in view of Johnson and further in view of Zuckerman of US 11565807 B1 , filed 05/14/2020, hereinafter “Zuckerman” . Regarding claim 9, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the predetermined altitude is an initial altitude and is determined by a map of vegetative cover. Zuckerman teaches: wherein the predetermined altitude is an initial altitude and is determined by a map of vegetative cover. (See at least Fig. 1X & col. 31, lines 37-49: “…the system may use cameras and/or lidar sensors onboard on-road vehicles 1-traffic traversing associated roads 1-road (FIG. 1X) to capture imagery data of the ground-related environment from the ground, thereby having sufficient initial imagery data to 3D model structures, such as trees 1-tree and poles 1-obstacles-1, situated up to twenty meters above road level 1-road, or perhaps situated just up to ten meters above road level, depending on sensors and actual environment, thereby updating the 3D model 1-PE-model to a level that allows preliminary low altitude flight 10-path (FIG. 1X) above and along the roads 1-road. The system may then execute said low altitude flight 10-path…”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with Zuckerman’s predetermined altitude being an initial altitude and determined by a map of vegetative cover. Doing so would be obvious so “the drone 10 can easily avoid collisions with the traffic and obstacles while maintaining a mostly uninterrupted flight along the path of progression 10-path” (See col. 18, lines 48-50 of Zuckerman) . Regarding claim 10, Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Van Der Berg and Johnson in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the predetermined altitude is a meter lower than median altitude of vegetative cover. However, Zuckerman teaches plotting a flight path for a drone that is low enough to avoid collisions with suspended objects, such as a tree, and high enough to avoid traffic below the drone (See col. 29, lines 42-55) . Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control a drone to fly at a predetermined altitude that is a meter lower than median altitude of vegetative cover as an obvious design choice, which has the benefit of allowing the drone to avoid collisions “even if it fails to detect road-related suspended objects and actual traffic” (See col. 29, lines 55-59 of Zuckerman) . One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Van Der Berg and Johnson’s method with the teachings of Zuckerman. Doing so would be obvious so “the drone 10 can easily avoid collisions with the traffic and obstacles while maintaining a mostly uninterrupted flight along the path of progression 10-path” (See col. 18, lines 48-50 of Zuckerman) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Robertson of US 20190023520 A1 , filed 07/21/2017, hereinafter “Robertson”, Patrick of US 20150158587 A1 , filed 08/26/2013, hereinafter “Patrick”, and Van Der Berg . Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches: A kit installed on a drone for laying a light weight cable comprising: (See at least [0069]: “The unmanned aerial vehicle 202 includes all flight systems and sensors. The microfilament tether system includes a spooler 204 and an interchangeable microfilament dispenser installed on the unmanned aerial vehicle 202. The microfilament tether system enables power and data transfer between the unmanned aerial vehicle 202 and a base station…”) a cable spool for the light weight cable, (See at least [0096]: “FIG. 10 shows a depiction of a specialized spool 1002. The specialized spool 1002 is a coil of wire/tether/microfilament…”) one or more sensors; (See at least [0148]: “…At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view…”) a controller, the controller configured to control a directional flight path and drone altitude, (See at least [0118-0119]: “The onboard processor 1504 and SOM 1506 can generate a set of fiducial points describing the flight path, and can maneuver the flight path by altering rotor speed, or altering rotor tilt angle, or a combination of both…” & [0150]: “At step 2006, the UAV to follow the set of fiducial points that define the flight path. Further processing the detected sensor data to adjust speed, direction, and altitude of the UAV using the set of fiducial points that define a selected flight path…”) wherein the controller is configured to receive data from the one or more sensors, to: control the altitude and directional flight path of the drone, (See at least [0149-0150]: “…the set of fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space…Further processing the detected sensor data to adjust speed, direction, and altitude of the UAV using the set of fiducial points that define a selected flight path…For example, in one embodiment, a processor embedded on the UAV transmits signals over a communications bus to one or more motors of the one or more rotors to adjust a configuration of the one or more rotors. Such command signals can be sent to follow the set of fiducial points or in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. The UAV can maneuver through the flight path by altering rotor speed, or altering rotor tilt angle, or a combination of both.” See also Fig. 46A & [0256] regarding the OCU display which shows the “current altitude, a home altitude, a range covered during flight, and the starting altitude”.) recognize flight path obstacles; (See at least [0149]: “At step 2004, the UAV (e.g., an onboard processor and/or SOM) filters noise from the sensor data to generate a set of fiducial points in the operating space describing a flight path for the UAV. In one embodiment, the set of fiducial points are based on a distance of one or more objects detected by the sensor arrays, wherein the set of fiducial points are designed to avoid the one or more objects in the operating space” & [0159]: “…the bumper 2104 includes a plurality of sensor arrays mounted to the circular bumper ring 2208 of the frame component 2202, as shown in FIGS. 24-25C…multiple sensors are placed on the unmanned aerial vehicle 2302 in order to get a full 360° image. The plurality of sensors arrays may be used to detect surroundings. In another embodiment, the sensor arrays are positioned on the unmanned aerial vehicle 2302 to provide a field of view in at least 3 directions that are at least 90 degrees apart to have a clear and unobstructed field of view…”. See also Fig. 46A & [0257] regarding the OCU display which shows the proximity of the UAV to the “surface around and above and below”.) recognize ground based obstacles; and (See at least [0148]: “…At step 2002, the UAV receives sensor data from multiple directions within a flight operating space, the detected sensor data including near field sensor data, mid-range sensor data, and far field sensor data. Each sensor array detects objects, events, and/or changes in the sensor array's field of view…” & [0265]: “FIG. 46G depicts a screenshot of the OCU display 4600 displaying an image taken by a video camera on the unmanned aerial vehicle while the unmanned aerial vehicle is in assist mode. Bars located on the screen of the image indicate a distance 4670 between the unmanned aerial vehicle and objects, such as walls…”) adjust the drone flight path to lay cable on a ground surface between or around the ground based obstacles . (See at least [0119]: “In an exemplary embodiment, processor 1504 transmits instructions over a communications bus to instruct the one or more motors to adjust the one or more of the rotors into a tilted, vertical or horizontal configuration. Such command signals can be sent in response to on-board sensor data indicating that a flight path change is needed to avoid a collision. Alternatively, the system can receive wireless commands from an external flight controller that determines a collision avoidance path must be implemented to avoid a collision with other objects such as buildings or other vehicles…”) Johnson does not explicitly teach: a cable tensioner to maintain tension of the light weight cable, an anti-rotation mechanism for the cable spool; a cable cutter to cut the light weight cable; …on a ground surface between or around the ground based obstacles. Robertson teaches: a cable tensioner to maintain tension of the light weight cable, (See at least [0055]: “In some embodiments, instead of a system that selectively disengages the brake assembly allowing the cable spool to freely rotate, as described above, an adjustable friction brake is used, which is engaged to a certain amount of pressure and keeps constant tension and drag on the cable and spool to avoid over-spooling and tangling.”) an anti-rotation mechanism for the cable spool; (See at least [0042]: “The aerial cable laying device 100 shown also comprises a spool brake assembly 118 that is positioned on the support frame 102 adjacent to an end of the spool 104. The spool brake assembly 118 is configured to prevent rotation of the cable spool 104 when the brake assembly 118 is engaged…”) a cable cutter to cut the light weight cable; (See at least [0057]: “The device 300 of the second embodiment of the present invention further comprises a cutter 334 for cutting the cable from the cable spool 304. Preferably, the cutter 334 is operable by remote control. The cutter 334 is provided within the cable guide 308 located at the rear end 324 of the device 300.”) …on a ground surface between or around the ground based obstacles. (See at least [0066]: “…The aircraft then lifts the device 500 and begins to move in the desired direction, laying the wire along a pre-determined route that may be pre-programmed into the aircraft's onboard GPS. As the device begins to move forward, the tension on the cable increases, lifting up on the pivoting bar resulting in the brake assembly disengaging. If the device slows down during cable deployment then tension is released and the pivoting bar drops resulting in the brake assembly engaging again. This allows for the cable to be deployed without over-spooling from the angular momentum and resulting in the cable tangling. Once the cable on the spool runs out, it simply drops from the device 500.”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson’s kit with Robertson’s cable tensioner, anti-rotation mechanism, and cable cutter. Doing so would be obvious “to provide for improved aerial cable laying devices that allow for prevention of cable spool rotation resulting in cable slack as cable is being deployed, selective cutting of deployed cable from the device, and mechanical rotation control of the spool” (See [0012] of Robertson) . Johnson and Robertson in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the controller is in communication with the drone, the cable cutter, the cable spool and the cable tensioner, and is connected to the one or more sensors; However, Patrick teaches a UAV with a control system that receives sensor data and operates different control components, such as the line-deployment mechanism and payload-release mechanism (See at least [0025] & [0038]) . Additionally, Robertson teaches a spool brake assembly that prevents rotation of the spool, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply Patrick’s control system to any component, such as Robertson’s spool brake assembly, to “intelligently control” different components of the UAV (See [0038] of Patrick) . One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson and Robertson’s kit with Patrick’s controller. Doing so would be obvious to “intelligently control” different components of the UAV (See [0038] of Patrick) . Regarding claim 13, Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Robertson additionally teaches: wherein the controller controls the light weight cable tensioner, the cable cutter, and the directional flight path by controlling the drone speed, altitude, pitch, yaw, and roll. (See at least [0041]: “The cable spool 104 rotates while deploying cable 106 as the aircraft moves forward…” & [0066]: “…The aircraft then lifts the device 500 and begins to move in the desired direction, laying the wire along a pre-determined route that may be pre-programmed into the aircraft's onboard GPS. As the device begins to move forward, the tension on the cable increases, lifting up on the pivoting bar resulting in the brake assembly disengaging. If the device slows down during cable deployment then tension is released and the pivoting bar drops resulting in the brake assembly engaging again. This allows for the cable to be deployed without over-spooling from the angular momentum and resulting in the cable tangling. Once the cable on the spool runs out, it simply drops from the device 500.”) Regarding claim 14, Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Robertson additionally teaches: wherein the anti-rotation mechanism engages the cable spool upon deceleration of the drone, the anti-rotation mechanism engages the cable spool as controlled by the controller or mechanically engaging the cable spool . (See at least [0053]: “When the aircraft carrying the device 300 slows down during cable deployment, tension is released and the brake actuating rod 332 drops, resulting in the brake assembly 318 to engage…”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Robertson and Patrick and further in view of Fisk . Regarding claim 12, Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the lightweight cable is optical cable. Fisk teaches: wherein the lightweight cable is optical cable. (See at least [0129]: “FIG. 1a also shows a crawler 190 as it navigates the surface of the tank to lay a fiber optic cable 104…”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick’s kit with Fisk’s technique of the lightweight cable being an optical cable. Doing so would be obvious because this “reduces the need to have people working on the structures” (See [0119] of Fisk) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Robertson and Patrick and further in view of Schuett . Regarding claim 15, Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein the controller is configured to adjust the drone flight path to wrap the cable around at least one ground based obstacle. However, Schuett teaches a UAV that is directed to a tower and flies around it several times to wrap a tether, creating a belay point (See at least Fig. 4 & [0031]) . Since the UAV flies to a specific tower to wrap a tether around it, the teachings of Schuett render obvious adjusting the flight path of the UAV to wrap the cable around an obstacle, which provides the benefit of “further restrain[ing] the motion of the UAV 110 in the event of a failure” via the belay point (See at least [0030] of Schuett) . One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Johnson, Robertson, and Patrick’s kit with Schuett’s technique of wrapping the cable around a ground based obstacle. Doing so would be obvious for “further restrain[ing] the motion of the UAV 110 in the event of a failure” via the belay point (See at least [0030] of Schuett) . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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. /NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/768,081 Page 21 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights