Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Aaron et al. for the “TAMPER-RESISTANT DATALINK COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM" filed 08/02/2024 has been examined. This application is a Continuation of 18/177,398, filed 03/02/2023 is now U.S. Patent # 12,058,524 which is a Continuation of 17/732,306, filed 04/28/2022 is now U.S. Patent # 11,622,274 and Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63183801, filed 05/04/2021. Claim 1 is pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The status of the
related applications USSN#18/177,398 filed 03/02/2023 noted on the "Incorporation by reference to any priority applications", page 1, paragraph [0001] needs to be updated. This application is now U.S. Patent#12,058,524. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
4. A rejection based on double patenting of the ''same invention'' type finds its support in
the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that ''whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process ... may obtain : patent therefor ...'' (Emphasis added). Thus, the term ''same
invention'' in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v.
Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957);
and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
5. 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'' ranted by a patent and to prevent possible
harassment by multiple assignees. See 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); and, 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claim an invention made as a result of activities undertaken with the scope of a join research agreement 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 Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms/. The actual filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
6. Claim 1 of the present application Serial No. 18/793,008 (hereinafter Application ‘008) is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent #12,058,524 (hereinafter ‘524), and over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent #11,622,274 (hereinafter ‘274) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The claims are identical and they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent, since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to an obvious variant of the patent invention, and the claims are equivalent in scope, embodiment. The language of the two claims is substantially identical and is equivalent in functioning. All of the structural elements of the patent claims are present in the pending claims, defined with either identical or equivalent language. Additionally, the functional language, scope and embodiment reflect identical operation, purpose, application, and environment.
With respect to the specific limitations, claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent ‘524 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent ‘274 are equivalent to the pending claim 1 of Application ‘008 for providing temper-resistant datalink communication system. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
5. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US#2015/0147976) in view of Chan (US#2006/0256768).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a novel system and apparatus for tamper-resistant datalink, according to the essential features of the claim. Wang et al. (US#2015/0147976) discloses a tamper-resistant datalink communications system (Wang et al., Fig. 1) comprising: a ground-based communications module (Wang et al., Fig. 1, communication module 112; [0099] the controlling terminal can be disposed on or affixed to a support platform) configured to be coupled to a radio controller (Wang et al., FIG. 1, controlling terminal 104, in relation to FIG. 8) configured to remotely control a drone (Wang et al., FIG. 1, controlled terminal 102, in relation to FIG. 7; [0047] the controlling terminal can include, be a part of, attachable to, or otherwise associated with any object or device capable of transmitting remote control instructions or control data to the controlled terminal) comprising a plurality of actuators (Wang et al. [0045] a controlled terminal such as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) can be configured to receive control data from a controlling terminal such as a remote controlling terminal, in relation to [0046] the controlled terminal can include, be a part of, attachable to, or otherwise associated with any movable objects that objects may include or be included by manned or unmanned vehicle equipped with visual sensor or other types of sensors, robot, or other live or inanimate object usable for performing surveillance and tracking, remote sensing, search and rescue, scientific research, and other functions); and a remote-mounted communications module (Wang et al., FIG. 1, communication module 108) configured to communicate data with the ground-based communications module (Wang et al. [0055] the first communication module of the controlled terminal and the first communication module of the controlling terminal can be configured to communicate over a communication link), the remote-mounted communications module configured to be coupled to the drone (Wang et al. [0045] control data may be used to control a state or operation of the controlled terminal, the control data can result in an adjustment of a UAV's position, attitude, speed, acceleration, or the like), the ground-based communications module comprising: a ground processor (Wang et al., processing unit 804; [0045] the controlling terminal can include one or more computing devices in base station or can be a handheld or wearable device) configured to: receive a plurality of first signals each modulated with a first modulation scheme from the radio controller (Wang et al. [0062] any suitable analog or digital modulation schemes may be used for the transmission of control and/or feedback data such as pulse-width modulation (PWM)), convert the plurality of first signals (Wang et al. [0062] the control data provided by the controlling terminal may be modified or otherwise processed by the monitoring terminal before being transmitted to the controlled terminal) to a second signal modulated with a second modulation scheme different from the first modulation scheme (Wang et al. [0062] any suitable analog or digital modulation schemes may be used for the transmission of control and/or feedback data such as pulse-position modulation (PPM)), and generate a plurality of second duplicated signals comprising two or more duplicated signals of the second signal (Wang et al. [0066] in a TDM scheme, time is divided into a plurality of cyclically repeating frames, where a certain portion of each frame can be allocated to the transmission of the control data from monitoring terminal to the controlled terminal); a plurality of ground transmitters (Wang et al., FIG. 1, modules 112, 118) configured to operate in different frequencies and respectively transmit the plurality of second duplicated signals to the remote- mounted communications module (Wang et al. [0066] in a FDM scheme, total bandwidth of the transmission medium of the communication link is divided into a series of non-overlapping frequency sub-bands, where some of the sub-bands can be used for the transmission of the control data from the monitoring terminal to the controlled terminal); and a plurality of ground receivers (Wang et al., FIG. 1, modules 112, 118; [0056] the second communication module of the controlled terminal and the second communication module of the monitoring terminal may each include both a transmitter and a receiver, or a transceiver) each configured to receive a verification signal, from the remote-mounted communications module, indicating that the plurality of first signals have been successfully retrieved by the remote-mounted communications module (Wang et al. [0064] the controlled terminal transmits, via the communication link, feedback data to the monitoring terminal, the feedback data can include or be indicative of information related to a state of the controlled terminal and/or the current environment for the controlled terminal), the remote-mounted communications module comprising: a plurality of remote receivers (Wang et al., FIG. 7, communication modules 710) configured to respectively receive the plurality of second duplicated signals from the ground-based communications module (Wang et al. [0097] the control module can be controlled by control data provided from an external device such as a controlling terminal or monitoring terminal); a remote processor (Wang et al., FIG. 7, processing unit 704) configured to: convert the restored second signal to the plurality of first signals (Wang et al. [0051] the control data may include information for adjusting the position, altitude, speed, or acceleration of the controlled terminal and/or any component thereof, controlling a propulsion unit of the controlled terminal, causing physical transformation or restructuring of the controlled terminal in relation to [0062] any suitable analog or digital modulation schemes may be used for the transmission of control and/or feedback data such as pulse-width modulation (PWM)), and control the plurality of actuators of the drone respectively with the plurality of first signals (Wang et al. [0097] the control data may be used to control the propulsion mechanism, the sensing module, or other components of the controlled terminal, the control data is critical for controlling operations of the controlled terminal and needs to be transmitted and received correctly); and a plurality of remote transmitters (Wang et al., FIG. 7, communication modules 710; [0098] the communication module can include a transceiver that combines the functionalities of the transmitter and the receiver) each configured to transmit the verification signal to the ground-based communications module (Wang et al. [0045] the controlled terminal can also be configured to transmit feedback data to a monitoring terminal, where feedback data can include an operational state of an UAV, sensor data acquired by the UAV and other similar data).
However, Wang does not expressly disclose wherein comparing the plurality of second duplicated signals, and restoring the second signal based on the comparison. In the same field of endeavor, Chan (US#2006/0256768) teaches for example (Chan [0005] successful delivery and receipt of data within a network can be determined by receipt of an acknowledgement message (ACK), where the acknowledgement message (ACK) is a response from the receiving or destination node to the source or originating node) discloses comparing the plurality of second duplicated signals (Chan [0019] original and duplicate data packets are transferred simultaneously using different paths in a communications network from a source node to a destination node, in relation to [0020] where an application or transport layer of the destination node filters plural copies of received packets), and restoring the second signal based on the comparison (Chan [0039] the original and/or duplicate packets reach the destination node, where an IP layer receives and processes the original and/or duplicate packets and an application layer filters the original and/or duplicate packets to discard additional copies of the received packets).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Chan’s enhance reliability of data delivery into Wang’s reducing interference among simultaneous transmissions of data with the motivation being to provide a method and system for a more reliable transmission (Chan [0040]).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Gordaychik (US#2021/0058936) is cited to show advanced mobile devices and network supporting same
The Russell et al. (US#2019/0051190) shows authorization management and flight compliance system and method for unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Kereesen (US#2020/0294401) shows method and apparatus for collecting and using sensor data from a vehicles
The Tavner et al. (US#2020/0287619) shows system and method for controlling a pilotless device.
The Aaron et al. (US#11,622,274) shows tamper-resistant datalink comm. System.
The Meinhart (US#10,059,445) shows remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and data collection protection system (DCPS).
The Chester (US#2008/0198832) low level sequence as an anti-tamper mechanism.
12. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00am to 3:00pm.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
06/12/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights