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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Notice to Applicant(s)
This office action is response to the Response to Restriction filed on February 25, 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on February 25, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical effect of Group I is closely related to the technical effect of Group II. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and examiner burden since the limitation of claim 1 in group I does not need for claim 17 of group II. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 17-20 has been withdrawn as to non-elected claims.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119, which have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (as exemplary of claims 1 and 9) recites the limitation “based on the sensor data, determining whether to change an altitude of the unmanned machine from the first altitude to second altitude; and based on determining to change altitude, transmitting, through the communication circuitry, a signal to the external electronic device indicating changing the altitude”. Examiner has reviewed applicant’s disclosure and found that specification does not reasonably convey that the applicant had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application.
Applicant's specification on paragraphs 0141, 0170, 0213 and 0223 do talk about altitude but do not mention anything about changing altitude from the first one to second one. In the other words, the specification does not describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
As result, the Examiner asserts that Applicant does not show the possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application. See MPEP 2163 II 3(a) (i).
If the application as filed does not disclose the complete structure (or acts of a process) of the claimed invention as a whole, determine whether the specification discloses other relevant identifying characteristics sufficient to describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. For example, if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function. Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function. In contrast, without such a correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. In this latter case, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession; it does not satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing “a result that one might achieve if one made that invention”); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does “little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate”). Compare Fonar, 107 F.3d at 1549, 41 USPQ2d at 1805 (disclosure of software function adequate in that art).
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are also rejected under the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (2016/0327956).
As per claim 1, Zhang et al. disclose a method executed in an unmanned machine with communication circuitry which includes the steps of identifying a waypoint and a first altitude of the waypoint, based on map data stored in an external electronic device; based on the waypoint spaced apart from a location of the unmanned machine, controlling an actuator of the unmanned machine to move toward the waypoint with the first altitude (see at least figure 7, steps 702, 704); based on the unmanned machine located at the waypoint, obtaining, through at least one sensor of the unmanned machine, sensor data associated with an external environment of the waypoint; based on the sensor data (see at least paragraph 0009), determining whether to change an altitude of the unmanned machine from the first altitude to a second altitude (see at least figure 5, step 508); and based on determining to change the altitude, transmitting, through the communication circuitry, a signal to the external electronic device indicating changing the altitude (see at least figure 5, step 512).
As per claim 2, Zhang et al. disclose that the signal further includes the sensor data to be used to update the map data stored in the external electronic device (see at least paragraphs 0131, 0135, 0136).
As per claim 3, Zhang et al. disclose the limitations of this claim in at least figures 7 and 10.
As per claim 4, Zhang et al. disclose that the updated map data is verified through simulation performed on the external electronic device (see at least paragraphs 0134, 0136).
With respect to claims 9-12, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejections above. They are therefore considered rejected as set forth above.
Claims 5-8 and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
The following references are cited as being of general interest: Wong et al. (8,589,012), Fukui et al. (2007/0124064), Wong et al. (2013/0060461), Olofsson et al. (2015/0078652) and Giurgiu et al. (2017/027716).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN QUANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:00am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, can be reached at 570-270-7016.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
March 28, 2026
/TAN Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights