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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”).
In regard to claim 1, 19 and 20, MEIER discloses “...[a] method comprising:
receiving delivery information for a package; (see paragraph 170 where the video camera and time stamping device can provide an indication of a food delivery)
monitoring the package using an autonomous vehicle, (see abstract and paragraph 69 where the tracking cab be provided from video footage from an elevated platform or uav that is circling the delivery man)
wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a drone device; and taking an action based on the package, (see abstract and paragraph 69-71 where the tracking can be provided from video footage from an elevated platform or uav that is circling the delivery man)
including triggering a notification to a mobile device when the package moves more than a threshold amount,
wherein taking the action includes moving the autonomous vehicle, (see paragraph 63-64, 164, 159-160 where the user can be alerted from the mobile device or watch and then can cause the drone to record the video and track the individual or object from a command from the wearable device to the drone) “.
Shina teaches “wherein determining if the package moves more than the threshold amount is based on a depth map and (see page 9 where the cameras can include a first and a second RGB-depth sensor and see page 31-32 where the depth data can provide a frame by frame alignment of the object in a point cloud)
comparing a depth of the package in successive images. (see page 42 where the depth data can be used for successive images for frame to frame alignment of the point clouds)
Claim 19 recites and Meier discloses “...configured to receive package delivery information from a server and determine whether the package moves a threshold amount based on the depth map”. (see paragraph 170 where the video camera and time stamping device can provide an indication of a food delivery) (see abstract and paragraph 69 where the tracking can be provided from video footage from an elevated platform or uav that is circling the delivery man) (see abstract and paragraph 69-71 where the tracking cab be provided from video footage from an elevated platform or uav that is circling the delivery man)
Claim 20 and Meier discloses “...20. An aerial drone device comprising:
a device body configured to receive a package;
at least one propeller coupled to the device body;
a plurality of information acquisition components coupled to the device body, wherein a first information acquisition component of the plurality of information acquisition components is positioned in a first direction, and a second information acquisition component of the plurality of information acquisition components is positioned in a second direction;
a memory configured for storing an application, the application configured to:
process external information, wherein the external information includes delivery information” (see paragraph 170 where the video camera and time stamping device can provide an indication of a food delivery) (see abstract and paragraph 69 where the tracking cab be provided from video footage from an elevated platform or uav that is circling the delivery man) (see abstract and paragraph 69-71 where the tracking cab be provided from video footage from an elevated platform or uav that is circling the delivery man)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of SINHA with a reasonable expectation of success since SINHA teaches that on page 10 of the pdf the device has two RGB-depth sensors for Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) which is the computational for constructing or updating a map of an unknown environment. At page 27 of the pdf, the depth sensor can provide an object feature mapping to determine an object and neighbors of the object in the image. At page 42-43, in each frame of the image, the depth data for each camera can be aligned and recorded in the point cloud. Loop closure is what helps a robot understand that an object has already been visited, and therefore the robot will update its location and the map accordingly. This can provide an improved successive frame by frame depth detection that can update the point cloud for an object that has been detected and moved but already detected to account for drift. His can be in a frame by frame detecting of objects in a 3d model via local alignment and global alignment of the object in the map. See page 43. This can be used to track packages in a warehouse. See page 12.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”)
and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190241266A1 to Thompson assigned to Walmart Apollo LLC and filed in 2016.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
522
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MEIER is silent but THOMPSON teaches “...2. The method of claim | wherein receiving the delivery information for the package includes utilizing object recognition with a camera of the drone device”. (see claims 1-11 and FIG. 2-5 where the drone has a camera and a crane delivery for delivery of the package and that can receive the delivery service information and payment information and a database and then deliver the package; see paragraph 33 where the camera 512 can detect it is over the delivery location and then lower the package from the crane 205 to the delivery pad at the delivery location and this is used autonomously with a pilot system)’
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER and the teachings of THOMPSON since THOMPSON teaches that the server can provide 1. Payment information 2. Inventory information and 3 delivery information. The drone with a crane can obtain the delivery location which is a pad at the customer’s location and then delivery the package via a pilot system. It can also confirm a signature capture. See claims 10-11. This can provide an automated delivery system that that is cheaper than a human.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of United States Patent No.: US9659503B2 to Gordon (US20170018193A1) that was filed in 2015 (hereinafter “Gordon”) and assigned to IBM™.
Gordon teaches “...3. The method of claim | further comprising monitoring a property with a security device, wherein the security device communicates with the autonomous vehicle”. ”. (see Fig. 2 where the drone can communication with a second security device and see paragraph 19-20 where the user is nudged and see paragraph 10-16, 17-22 where a mobile device from the handicapped person provides the location and provides this location to the drone and paragraph 16 where the drone determines a safe route for the person to the destination) (see claim 8 where a destination for an individual is provided and multiple route and provided and a drone determines one or more safe preferred routes from the original location to the destination)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER and the teachings of GORDON for IBM since GORDON teaches that a blind person can be aided by a drone that can provide a preferred route based on one or more accessibility issues. This can be planned and provided back to the blind person using the drone assistant. The drone can then nudge the user using a touch wearable navigation system. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 and 20.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No.: 10,878,365 B2 to Burch that was filed in 2017.
Burch teaches “...4. The method of claim | wherein receiving the delivery information for the package includes monitoring and analyzing a network-based communication to determine delivery of the package”. (see Fig. 18d where the second drone 1725 can monitor the packages and shipping items to determine if they are caustic and then can move the items out of the roller device 1690 to provide a delivery of the packages to the ultimate destination and off the larger plane 100 and see col. 67, line 15 to col. 68, line 35 and col. 38, lines 40-65 where the smaller drone can do an inspection profile to determine the items was successfully loaded and is a dangerous caustic item and was successfully unloaded from the plane)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of BURCH with a reasonable expectation of success since BURCH teaches that a first vehicle like a plane to transport overnight packages can include a second smaller drone. The second smaller drone can analyze the delivery data and the packages that are caustic in the vehicle and monitor if they are leaking as they are stored or taken off the plane. The second drone can then inspect the first plane itself to determine if there is damage to the first drone to provide an improved safety device.
Burch teaches “...5. The method of claim | wherein monitoring the package includes automatically moving the drone device so that the package is within a view of a camera of the drone device. (see col 14, line 6 where the drone has a depth camera sensor; and see Fig. 18d where the second drone 1725 can monitor the packages and shipping items to determine if they are caustic and then can move the items out of the roller device 1690 to provide a delivery of the packages to the ultimate destination and off the larger plane 100 and see col. 67, line 15 to col. 68, line 35 and col. 38, lines 40-65 where the smaller drone can do an inspection profile to determine the items was successfully loaded and is a dangerous caustic item and was successfully unloaded from the plane)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of BURCH with a reasonable expectation of success since BURCH teaches that a first vehicle like a plane to transport overnight packages can include a second smaller drone. The second smaller drone can analyze the delivery data and the packages that are caustic in the vehicle and monitor if they are leaking as they are stored or taken off the plane. The second drone can then inspect the first plane itself to determine if there is damage to the first drone to provide an improved safety device.
Burch teaches “..6. The method of claim | wherein taking the action includes triggering an alarm of a security system when the package moves more than the threshold amount. (see col. 44, lines 1-65 where the drone can determine from an inspection there is an item like the package that is missing and provide a record 945; Inspection profile record 945 maintains delivery vehicle dependent information accessed and used by inspection program 925. Inspection profile record 945 may be initially loaded into memory 315 or later updated via a download received by PID 825 and stored into memory 315 so as to provide inspection-related information specific to the particular delivery vehicle, such as aircraft 100. Inspection profile record 945 at least includes data indicating the different targeted inspection points corresponding to parts of the delivery vehicle to be inspected and an acceptable range of sensor-based inspection information for each of the targeted inspection points for operation of the delivery vehicle. Using the information in the inspection profile record 945 and the sensor-based inspection information gathered, the OIP 910 may automatically identify an unacceptable condition related to the one of the targeted inspection points (i.e., an out of range inspection condition), such as a missing condition, a loose condition, a damaged condition, a cracked condition, a worn condition, a leaking condition, and a thermal related condition.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of BURCH with a reasonable expectation of success since BURCH teaches that a first vehicle like a plane to transport overnight packages can include a second smaller drone. The second smaller drone can analyze the delivery data and the packages that are caustic in the vehicle and monitor if they are leaking as they are stored or taken off the plane. The second drone can then inspect the first plane itself to determine if there is damage to the first drone to provide an improved safety device.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of European Patent Application Pub. No.: EP3251108B1 to Taveira (US 20160253907A1) that was filed in 2015 (hereinafter “Taveira”).
Taviera teaches “...7. The method of claim 1 wherein the autonomous vehicle accesses “do not fly” zone information to avoid flying in a “do not fly” zone.” (see paragraph 45) (see station 214 and 256, 230 that can communicate with the drone 100) (see claims 1-9; see paragraph 44-46 where the drone receives navigation signals and beacon signals and restricted area signals from the ground station) (see paragraph 45) (see station 214 and 256, 230 that can communicate with the drone 100) (see claims 1-9; see paragraph 44-46 where the drone receives navigation signals and beacon signals and restricted area signals from the ground station) (see paragraph 55-56 where the drone can be provided a conditional access to the restricted area) (see paragraph 55 where the server can provide a periodic heart beat check for the drone to indicate if the navigation unit and the drone system is still functioning; see paragraph 26 where the drone is controlled to include that the video/photo recording is disabled and the drone must fly in a silent mode) (See FIG. 3a to 3b where the restriction area node can provide signals 320a-b so the drone takes a path 311c to avoid the first, second and n restricted areas) (see claim 1-2 where the ground operator can provide corrective action to the drone including 1. Landing in or 2. Moving to a designated area; 3. Returning to the designated location, 4. Preventing take off; 5. A third party taking control of the drone; 6. Restricting use of the drone, and 7. Waiting for a period of time) (See FIG. 3a to 3b where the restriction area node can provide signals 320a-b so the drone takes a path 311c to avoid the first, second and n restricted areas) (see paragraph 63 where the base station in the restricted area provides signals 321a to 321c and where the drone receives these signals and knows to maintain an elevation to not enter this area or alternatively turn around and move away from the restricted Area) (see drones 100 in FIG. 2c that include a flight plan from the ground station from the drone base 260 to the destination 210 and that includes a first restricted area 260a and a second restricted area 260b) (see paragraph 55 where the server can provide a periodic heart beat check for the drone to indicate if the navigation unit and the drone system is still functioning; see paragraph 26 where the drone is controlled to include that the video/photo recording is disabled and the drone must fly in a silent mode) (see paragraph 63 where the base station in the restricted area provides signals 321a to 321c and where the drone receives these signals and knows to maintain an elevation to not enter this area or alternatively turn around and move away from the restricted Area)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of TAVEIRA with a reasonable expectation of success since TAVEIRA teaches that a drone can include restricted areas where the drone needs a permission to enter. If it has permission it can enter and if not it is denied entry over these areas. This can enforce privacy for certain areas.
Taveira teaches “...8. The method of claim | wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to stay within a zone. (see paragraph 45) (see station 214 and 256, 230 that can communicate with the drone 100) (see claims 1-9; see paragraph 44-46 where the drone receives navigation signals and beacon signals and restricted area signals from the ground station) (see paragraph 45) (see station 214 and 256, 230 that can communicate with the drone 100) (see claims 1-9; see paragraph 44-46 where the drone receives navigation signals and beacon signals and restricted area signals from the ground station) (see paragraph 55-56 where the drone can be provided a conditional access to the restricted area) (see paragraph 55 where the server can provide a periodic heart beat check for the drone to indicate if the navigation unit and the drone system is still functioning; see paragraph 26 where the drone is controlled to include that the video/photo recording is disabled and the drone must fly in a silent mode) (See FIG. 3a to 3b where the restriction area node can provide signals 320a-b so the drone takes a path 311c to avoid the first, second and n restricted areas) (see claim 1-2 where the ground operator can provide corrective action to the drone including 1. Landing in or 2. Moving to a designated area; 3. Returning to the designated location, 4. Preventing take off; 5. A third party taking control of the drone; 6. Restricting use of the drone, and 7. Waiting for a period of time) (See FIG. 3a to 3b where the restriction area node can provide signals 320a-b so the drone takes a path 311c to avoid the first, second and n restricted areas) (see paragraph 63 where the base station in the restricted area provides signals 321a to 321c and where the drone receives these signals and knows to maintain an elevation to not enter this area or alternatively turn around and move away from the restricted Area) (see drones 100 in FIG. 2c that include a flight plan from the ground station from the drone base 260 to the destination 210 and that includes a first restricted area 260a and a second restricted area 260b) (see paragraph 55 where the server can provide a periodic heart beat check for the drone to indicate if the navigation unit and the drone system is still functioning; see paragraph 26 where the drone is controlled to include that the video/photo recording is disabled and the drone must fly in a silent mode) (see paragraph 63 where the base station in the restricted area provides signals 321a to 321c and where the drone receives these signals and knows to maintain an elevation to not enter this area or alternatively turn around and move away from the restricted Area)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of TAVEIRA with a reasonable expectation of success since TAVEIRA teaches that a drone can include restricted areas where the drone needs a permission to enter. If it has permission it can enter and if not it is denied entry over these areas. This can enforce privacy for certain areas.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0156031 A1 to Fadell et al. which was filed on 9-21-12 (hereinafter “Fadell”).
Fadell et al teaches “...9. The method of claim | wherein receiving the delivery information for the package includes detecting triggering of a doorbell”. ; (see FIG. 21 where the drone can deliver a package to a smart phone and access the home and enhance the delivery of the package; see paragraph 112 where the drone can only deliver the package when it knows people are home to ensure delivery); (see paragraph 373 where one or more of the sensors can monitor the access point of the secure area continuously to ensure during the process of placing the package pl that nothing was removed and once the positioning of the package has been configured and configured within the secure area then the system may be configured to terminate the accessibility to the secure area by locking the door; see paragraph 374 where for example, area AL may be within a sensing range of an NFC or RFID or camera or any other suitable sensing component 828 of doorbell 106, such that when package PL may be positioned within area AL by deliverer DL, package PL may be securely monitored by one or more smart devices of environment 100, which may ensure secure drop-off of package PL. As another example, area AL may not be proximate doorbell 106 but may be an area that may be monitored by another smart device of environment 100 (e.g., a smart device that may be coupled to outdoor lighting 114, which may be around a corner of structure 150 from front door 186, such that other visitors to front door 186 may not obviously notice package PL that has been deposited by deliverer DL for secure monitoring by environment 100). As with the deposit of package PL within any other suitable secure area (e.g., a safe or lobby), system 164 may be configured to monitor and confirm the adequate deposit of package PL at area AL with deliverer DL and/or delivery entity business 228 for furthering the delivery attempt (e.g., such that deliverer DL may confidently leave package PL at environment 100). Any suitable smart device of environment 100 may provide and/or monitor such an area AL or any other secure area for use in unsupervised drop-off and monitoring of a package PL; see paragraph 138 where the video can be transmitted to the cloud and to the central services and then to the mobile communication device for review)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of FADELL with a reasonable expectation of success since FADELL teaches that a drone can include a smart door bell that can communicate a signal to the drone to provide a landing of the package only when the occupants are home to prevent theft. At paragraph 477, the door bell can be rung loud by the platform to provide a delivery or to let a guest in.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/0130342 A1 to Maheshwari that was filed in 17 and assigned to QUALCOMM™.
Maheshwari teaches “….10. The method of claim | wherein monitoring the package includes detecting one or more objects within a specified range, and if the one or more objects are recognized as unfamiliar, the notification is triggered. (see paragraph 25-31 and see element 102 where the package 102a is picked up and then the packages is dropped off on the front door step 125 and paragraph 52-57 where the smart lights can provide inputs so the robot vehicle can drop the package off at the right location and see FIG. 1 where the robot vehicle picks up the package from the truck 102c and then delivers to the doorstep.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of Maheshwari with a reasonable expectation of success since Maheshwari teaches that a drone can provide a delivery of an item on a doormat but there is a pet sleeping there and that can be injured and then the delivery can be aborted of the package. This can provide improved safety as an animal can be identified as sleeping and the package delivery can be aborted. See paragraph 44-45.
PNG
media_image3.png
610
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Maheshwari teaches “….11. The method of claim | further comprising storing the package with the autonomous vehicle”. (see package 102a that is stored under the drone 102b and then dropped off when the lights are on and the spot is determined for deposit t he drone as element 125 by the smart doorbell device)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of Maheshwari with a reasonable expectation of success since Maheshwari teaches that a drone can provide a delivery of an item on a doormat but there is a pet sleeping there and that can be injured and then the delivery can be aborted of the package. This can provide improved safety as an animal can be identified as sleeping and the package delivery can be aborted. See paragraph 44-45.
Taveira teaches “...12. The method of claim | further comprising avoiding flying the drone device in one or more specified locations”. (see paragraph 45) (see station 214 and 256, 230 that can communicate with the drone 100) (see claims 1-9; see paragraph 44-46 where the drone receives navigation signals and beacon signals and restricted area signals from the ground station) (see paragraph 45) (see station 214 and 256, 230 that can communicate with the drone 100) (see claims 1-9; see paragraph 44-46 where the drone receives navigation signals and beacon signals and restricted area signals from the ground station) (see paragraph 55-56 where the drone can be provided a conditional access to the restricted area) (see paragraph 55 where the server can provide a periodic heart beat check for the drone to indicate if the navigation unit and the drone system is still functioning; see paragraph 26 where the drone is controlled to include that the video/photo recording is disabled and the drone must fly in a silent mode) (See FIG. 3a to 3b where the restriction area node can provide signals 320a-b so the drone takes a path 311c to avoid the first, second and n restricted areas) (see claim 1-2 where the ground operator can provide corrective action to the drone including 1. Landing in or 2. Moving to a designated area; 3. Returning to the designated location, 4. Preventing take off; 5. A third party taking control of the drone; 6. Restricting use of the drone, and 7. Waiting for a period of time) (See FIG. 3a to 3b where the restriction area node can provide signals 320a-b so the drone takes a path 311c to avoid the first, second and n restricted areas) (see paragraph 63 where the base station in the restricted area provides signals 321a to 321c and where the drone receives these signals and knows to maintain an elevation to not enter this area or alternatively turn around and move away from the restricted Area) (see drones 100 in FIG. 2c that include a flight plan from the ground station from the drone base 260 to the destination 210 and that includes a first restricted area 260a and a second restricted area 260b) (see paragraph 55 where the server can provide a periodic heart beat check for the drone to indicate if the navigation unit and the drone system is still functioning; see paragraph 26 where the drone is controlled to include that the video/photo recording is disabled and the drone must fly in a silent mode) (see paragraph 63 where the base station in the restricted area provides signals 321a to 321c and where the drone receives these signals and knows to maintain an elevation to not enter this area or alternatively turn around and move away from the restricted Area)”.
See motivation statement above.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of KOREAN Patent Application Pub. No.: KR101779938B1 that was filed in 16.
The 938 publication teaches “...13. The method of claim | further comprising blurring out a portion of content acquired by the drone device”. (see abstract where the drone arrives in a private area and a gps and image is prevented from being recorded and a jamming is provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of the 938 Korean Publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 938 Publication teaches that a so called penetration drone can provide an access of an area to take images. These are not authorized. A second security drone can provide a jamming to prevent the first from illegally taking any images.
The 938 publication teaches “..14. The method of claim 13 wherein the portion of content comprises personal information. (see abstract where the drone arrives in a private area and a gps and image is prevented from being recorded and a jamming is provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of the 938 Korean Publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 938 Publication teaches that a so called penetration drone can provide an access of an area to take images. These are not authorized. A second security drone can provide a jamming to prevent the first from illegally taking any images.
The 938 publication teaches “..15. The method of claim | further comprising implementing a privacy policy. (see abstract where the drone arrives in a private area and a gps and image is prevented from being recorded and a jamming is provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of the 938 Korean Publication with a reasonable expectation of success since the 938 Publication teaches that a so called penetration drone can provide an access of an area to take images. These are not authorized. A second security drone can provide a jamming to prevent the first from illegally taking any images.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. (United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2015/0350614 A1 filed in 2014) which is prior to the effective filing date of 3-29-17 and in view of NPL, SINHA, DWAIPAYAN, Image Retrieval using Landmark Indexing for Indoor Navigation, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario Canada, (April 2014) (hereinafter “SINHA”) and in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No.: 10,878,365 B2 to Burch that was filed in 2017.
PNG
media_image4.png
718
1114
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Burch teaches “...16. The method of claim | wherein the autonomous vehicle is configured to receive the drone device, wherein the drone device is configured to separate from the autonomous vehicle and fly separately from the autonomous vehicle” (see FIG. 8f where the drone can fly out of the plane and inspect the outside of the plane and the wheels 807b to determine if there are any inspection issues with the larger plane).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of BURCH with a reasonable expectation of success since BURCH teaches that a first vehicle like a plane to transport overnight packages can include a second smaller drone. The second smaller drone can analyze the delivery data and the packages that are caustic in the vehicle and monitor if they are leaking as they are stored or taken off the plane. The second drone can then inspect the first plane itself to determine if there is damage to the first drone to provide an improved safety device.
PNG
media_image5.png
816
756
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Burch teaches “...17. The method of claim | further comprising monitoring one or more properties with the drone device”. (see blocks 700-740 where the drone can inspect the packages and the condition of the main plane 100 to determine if there are sensor information that are outside of a range 725 along the flight paths of the smaller drone to determine damage or a leak)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of BURCH with a reasonable expectation of success since BURCH teaches that a first vehicle like a plane to transport overnight packages can include a second smaller drone. The second smaller drone can analyze the delivery data and the packages that are caustic in the vehicle and monitor if they are leaking as they are stored or taken off the plane. The second drone can then inspect the first plane itself to determine if there is damage to the first drone to provide an improved safety device.
Burch teaches “..18. The method of claim 17 wherein the drone device utilizes a thermal sensor and/or a sound sensor for monitoring the one or more properties. (see sensor array 230 where a temperature sensor can be used; For example, the different sensors that may be used on the sensory array 230 of PID 825 may include an image sensor (e.g., a visual imaging sensor, an infrared (IR) imaging sensor, and/or a thermal imaging sensor), a temperature sensor, and/or a depth sensor (e.g., a LIIDAR sensor and/or an ultrasonic transducer). The sensor-based inspection information detected making up sensory data 930 may be generated by one of these sensors on sensor array 230 or by multiple sensors on the sensor array 230 depending on the type of inspection desired for a particular inspection point.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of MEIER with the teachings of BURCH with a reasonable expectation of success since BURCH teaches that a first vehicle like a plane to transport overnight packages can include a second smaller drone. The second smaller drone can analyze the delivery data and the packages that are caustic in the vehicle and monitor if they are leaking as they are stored or taken off the plane. The second drone can then inspect the first plane itself to determine if there is damage to the first drone to provide an improved safety device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This is generally linking the subject matter claimed to an autonomous vehicle including various mental processes such as "determine when a package moves" and "compare a depth of the package" (even though this is done via several images; through mental observation, one can identify the depth of a package is greater from one perspective relative to another). Otherwise, receiving data is insignificant extra solution activity.
Double Patenting
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” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under obviousness double patenting in view of claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.: 10,974,829 that recites “ An aerial drone device comprising:
a device body configured to receive a package;
at least one propeller coupled to the device body;
a plurality of information acquisition components coupled to the device body, wherein a first information acquisition component of the plurality of information acquisition components is positioned in a first direction, and a second information acquisition component of the plurality of information acquisition components is positioned in a second direction;
a thermal sensor configured to detect heat;
a sound sensor configured to detect sound;
a memory configured for storing an application, the application for:
processing external information, wherein the external information includes delivery information for the package;
generate a depth map using depth information;
directing the aerial drone device to patrol an area based on the processed external information and the depth map; and
acquiring content using the plurality of information acquisition components; and
determining if the package moves more than the threshold amount is based
on the depth map and comparing a depth of the package in successive
images; and
a processor configured for processing the application”.
The only different is in claim 1 of the present claims it recites does not recite the sound and thermal device and is generic to a mobile device. It would have been obvious to provide a depth sensor device and thermal sensor and an acoustic sensor to determine if a package is stolen or has moved from an original location by tracking images in a point cloud to confirm the depth sensor with the other sensors. The office takes official notice that an acoustic sensor and a thermal sensor are well known in the drone art to connect to the drone to capture these sensor information items for tracking a target.
The claims are otherwise identical.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666