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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment dated April 20, 2026. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erickson et al., U.S. Patent 10,140,987 B2 (2018).
As to claim 1, Erickson et al. discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations (Figure 1, Figure 2), comprising:
receiving a signal comprising a second source of second acoustic energy that is determined to satisfy a navigational change condition applicable to an unmanned aerial vehicle (Column 9, Lines 33-57, Column 10, Lines 4-29); and
in response to the receiving, moving the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the second source of the second acoustic energy instead of a first source of first acoustic energy (Column 9, Lines 33-57, Column 10, Lines 4-29).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al., U.S. Patent 10,140,987 B2 (2018) in view of Visser et al., U.S. Patent 10,379,534 B2 (2019).
As to claim 2, Erickson et al. discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Erickson et al. does not disclose a higher priority, as claimed.
Visser et al. discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to determining that a first priority associated with the first acoustic energy represents a higher priority than a second priority associated with the second acoustic energy, after reaching the first source, moving the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the second source (Column 10, Lines 41-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Erickson et al., with the use of a higher priority, as claimed, as disclosed in Visser et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the user to prioritize the sources desired for connection.
As to claim 3, Erickson et al. discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Erickson et al. does not disclose a second priority, as claimed.
Visser et al. discloses where the operations further comprise:
in response to determining that a first priority associated with the first acoustic energy represents a lower priority than a second priority associated with the second acoustic energy, interrupting movement of the unmanned aerial vehicle the moving toward to the first source and moving the unmanned aerial vehicle toward the second source (Column 10, Lines 41-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Erickson et al., with the use of a second priority, as claimed, as disclosed in Visser et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow the user to prioritize the sources desired for connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Wang reference was improperly cited on the IDS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights