Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/793,998 and the amendments filed on 2/18/2026.
3. Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 14 and 16 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 11/18/2025 has been withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-13, 15, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of US 20220324566 A1 to Nikitenko in view of US 20190384298 A1 to Liu would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and is merely a result of hindsight analysis. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nikitenko and Liu are within similar fields of endeavor being related to the relationship between a user and a UAS system. Regarding the non-transitory memory, as stated in the non-final rejection mailed 11/18/2025 (hereinafter the non-final rejection), the addition of this element is the simple substitution of an element that would have predictable results. While the UAV of Nikitenko comprises various computer elements, despite the silence of a non-transitory memory, the functionalities of the system of Nikitenko would produce the same outcomes. Regarding the distance sensor, the UAV of Nikitenko already includes multiple sensors, including sensor 104, anemometer 105, and GPS receiver 106. Nikitenko has made apparent that its UAV is able to incorporate sensors to sense various information, including positional data. The addition of a distance sensor, which is another known form of a position sensor on a UAV, as described within Liu, determines the positional relationship between the UAV and obstacles/people. As Nikitenko already teaches incorporating similar types of sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate a similar known type of sensor on a UAV. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Nikitenko in view of Liu, which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 10-12, as these claims depend from claim 1, are still rejected, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 11077643 B1 to Maalouf provides no reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teachings of Maalouf to the limitations of claim 2. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As within claim 2, the UAV of Maalouf teaches an embedded lighting system for clear identification by humans. The currently provided claim 2 is silent on features such as “flush-mounted” lights and the lighting system providing conspicuity of the UAS in high-stakes aerial maneuvers. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in additional view of Mallouf, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the Applicant argues that Maalouf fails to teach infrared lighting for specific tactile covert operations. The Examiner notes that infrared lighting for specific tactile covert operations is not required by the current language of claim 3, which instead requires the embedded lighting comprising one of human visual spectrum lighting or infrared spectrum lighting. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in additional view of Maalouf, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 20160167775 A1 to Joniot fails to render obvious to combine with respect to Nikitenko. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention of Nikitenko is silent on a maximum altitude its UAV may operate at. However, Nikitenko does not limit itself in terms of altitude. The invention of Joniot shows that drones in similar operations to that of Nikitenko may fly at high altitudes, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the UAV of Nikitenko to be able to operate at high altitudes similar to those of Joniot. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in additional view of Joniot, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 8, 9, and 15, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 12079013 A1 to Foster fails to render obvious combining the concept of a remote command station to the GDS controller of Nikitenko. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Command priorities are not necessarily an issue when combining the teachings of Nikitenko and Foster. Neither reference shows how these features would conflict with each other. In fact, having multiple communication sources is well known within the art, such as airplane pilots, who receive information from ground control stations and other pilots. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the additional view of Foster, in which will also be described later below.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 20230043724 A1 to Morrow fails to render obvious in view of Nikitenko and Liu for being within a separate and conflicting field of endeavor. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not a requirement of obviousness to be within the exact same field of endeavor, if the prior art is pertinent to the particular problem. As noted in the non-final rejection, the invention of Morrow is pertinent to establishing a distance relationship between the GDS and UAS, where the Examiner submits is applicable to the claim. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the additional view of Morrow, in which will also be described later below.
Regarding dependent claims 13 and 19, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 20220411053 A1 to Baumgartner fails to teach the limitations of these claims for the second UAV of Baumgartner providing a different functionality than that claimed. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current language of claims 13 and 19 provides no limitation that the second UAS performs cooperatively and concurrently with the first UAS, and therefore, the second UAS may be deployed prior to the jump. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the additional view of Baumgartner, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 20210286377 A1 to Zhu fails to teach analogous art to providing a video feed to a human parachutist. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The teachings of Zhu are pertinent to the problem of the invention, being scouting a suitable landing area, and is therefore analogous art. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the additional view of Zhu, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claim 18, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 20160309124 A1 to Yang fails to render obvious in combination with Nikitenko and its preceding claims due to the number of references and for the GDU having image communication capabilities. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set fourth in the non-final rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have pertinent reasoning to incorporate the teachings of Yang to those of Nikitenko. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the additional view of Yang, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claim 21, the Applicant argues that additional reference US 20170301220 A1 to Jarrell fails to render obvious the communication with a remote control station for similar reasons as explained above with Foster. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reasons as explained above with respect to Foster. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the additional view of Jarrell, in which will also be described further below.
Regarding dependent claims 20 and 22, the Applicant did not provide specific arguments against the rejections to these claims. The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103, in which will be described further below.
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the Examiner agrees that the amended claims overcome the previous rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, an updated search was conducted, and new grounds of rejections concerning claims 14 and 16 have been determined, in which will be described later.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 15-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 15-22, the preamble of “the method of” should be changed to “the system of” to be consistent with the system of independent claim 1, which all of claims 15-22 depend on. The switch from a system to a method has not been established in any intermediary claims between claims 1 and 15-22.
Regarding claim 16, the term “the offset distance” lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner interprets this to be in error due to the claim dependency trees changing between the amendments of 2/18/2026 and the originally filed claims. The Examiner interprets the offset distance to be between the UAS and a lead parachutist, as described within claim 1, original claim 14 upon which original claim 16 depended from, and paragraphs [0008], [0025], [0048], [0049], [0057], and [0061] of the specification of the instant application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 1, Nikitenko teaches a system for controlling canopy formations approaching a desired impact point (DIP) comprising: at least one unmanned autonomous systems (UAS) ([0009] via “Embodiments of the Remote Drop Zone Atmospherics and Marking Platform (hereinafter “Platform”) 100 comprise an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) 101, …. The UAV 101 can be any remotely operated unmanned aerial vehicle including, without limitation, a quad copter, and drones in all sizes.”) configured for deployment under canopy and configured to fly in front of a stack of parachutists under canopy ([0012] via “In an embodiment of the Platform 100, the UAV 101 is worn on the front of the jumper when they leave the aircraft. The UAV 101 containment sling is clipped into the parachute harness during aircraft exit. … At a specified altitude, the jumper pulls the UAV 101 from the containment sling and drops it clear of himself. The sensors 104 indicate to the microprocessor 103 that the UAV 101 is in freefall and gains stability and flies to the preset or updated latitude and longitude landing location. While in route to the present landing location, the sensors 104, 105, 106 updates the wind information at every 1000 ft and relays that information to the jumper via the wrist display, remote display or phone app 301.”), the UAS comprising:
a transceiver, for communicating with a glide data unit (GDU) associated with a lead parachutist under canopy ([0010] via “The programable microprocessor 103 controls the UAV in all aspects. The programable microprocessor 103 comprises wireless or wired communication with the remote display, wrist display or cellphone app for programming. In addition, the programable microprocessor 103 comprises remote wireless communication to the remote display or wrist display, the jumper's phone application, or an Autonomous Guidance Unit (“AGU”) 301 to receive updated instructions from the remote display wrist display or phone app 301 while the UAV is in flight.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the display/phone application/Autonomous Guidance Unit (AGU) of Nikitenko as the glide data unit (GDU)); and
a lead parachutist GDU configured for deployment under canopy with a lead parachutist ([0010] via “In addition, the programable microprocessor 103 comprises remote wireless communication to the remote display or wrist display, the jumper's phone application, or an Autonomous Guidance Unit (“AGU”) 301 to receive updated instructions from the remote display wrist display or phone app 301 while the UAV is in flight. The AGU comprises guidance, navigation and control software package required to operate the steering lines of a parachute autonomous payload.”), ([0012] via “This information is displayed on the jumper's wrist display 301 or remote display 201 or phone app on a jumper or received by an AGU. This information allows the jumper or the AGU to recalculate its course to optimize the winds.”), the GDU comprising:
a transceiver, for communicating with the at least one UAS ([0010] via “The programable microprocessor 103 controls the UAV in all aspects. The programable microprocessor 103 comprises wireless or wired communication with the remote display, wrist display or cellphone app for programming. In addition, the programable microprocessor 103 comprises remote wireless communication to the remote display or wrist display, the jumper's phone application, or an Autonomous Guidance Unit (“AGU”) 301 to receive updated instructions from the remote display wrist display or phone app 301 while the UAV is in flight.”), ([0018] via “The Platform can also provide real time wind conditions (direction and velocity) for third party applications through via the remote display, wrist display or the jumper's phone application direct. The UAV 101 can send the updated wind direction and velocity via a wireless signal (e.g., WIFI, Bluetooth, or other radio frequency communications) directly to the jumper's phone app or autonomous load AGU.”); and
a display, for displaying information received from the at least one UAS, the displayed information being configured to represent for the canopy flight at least one of routing, approach, and DIP landing information ([0012] via “While in route to the present landing location, the sensors 104, 105, 106 updates the wind information at every 1000 ft and relays that information to the jumper via the wrist display, remote display or phone app 301. This information is displayed on the jumper's wrist display 301 or remote display 201 or phone app on a jumper or received by an AGU. This information allows the jumper or the AGU to recalculate its course to optimize the winds.”), ([0019] via “Given that the UAV 101 is relaying real time information to the remote display or wrist display, or the jumper's phone application, the jumper has a significantly increased chance of hitting the jumper's intended target. Give the wind velocity information, the jumper will be informed as to the conditions of the wind between the jumper's current location and that of the UAV 101. With the information the jumper informed of his glide ratio, glide to destination via the remote display or wrist display, the jumper's phone application or via a head up display worn by the jumper.”).
Nikitenko is silent on a non-transitory memory, for storing computer instructions and navigation routing data; and a distance sensor, for determining a vertical and lateral distance from a lead parachutist under canopy.
However, Liu teaches a UAS comprising: a non-transitory memory, for storing computer instructions and navigation routing data ([0042] via “The flight control system 12 can be configured to, in response to the UAV 100 having the safe distance from the user, control the UAV 100 to fly. That is, the processor 10 can be configured to perform the processes at S10, S20, and S30, and the flight control system 12 can be configured to perform the process at S40.”), ([0048] via “As shown in FIG. 6, the UAV 100 further includes a memory 18 coupled to the processor 10 and an accelerometer 20 coupled to the memory 18. The accelerometer 20
can be configured to detect and record accelerations of the UAV 100 within a preset first time period to obtain an acceleration curve, also referred to as an “actual acceleration curve. The memory 18 can be configured to store an acceleration curve model corresponding to the UAV 100 being thrown off.”), ([0100] via “The computer-readable storage medium may be any apparatus that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transmit the program for using by or in a combination of the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The computer readable medium may include, for example, an electrical assembly having one or more wires, e.g., electronic apparatus, a portable computer disk cartridge. e.g., magnetic disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM or flash memory), an optical fiber device, or a compact disc read only memory (CDROM).”); and
a distance sensor, for determining a vertical and lateral distance from a lead parachutist under canopy ([0076] via “In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 16, the UAV 100 further includes a horizontal distance sensor 28 coupled to the processor 10 and configured to detect a horizontal distance between the UAV 100 and the user.”), ([0086] via “In some embodiments, as show in FIG. 21, the UAV 100 further includes a vertical distance sensor 32
configured to detect a vertical distance between the UAV 100 and the user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu wherein the UAS comprises: a non-transitory memory, for storing computer instructions and navigation routing data; and a distance sensor, for determining a vertical and lateral distance from a lead parachutist under canopy. Regarding the non-transitory memory, the courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Non-transitory memories storing instructions are a common computer component found in unmanned autonomous systems. While the invention of Nikitenko includes computing elements including a programmable microprocessor, despite the lack of mention that these computing elements include a non-transitory memory, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same outcomes. Non-transitory memories are a well-known and common type of computing element in the art of unmanned autonomous systems, and therefore the simple substitution of a non-transitory memory would have been obvious to implement. Further, regarding the distance sensor, doing so determines whether the UAS is at a safe distance away from the user to fly, as stated by Liu ([0042] via “The processor 10 can be further configured to, in response to the UAV 100 being thrown off, determine whether the UAV 100 is detached from the user. The processor 10 can be further configured to, in response to the UAV 100 being detached from the user, determine whether the UAV 100 has the safe distance from the user. The flight control system 12 can be configured to, in response to the UAV 100 having the safe distance from the user, control the UAV 100 to fly. That is, the processor 10 can be configured to perform the processes at S10, S20, and S30, and the flight control system 12 can be configured to perform the process at S40.”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one UAS comprises one of a fixed wing UAS, a rotary UAS, and a combination fixed wing – rotary UAS ([0009] via “Embodiments of the Remote Drop Zone Atmospherics and Marking Platform (hereinafter “Platform”) 100 comprise an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) 101, …. The UAV 101 can be any remotely operated unmanned aerial vehicle including, without limitation, a quad copter, and drones in all sizes.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Nikitenko, wherein the UAV is at least one of a rotary UAS.).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the UAS further comprises an environmental sensor suite configured to sense and capture environmental data for storage in UAS memory ([0009] via “Embodiments of the Remote Drop Zone Atmospherics and Marking Platform (hereinafter “Platform”) 100
comprise an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) 101, IR lasers 102, a programable microprocessor 103, sensors 104, an anemometer 105, ….”), ([0012] via “While in route to the present landing location, the sensors 104, 105, 106 updates the wind information at every 1000 ft and relays that information to the jumper via the wrist display, remote display or phone app 301. This information is displayed on the jumper's wrist display 301 or remote display 201 or phone app on a jumper or received by an AGU. This information allows the jumper or the AGU to recalculate its course to optimize the winds.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the environmental sensor suite comprises at least one of an anemometer, a radar altimeter, and a temperature sensor ([0009] via “Embodiments of the Remote Drop Zone Atmospherics and Marking Platform (hereinafter “Platform”) 100 comprise an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) 101, IR lasers 102, a programable microprocessor 103, sensors 104, an anemometer 105, ….”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 10, wherein a deployed UAS is configured to transmit captured environmental data to the lead parachutist GDU for display thereat ([0012] via “While in route to the present landing location, the sensors 104, 105, 106 updates the wind information at every 1000 ft and relays that information to the jumper via the wrist display, remote display or phone app 301. This information is displayed on the jumper's wrist display 301 or remote display 201 or phone app on a jumper or received by an AGU. This information allows the jumper or the AGU to recalculate its course to optimize the winds.”), ([0018] via “The Platform can also provide real time wind conditions (direction and velocity) for third party applications through via the remote display, wrist display or the jumper's phone application direct. The UAV 101 can send the updated wind direction and velocity via a wireless signal (e.g., WIFI, Bluetooth, or other radio frequency communications) directly to the jumper's phone app or autonomous load AGU. “).
11. Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Maalouf (US 11077643 B1 hereinafter Maalouf).
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the UAS further comprises embedded lighting, for enabling clear identification and tracking of the UAS by the lead parachutist.
However, Maalouf teaches wherein the UAS further comprises embedded lighting (Col. 5 lines 13-18, where “The shape of the recess 20 is cut so as to match an LED unit 22. The LED unit 22 is then positioned and affixed into the recess 20 such the top of the LED unit 22 is preferably flush with the surface of the top carbon fiber sheet 12. The bottom face of the LED unit 22 has LED lights 23 thereon, and abuts the surface of the center clear sheet 16.”), for enabling clear identification and tracking of the UAS by the lead parachutist (Col. 5 lines 33-38, where “Due to the relative thinness of the center clear sheet 16 as compared to the entire thickness of the assembled sheet material, the center clear sheet 16 is almost invisible to the human eye when the lights of the LED unit 22 are off. However, when the lights are activated, the center of the frame lights up very bright and can be identified easily.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maalouf wherein the UAS further comprises embedded lighting, for enabling clear identification and tracking of the UAS by the lead parachutist. Doing so allows for easy identification of the UAS by humans, as stated above by Maalouf in Col. 5 lines 33-38.
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 2, but is silent on wherein the embedded lighting comprises one of human visual spectrum lighting and infrared spectrum lighting.
However, Maalouf teaches wherein the embedded lighting comprises one of human visual spectrum lighting and infrared spectrum lighting (Col. 5 lines 13-18, where “The shape of the recess 20 is cut so as to match an LED unit 22. The LED unit 22 is then positioned and affixed into the recess 20 such the top of the LED unit 22 is preferably flush with the surface of the top carbon fiber sheet 12. The bottom face of the LED unit 22 has LED lights 23
thereon, and abuts the surface of the center clear sheet 16.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the LED lights to be within the visible spectrum.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maalouf wherein the embedded lighting comprises one of human visual spectrum lighting and infrared spectrum lighting. Doing so allows for easy identification of the UAS by humans, as stated by Maalouf (Col. 5 lines 33-38, where “Due to the relative thinness of the center clear sheet 16 as compared to the entire thickness of the assembled sheet material, the center clear sheet 16 is almost invisible to the human eye when the lights of the LED unit 22 are off. However, when the lights are activated, the center of the frame lights up very bright and can be identified easily.”).
12. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Joniot (US 20160167775 A1 hereinafter Joniot).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the at least one UAS is capable of operating upwards of 33,000 feet in support of high-altitude high-opening (HAHO) operations.
However, Joniot teaches wherein the at least one UAS is capable of operating upwards of 33,000 feet in support of high-altitude high-opening (HAHO) operations ([0065] via “A drone according to the invention may, for example, be positioned above a given location for days or even weeks. It is positioned at an altitude for example of 20 to 25 km. Its altitude can, for example, change by 1 or 2 km (or more or less) between daytime (when the drone is exposed to sunlight) and nighttime (when it is in darkness).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Joniot wherein the at least one UAS is capable of operating upwards of 33,000 feet in support of high-altitude high-opening (HAHO) operations. Doing so increases the range that the UAS is able to navigate within, as stated above by Joniot.
13. Claim(s) 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Foster et al. (US 12079013 A1 hereinafter Foster).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on the system further comprising: a remote control station comprising a transceiver configured to communicate with the at least one UAS; wherein each UAS further comprises a transceiver configured to communicate with the remote control station.
However, Foster teaches a remote control station comprising a transceiver configured to communicate with the at least one UAS; wherein each UAS further comprises a transceiver configured to communicate with the remote control station (Col. 12 lines 29-40, where “The communications system 24 of the UAV 12 may communicate with an external system, such as the remote station 14, or other UAVs 12, UASs 10, aircraft, or other vehicles (including ground vehicles or satellites). As depicted in FIG. 5, the communications system 24 may have one or more receiver 110 and one or more transmitter 112. The communications system 24 may have one or more antenna 114 and one or more attenuator 116 for the antenna(s) 114. The attenuator 116 may reduce the strength of a signal from or to the antenna 114. The attenuator 116 may be used for range testing between the UAV 12 and the remote station 14.”), (Col. 18 lines 18-31, where “As illustrated in FIG. 19, in one embodiment, the remote station 14 may comprise components that interface with the unmanned aerial vehicle 12 and/or the remote operator 16 and/or that process data to/from the UAV 12. The remote station 14 may comprise a human-machine interface module 160, one or more processor(s) 162 (hereinafter “the processor”), one or more drive(s) 164 (hereinafter “the drive”), and a remote station communications system 166. In one embodiment, the remote station 14 may comprise one or more antenna(s) 168 (hereinafter “the antenna”). The antenna 168 may transmit/receive one or more signal to/from the remote station communications system 166 to communicate with one or more UAV 12, aircraft, and/or vehicles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Foster wherein the system further comprises: a remote control station comprising a transceiver configured to communicate with the at least one UAS; wherein each UAS further comprises a transceiver configured to communicate with the remote control station. Doing so provides communication capabilities between the UAS and the remote station, as stated above by Foster in both citations.
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 6, but is silent on wherein the UAS further comprises one or more cameras configured to capture still or moving surveillance images for storage in UAS memory.
However, Foster teaches wherein the UAS further comprises one or more cameras configured to capture still or moving surveillance images (Col. 8 lines 19-25, where “The UAV 12 may comprise one or more image capture device 42 and/or may carry one or more image capture device 42 as part of the payload 40. Nonexclusive examples of image capture devices 42 include cameras (capable of detecting visible and non-visible ranges of light), infrared sensors, radar, and sonar. The image capture device 42 may capture images 44.”) for storage in UAS memory (Col. 11 lines 8-12, where “In some embodiments, the image capture module 100 may transmit captured images 44 to the remote station 14 or other device through the communication system 24, store the captured images 44 in the memory 98, and/or process the captured images 44.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Foster wherein the UAS further comprises one or more cameras configured to capture still or moving surveillance images for storage in UAS memory. Doing so allows the UAS to understand its surrounding environment and share it with others, as stated above by Foster in Col. 11 lines 8-12.
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 8, but is silent on wherein a deployed UAS is configured to transmit captured surveillance images to the remote control station.
However, Foster teaches wherein a deployed UAS is configured to transmit captured surveillance images to the remote control station (Col. 8 lines 19-28, where “The UAV 12 may comprise one or more image capture device 42 and/or may carry one or more image capture device 42 as part of the payload 40. Nonexclusive examples of image capture devices 42
include cameras (capable of detecting visible and non-visible ranges of light), infrared sensors, radar, and sonar. The image capture device 42 may capture images 44. The UAV 12
may transmit the images 44 to the remote station 14 and/or to a remote system (not shown), and/or store the images 44, and/or process (partially or fully) the images 44 onboard the UAV 12.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Foster wherein a deployed UAS is configured to transmit captured surveillance images to the remote control station. Doing so communicates acquired information between the UAS and the remote station, as stated above by Foster.
14. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Morrow et al. (US 20230043724 A1 hereinafter Morrow).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the lead parachutist GDU further comprises a distance sensor configured to measure a vertical and lateral distance to the UAS.
However, Morrow teaches wherein the lead parachutist GDU further comprises a distance sensor configured to measure a vertical and lateral distance to the UAS ([0086] via “When a drone is detected, the processor can utilize the distance sensors to determine how far the drone is away. The processor can transmit the location, orientation, distance, and all other data to the UAVTMS 102 for further processing. In some embodiments, the transmission of the data can occur on an interval or in response to an event.”), ([0108] via “In one embodiment, the process 800 begins at step 802, where the system compares information from the detected UAV to information relating to one or more portable countermeasure devices. According to various aspects of the present disclosure, the system may determine the detected UAV's position with respect to the sensors that detected the UAV based on aspects of received video frames, … etc. In particular embodiments, the information relating to the countermeasure devices 600 may include GPS location data. In certain embodiments, the portable countermeasure devices 600 may include GPS sensors, and the devices may periodically transmit their GPS locations to the UAVTMS 102 to be stored in a system database, such as the database 106. In particular embodiments, the system may further compare the distance between the detected UAV and the one or more countermeasure devices 600 to a predetermined distance threshold.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Morrow wherein the lead parachutist GDU further comprises a distance sensor configured to measure a vertical and lateral distance to the UAS. Doing so determines whether or not the UAS is close enough to the GDU in order to allow communication between the UAS and GDU, as stated by Morrow ([0109] via “At step 804, the system determines if the detected UAV is within the predetermined distance threshold from one or more portable countermeasure devices 600. In various embodiments, if a particular portable countermeasure device known to the system is outside of a predetermined distance threshold, the process 800 may terminate. However, in one embodiment, if the system determines that one or more portable countermeasure devices are within the predetermined distance threshold, the system may proceed to step 806.”), ([0110] via “In one embodiment, at step 806, the system transmits the UAV information to the one or more identified portable countermeasure devices 600. In particular embodiments, the system may transmit all of the information received by the system sensors when detecting the UAV (e.g., video data, audio data, RF data, etc.).”).
15. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 20220411053 A1 hereinafter Baumgartner).
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 10, but is silent on wherein a second deployed UAS under canopy is configured for accelerating towards the DIP, and transmitting toward a remote control station aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the second UAS and environmental data acquired by one or more environmental sensors associated with the second UAS.
However, Baumgartner teaches wherein a second deployed UAS under canopy is configured for accelerating towards the DIP, and transmitting toward a remote control station aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the second UAS and environmental data acquired by one or more environmental sensors associated with the second UAS ([0107] via “For example, referring to FIG. 22, UAV 100 may be utilized to map and measure a desired atmospheric corridor and calculate an atmospheric profile prior to a parachute jump from an airborne platform. In such embodiments, UAV 100 may measure wind parameters and atmospherics in vertical descent or ascent modes, in a static hover mode, and/or in motion (e.g., by applying sensor-fusion technology and/or wind triangle calculations). UAV 100 may provide a real-time data stream to the user (e.g., parachute jumper).”), ([0111] via “Referring to FIG. 27, UAV 100 may facilitate air corridor mapping and profiling for resupply and air drop applications. For example, UAV 100 may support precision landing and air profile mapping behind enemy lines (combat applications) and remote areas (search and rescue, medical delivery, personnel recovery, etc.). Similarly, and referring to FIG. 28, UAV 100 may support air corridor mapping and profiling for precision skydive and parachute jumps and landings as well as a live video feed of the landing zone from the UAV to the operator's interface (e.g. ATAK 1502).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baumgartner wherein a second deployed UAS under canopy is configured for accelerating towards the DIP, and transmitting toward a remote control station aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the second UAS and environmental data acquired by one or more environmental sensors associated with the second UAS. Doing so collects and transmits information about the aerial environment to a user before the jump mission occurs, such that the user received this information prior to the jump, as stated above by Baumgartner in both citations.
16. Claim(s) 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), and further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher).
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the UAS is a quadcopter comprising a plurality of rotors ([0009] via “The UAV 101 can be any remotely operated unmanned aerial vehicle including, without limitation, a quad copter, and drones in all sizes.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Nikitenko as well.), and
wherein the UAS transceiver is a cellular radio configured to communicate with the GDU transceiver ([0010] via “The programable microprocessor 103 controls the UAV in all aspects. The programable microprocessor 103 comprises wireless or wired communication with the remote display, wrist display or cellphone app for programming. In addition, the programable microprocessor 103 comprises remote wireless communication to the remote display or wrist display, the jumper's phone application, or an Autonomous Guidance Unit (“AGU”) 301 to receive updated instructions from the remote display wrist display or phone app 301 while the UAV is in flight.”).
Nikitenko is silent on the UAS transceiver communicating with the GDU transceiver via a terrestrial cellular network, the UAS transceiver further configured to communicate with a remote pilot transceiver via the terrestrial cellular network, and wherein the UAS is further configured to receive a command from the remote pilot.
However, Poscher teaches the UAS transceiver communicating with the GDU transceiver via a terrestrial cellular network ([0034] via “The vehicles have the ability of exchanging data with each other and/or to a controlling base wirelessly. A ground based cellular or wireless communication network may be employed to enable such data exchange. Such a communication network may be run by a mobile operator and thus a communication between a UAV and a controlling ground station may take place using the data communication services of that communication network.”),
the UAS transceiver further configured to communicate with a remote pilot transceiver via the terrestrial cellular network ([0034] via “The vehicles have the ability of exchanging data with each other and/or to a controlling base wirelessly. A ground based cellular or wireless communication network may be employed to enable such data exchange. Such a communication network may be run by a mobile operator and thus a communication between a UAV and a controlling ground station may take place using the data communication services of that communication network.”), and
wherein the UAS is further configured to receive a command from the remote pilot ([0059] via “By alternative, the UAV-AS 100 may receive the flight path information applicable for the UAV 10 from an operator operating the UAV 10. In this case the operator operating the UAV 10 may inform beforehand the responsible UAV-AS along a scheduled flight path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Poscher wherein the UAS transceiver communicates with the GDU transceiver via a terrestrial cellular network, the UAS transceiver further configured to communicate with a remote pilot transceiver via the terrestrial cellular network, and wherein the UAS is further configured to receive a command from the remote pilot. Regarding the UAS transceiver communicating with the GDU transceiver via a terrestrial cellular network, the courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Terrestrial cellular networks used for communicating between devices are a known communication means within the art of radio transceivers. While the invention of Nikitenko discusses wireless communication between the UAV and AGU, despite the lack of mention that this communication runs through a terrestrial cellular network, the functionalities of the invention would produce the same outcomes. Ground-based cellular networks are a well-known and common type of communication means between electronic devices, and therefore the simple substitution of a terrestrial cellular network would have been obvious to implement. Further, regarding the UAS transceiver communicating with a remote pilot transceiver via a terrestrial cellular network and receiving commands from the remote pilot, doing so allows a human pilot to input information to the UAS in order to control the UAS in a desired way, as stated above by Poscher in paragraph [0059].
Regarding Claim 22, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the environmental data comprises data provided by at least one of an anemometer, a radar altimeter, and a temperature sensor ([0009] via “Embodiments of the Remote Drop Zone Atmospherics and Marking Platform (hereinafter “Platform”) 100 comprise an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) 101, IR lasers 102, a programable microprocessor 103, sensors 104, an anemometer 105, ….”).
17. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), and further in view of Foster et al. (US 12079013 A1 hereinafter Foster).
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 14, but is silent on the method further comprising: at the UAS deployed under canopy, transmitting, toward a remote control station, aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the UAS.
However, Foster teaches at the UAS deployed under canopy, transmitting, toward a remote control station, aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the UAS (Col. 8 lines 19-28, where “The UAV 12 may comprise one or more image capture device 42 and/or may carry one or more image capture device 42 as part of the payload 40. Nonexclusive examples of image capture devices 42 include cameras (capable of detecting visible and non-visible ranges of light), infrared sensors, radar, and sonar. The image capture device 42 may capture images 44. The UAV 12 may transmit the images 44 to the remote station 14 and/or to a remote system (not shown), and/or store the images 44, and/or process (partially or fully) the images 44 onboard the UAV 12.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Foster wherein the method further comprises: at the UAS deployed under canopy, transmitting, toward a remote control station, aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the UAS. Doing so communicates acquired information between the UAS and the remote station, as stated above by Foster.
18. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), further in view of Foster et al. (US 12079013 A1 hereinafter Foster), and further in view of Raabe et al. (US 20220019222 A1 hereinafter Raabe).
Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent on the method further comprising: in response to a command based on a policy, terminating the offset distance; and accelerating the UAS toward a target.
However, Raabe teaches in response to a command based on a policy, terminating the offset distance; and accelerating the UAS toward a target ([0082] via “Here, if the first reference value D.sub.1 and the second reference value D.sub.2 are equal to each other, the distance d between the unmanned aerial vehicle 1 and the inspection object structure 15a is controlled so as to become a constant distance that is equal to the reference value (FIG. 7D).”), ([0083] via “Consequently, it is possible to perform control to, e.g., make the unmanned aerial vehicle 1 move toward the inspection object structure 15a and make the stereo camera 3 face toward the inspection object structure 15a, and then transmit a mode switching signal for turning on a distance control mode from the proportional controller to the communication antenna 12 for transition to the distance control mode and perform inspection work … and after an end of the work, transmit a mode switching signal for turning off the distance control mode from the proportional controller to the communication antenna 12 to terminate the distance control mode and make the unmanned aerial vehicle 1 return.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Raabe wherein the method further comprises: in response to a command based on a policy, terminating the offset distance; and accelerating the UAS toward a target. Doing so ends the requirement for distance control of the UAS when the task using the distance control concludes, as stated above by Raabe in paragraph [0083].
19. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), further in view of Foster et al. (US 12079013 A1 hereinafter Foster), further in view of Raabe et al. (US 20220019222 A1 hereinafter Raabe), and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20210286377 A1 hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the acquired aerial imagery comprises still or moving surveillance imagery of at least one of the approaching DIP, terrain features, enemy groupings, and enemy movements.
However, Zhu teaches wherein the acquired aerial imagery comprises still or moving surveillance imagery of at least one of the approaching DIP, terrain features, enemy groupings, and enemy movements ([0037] via “At block 415, the movable object descends to a predetermined height suitable for automatic terrain evaluation or measurement. The height (also referred to as elevation) is calculated in relation to an object (e.g., a building, a boat, or a platform) or ground below the UAV. In some embodiments, the predetermined height is decided based on the pixel resolution of the bottom-viewing cameras 173 and 174 (as illustrated in FIG. 2). A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the terrain can be based on images captured by the bottom-viewing cameras 173 and 174. An individual pixel of the images represents a land area. The higher the UAV hovers, the larger the land area that is represented by the individual pixel, and therefore the lower the resolution the 3D terrain reconstruction. The predetermined height is generally small enough such that the resolution of the 3D terrain reconstruction is high enough to identify a suitable landing spot for the UAV.”), ([0038] via “On the other hand, the predetermined height is large enough such that the field of view of the bottom-viewing cameras 173 and 174 covers a suitable large area of the land. If the predetermined height is too small, the cameras 173-174 can only cover a small land area, which may not include any suitable landing spots.”), ([0044] via “At block 416, the movable object captures images using one or more cameras (e.g., the cameras 172 and 174 of the UAV 100 as illustrated in FIG. 1).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhu wherein the acquired aerial imagery comprises still or moving surveillance imagery of at least one of the approaching DIP, terrain features, enemy groupings, and enemy movements. Doing so captures the images at an appropriate height, such that the camera resolution is sufficient but a wide-encompassing image is still captured, as stated above by Zhu in paragraphs [0037] and [0038].
20. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), further in view of Foster et al. (US 12079013 A1 hereinafter Foster), further in view of Raabe et al. (US 20220019222 A1 hereinafter Raabe), further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20210286377 A1 hereinafter Zhu), and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20160309124 A1 hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 17, but is silent on the method further comprising: at the UAS deployed under canopy, transmitting toward the GDU associated with the lead parachutist under canopy, the acquired aerial imagery.
However, Yang teaches at the UAS deployed under canopy, transmitting toward the GDU associated with the lead parachutist under canopy, the acquired aerial imagery ([0027] via “The target recognition module 122A can determine the target object in a variety of ways. For example, once the captured image signal 130 transmitted by the UAV 110 is received by the mobile terminal 120, an user can directly choose the target object on the mobile terminal 120
based on the image signal 130. More specifically, the image 130 captured by the UAV 110 can be directly displayed on the mobile terminal 120, such as on the touch screen of a cell phone or a tablet. Thus, the user can designate the target object by directly clicking the touch screen.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang wherein the method further comprises: at the UAS deployed under canopy, transmitting toward the GDU associated with the lead parachutist under canopy, the acquired aerial imagery. Doing so provides the user with the captured information of the environment, as stated above by Yang.
21. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), and further in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 20220411053 A1 hereinafter Baumgartner).
Regarding Claim 19, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 14, but is silent on the method further comprising: at a second UAS deployed under canopy, accelerating towards the DIP, and transmitting toward a remote control station aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the second UAS and environmental data acquired by one or more environmental sensors associated with the second UAS.
However, Baumgartner teaches at a second UAS deployed under canopy, accelerating towards the DIP, and transmitting toward a remote control station aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the second UAS and environmental data acquired by one or more environmental sensors associated with the second UAS ([0107] via “For example, referring to FIG. 22, UAV 100 may be utilized to map and measure a desired atmospheric corridor and calculate an atmospheric profile prior to a parachute jump from an airborne platform. In such embodiments, UAV 100 may measure wind parameters and atmospherics in vertical descent or ascent modes, in a static hover mode, and/or in motion (e.g., by applying sensor-fusion technology and/or wind triangle calculations). UAV 100 may provide a real-time data stream to the user (e.g., parachute jumper).”), ([0111] via “Referring to FIG. 27, UAV 100 may facilitate air corridor mapping and profiling for resupply and air drop applications. For example, UAV 100 may support precision landing and air profile mapping behind enemy lines (combat applications) and remote areas (search and rescue, medical delivery, personnel recovery, etc.). Similarly, and referring to FIG. 28, UAV 100 may support air corridor mapping and profiling for precision skydive and parachute jumps and landings as well as a live video feed of the landing zone from the UAV to the operator's interface (e.g. ATAK 1502).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baumgartner wherein the method further comprises: at a second UAS deployed under canopy, accelerating towards the DIP, and transmitting toward a remote control station aerial imagery acquired by one or more image capture devices associated with the second UAS and environmental data acquired by one or more environmental sensors associated with the second UAS. Doing so collects and transmits information about the aerial environment to a user before the jump mission occurs, such that the user received this information prior to the jump, as stated above by Baumgartner in both citations.
22. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), and further in view of Maalouf (US 11077643 B1 hereinafter Maalouf).
Regarding Claim 20, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 14, but is silent on the method further comprising: at the UAS deployed under canopy, illuminating position lights of the UAS platform configured to improve visibility of the UAS to at least the lead parachutist.
However, Maalouf teaches at the UAS deployed under canopy, illuminating position lights of the UAS platform (Col. 5 lines 13-18, where “The shape of the recess 20 is cut so as to match an LED unit 22. The LED unit 22 is then positioned and affixed into the recess 20 such the top of the LED unit 22 is preferably flush with the surface of the top carbon fiber sheet 12. The bottom face of the LED unit 22 has LED lights 23 thereon, and abuts the surface of the center clear sheet 16.”) configured to improve visibility of the UAS to at least the lead parachutist (Col. 5 lines 33-38, where “Due to the relative thinness of the center clear sheet 16 as compared to the entire thickness of the assembled sheet material, the center clear sheet 16 is almost invisible to the human eye when the lights of the LED unit 22 are off. However, when the lights are activated, the center of the frame lights up very bright and can be identified easily.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Maalouf wherein the method further comprises: at the UAS deployed under canopy, illuminating position lights of the UAS platform configured to improve visibility of the UAS to at least the lead parachutist. Doing so allows for easy identification of the UAS by humans, as stated above by Maalouf in Col. 5 lines 33-38.
23. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikitenko (US 20220324566 A1 hereinafter Nikitenko) in view of Liu (US 20190384298 A1 hereinafter Liu), further in view of Poscher et al. (US 20210097871 A1 hereinafter Poscher), and further in view of Jarrell et al. (US 20170301220 A1 hereinafter Jarrell).
Regarding Claim 21, modified reference Nikitenko teaches the method of claim 14, but is silent on the method further comprising: at the UAS deployed under canopy, in response to control messages received from the remote control station, updating the routing instructions to modify thereby the navigating of the UAS through airspace by changing at least one of airspace routing, approach, and DIP.
However, Jarrell teaches at the UAS deployed under canopy, in response to control messages received from the remote control station, updating the routing instructions to modify thereby the navigating of the UAS through airspace by changing at least one of airspace routing, approach, and DIP ([0310] via “One or more of communications stations 3201a, 3201b, 3201c,
3201d, 3201e, and/or 3201f may send a message to the UAV informing the UAV that the UAV is not flying in the particular air corridor or airspace in which the UAV should be flying. The communications station may send a message to the UAV that includes one or more positional or location identifiers, or one or more airspace identifiers. The UAV may use this information to adjust its route so that the UAV may fly in a proper air corridor or airspace. The communications station may send a message to the UAV that includes directions on how the UAV should adjust its route so that the UAV may fly in the proper air corridor or airspace.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jarrell wherein the method further comprises: at the UAS deployed under canopy, in response to control messages received from the remote control station, updating the routing instructions to modify thereby the navigating of the UAS through airspace by changing at least one of airspace routing, approach, and DIP. Doing so allows the remote control station to adjust the route of the UAS such that the UAS flies appropriately within the airspace, as stated above by Jarrell.
Examiner’s Note
24. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing 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. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
25. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights