DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The Amendment, filed on 05/06/2026, has been received and made ofrecord. In response to the Non-Final Office Action, dated 02/06/2026, Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14-16 and 19-20 are amended, Claims 4 and 13 are canceled, Claims 21-22 are newly added claims, Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 are pending in current application.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/06/2026 have been fully considered.
In the Arguments/Remarks:
Re: Drawing/Specification Objections
Drawing objections have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Re: Claim interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Rejections made under 35 USC § 112 (b) and 35 U.S.C 112(a) for generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function has been withdrawn in view of claims amendments.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Rejections made under 35 USC § 101 has been withdrawn in view of claims amendments.
Re: Rejection of the Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed May 06, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection in view of Pillai et al. (US 2015/0301529A1) (hereinafter Pillai).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “circuitry” should apparently be “a circuitry”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 cite the phrase "a predetermined value”. The specification, filed on 09/23/2024, includes no particular and/or limit for the predetermined value. Therefore, claim do not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), by virtue of their dependency on the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-3, 5-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The phrase “predetermined value”, in Claims 1, 19 and 20, renders the claims indefinite because the predetermined value is vague as the boundary or limit of the predetermined value is undefined in the specification.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, 14-18 and 21-22 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on the respective base claims.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Fine (US 2020/0027358A1) and further in view of Pillai et al. (US 2015/0301529A1) (hereinafter Pillai).
Claim 1. Imai (US 2022/0185474) teaches an unmanned moving object (See Para. [0018], [0030], [0037], discloses “unmanned aerial vehicle 100that moves in path that does not collide with another object”) comprising:
circuitry configured to
control driving of the unmanned moving object (See Para. [0041], “The control device 130 controls the unmanned aerial vehicle 100”, and/or see Abstract, Claims 1, 19, and para. [0017], [0042], cites “a movement control unit configured to control a movement the moving body/unmanned aerial vehicle”);
communicate with an operation device (See Para. [0045], “The communication control unit 134 may communicate with the wireless base station”),
receive unique information sent out from another moving object for identifying presence and/or a position of the another moving object (See Para. [0030]-[0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires the location information [construed as unique information] indicating a location of the object and the movement state of the object”, and/or see Para. [0049], “an object information receiving unit receives the object information including the location information of the object from the communication partner's aerial vehicle ).
Nevertheless, Imai fails to explicitly cites, remotely controls the unmanned moving object.
However, Fine teaches, remotely controls the unmanned moving object (See Para. [0018], Fig. 2, “the operator may send user command signals via a user interface 44 and/or a radio transmitter 46 to control the flight of aerial vehicle 12“, and/or see Para. [0004], [0020], [0055], [0059], [0071], discloses “the aerial vehicle is configured to be controlled by user command signals generated by a remotely positioned ground control station)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai with a remotely positioned ground control station to control aerial vehicle/unmanned moving object as taught by Fine in order to operate aerial vehicle remotely.
Nevertheless, the teaching of Imai as modify by the teaching of Fine does not explicitly spell out, control driving of the unmanned moving object to move away from the another moving object when a distance between the unmanned moving object and the another moving object, calculated based on the unique information, is equal to or less than a predetermined value.
However, Pillai teaches, control driving of the unmanned moving object to move away from the another moving object when a distance between the unmanned moving object and the another moving object, calculated based on the unique information, is equal to or less than a predetermined value (See Abstract “detect when one or more airborne unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) are close to each other, and to take necessary actions to maintain a minimum distance between drones as well as a maximum distance among the drones in a dynamic environment by automatic navigation. “, and/or Para. [0058], discloses, “move away the drone from other drone so they don’t within a minimum distance whose value [i.e., predetermined value] is stored in computer memory” or change speed to cause distance between the drone 310 and other drones to be greater than the minimum distance”, same as claimed invention)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fine with moving away the drone from other drone as taught by Pillai to maintaining a safe distance between the them in order to perform collision prevention operations.
Claim 2. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, further comprising:
a sensor configured to detect an obstacle present around the unmanned moving object (See Imai, Para. [0018]-[0019], [0022], [0029], [0046]-[0047], “detects an object [i.e. obstacle] around the unmanned aerial vehicle 100”, and see Para. [0037], “the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 may refer to the shared object information to decide a movement path that does not collide with another object [i.e. obstacle]”. Additionally, see Fine, Para. [0033], discloses “obstacles near aerial vehicle 12”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 2, wherein the sensor includes any one of, or a combination of two or more of a camera, an optical ranging sensor, a millimeter-wave ranging sensor, and an ultrasonic ranging sensor (See Imai, Para. [0022], “The camera 112, the millimeter wave radar 123, and the LiDAR 124 may be examples of sensors that detect objects around the unmanned aerial vehicle 100”).
Claim 5. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, further comprising: a memory configured to records the unique information (See Imai, Para. [0031], “”camera 112 capture location information [i.e., unique information] of the object”. Additionally, see Fine, Para. [0006], [0021], discloses “record position of the aerial vehicle”).
Claim 14. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, where the circuitry is further configured to
analyzes the unique information (See Imai, Para. [0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires, the location information of the object by analyzing the captured images continuously captured by the camera 112”) and identify whether or not the unique information has been sent out from the another moving object and/or the position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0034], “a second unmanned aerial vehicle 100 share the object information of objects around the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and the second unmanned aerial vehicle 100, and the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 moves such that the aircraft 210 is not located on an optical axis 115 of the optical wireless communication between the first unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and the second unmanned aerial vehicle 100”, and see Para. [0049], “The communication control unit 134 may also receive the object information (may be described as object information of another aerial vehicle) including the location information of the object”) .
Claim 21. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control driving of the unmanned moving object to increase a distance between the unmanned moving object and the another moving object (See Pillai, Abstract “detect when one or more airborne unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) are close to each other, and to take necessary actions to maintain a minimum distance between drones as well as a maximum distance among the drones in a dynamic environment by automatic navigation. “, and/or Para. [0058], discloses, “move away the drone from other drone so they don’t within a minimum distance whose value [i.e., predetermined value] is stored in computer memory” or change speed to cause distance between the drone 310 and other drones to be greater than the minimum distance”, same as claimed invention)”.
Claim 22. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control driving of the unmanned moving to move away from the another moving object independent of any other control command for the unmanned moving object (See Pillai, Para. [0058], discloses, “move away the drone from other drone so they don’t within a minimum distance”).
Claims 6-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Fine (US 2020/0027358A1), Pillai et al. (US 2015/0301529A1) (hereinafter Pillai) and further in view of Kageyama (US 2001/0044697A1, this reference is from Internation search Report).
Claim 6. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, wherein the unique information includes at least position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0018], [0030], [0038], [0048]-[0050], discloses “location information of the object/the other unmanned aerial vehicle).
Nevertheless, the teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine fails to teach, where the unique information is an aircraft registration number of the another moving object.
However, Kageyama teaches, where the unique information is an aircraft registration number of the another moving object (See Para. [0138], “periodically broadcasts identification information/ Vehicle ID [i.e., registration number] and current position data to other vehicle”, and/or see Para. [0210], “an unmanned vehicle receives via inter-vehicle communication device 6 vehicle position data , Vehicle ID transmitted to it from another vehicle, and measurement time information for the other vehicle identified by this Vehicle ID”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of the teaching of Fine and Pillai with sharing vehicle ID information, i.e., registration number with other vehicle as taught by Kageyama in order to execute a vehicle interference prevention process.
Claim 7. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 6, wherein the unique information further includes information of time at which the another moving object has sent out the unique information (See Kageyama, Para. [0210], “measurement time information for the other vehicle identified by this Vehicle ID”).
Claim 8. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama, teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify at least one of a relative position (See Imai, Para. [0030], “the location information indicating a relative location of the object with a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 as a starting point”), and a distance and direction of the another moving object with respect to the unmanned moving object based on position information of the unmanned moving object, the aircraft registration number of the another moving object, and the position information of the another moving object (These are optional feature as followed by the phrase “at least one of”).
Claim 9. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is configured to identify a movement trajectory of the another moving object based on the aircraft registration number of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0050]-[0051], “the movement state of the object”, where Kageyama discloses vehicle ID, i.e., aircraft registration number), the position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0053], “the location of the approaching object”), and the information of the time at which the another moving object has sent out the unique information (See Kageyama, at least, Para. [0031], [0035], [0037], [0052], [0092], [0094], discloses “position information for the other vehicle received via the communication means, time information indicating a reception time at which the position information is received, and the position information for its own vehicle”).
Claim 10. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the driving of the unmanned moving object based on the position information of the another moving object (See Imai, Para. [0030], “location information indicating a location of the object [i.e. another moving object]”, and/or see Para. [0049], “receive the object information (may be described as object information of another aerial vehicle) including the location information of the object around the communication partner's aerial vehicle”).
Claim 11. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify a future position of the another moving object based on the movement trajectory (See Kageyama, Para. [0040], [0047], “a future position of the other vehicle [i.e., another moving object]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of the teaching of Fine and Pillai with determining a future position of other vehicle ID information, i.e., registration number with other vehicle as taught by Kageyama in order to execute a vehicle interference prevention process.
Claim 12. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry is further configured to control the driving of the unmanned moving object based on the future position of the another moving object (See Kageyama, Para. [0010], “on the basis of vehicle position data for other vehicles, perform control so as to prevent interference among vehicles”, and/or Para. [0250], [0277], “Unmanned vehicle 10 is then managed and controlled by monitoring station 20 so as to prevent it from entering the range of possible locations of the manned vehicle”, and see Para. [0027], “safely predict the location of the vehicle”, and/or see Para. [0040], “a future position of the other vehicle at a point in time coming a predetermined time interval after the time, or a range of movement of the other vehicle”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with a prediction of vehicle location in future as taught by Kageyama in order to prevent interference among unmanned vehicles over an entire large work site.
Claim 15. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 14, but they fail to teach wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify a period in which the unique information is sent out.
However, Kageyama teaches, wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify a period in which the unique information is sent out (See Para. [0031], [0035], “time information indicating a reception time at which the position information is received”, and/or see Para. [0052]-[0053], [0094], [0151], discloses “position information transmitted to it from another vehicle, and time information (either the reception time, position measurement time, or transmission time for this position information), estimates the likelihood of interference between itself and another vehicle, and performs appropriate control on the basis of this estimate so as to avoid interference between the vehicles”. Additionally, see Para. [0138], “each vehicle periodically broadcasts identification information identifying itself (hereinbelow termed "Vehicle ID") and current position data indicating the current position of itself to all other vehicles and to the monitoring station through UHF transmission, while also periodically broadcasting its own Vehicle ID and current position data [i.e., unique information] to proximate vehicles by SS transmission”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of the teaching of Fines and Pillai with a time point to transmit position information [i.e., unique information] as taught by Kageyama in order to prevent interference among unmanned vehicles over an entire large work site.
Claim 16. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 15, wherein the circuitry is further configured to change timing of transmitting and receiving information on a basis of the period identified by the analysis unit (See Kageyama, Para. [0140]-[0142], [0151], [0173], “When position data for an own vehicle is broadcast to other vehicle, transmitter 3 recognizes, by means of timing means such as a timer, the point in time at which it transmits this position data, and can transmit this transmission time information”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with a timer to transmit/receive information as taught by Kageyama in order to provide more precise location data.
Claim 17. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine and Pillai teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 1, but they fails to teach wherein the unique information includes information that is mandated by a country or a local government to be sent out when moving a moving object.
However, Kageyama teaches, wherein the unique information includes information that is mandated by a country or a local government to be sent out when moving a moving object (See Para. [0057], [0138], “each vehicle periodically broadcasts identification information identifying itself (hereinbelow termed "Vehicle ID"), where it is required by country or government law to issue an ID for each vehicle”, and Para. [0216], “position data and vehicle IDs are broadcast from the other vehicles”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of Fines with issuing vehicle ID for unmanned moving vehicle as taught by Kageyama in order to recognize unmanned vehicle and so as to managed /control by monitoring station to prevent it from entering the range of possible locations of the manned vehicle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Fine (US 2020/0027358A1), Pillai et al. (US 2015/0301529A1) (hereinafter Pillai), Kageyama (US 2001/0044697A1, this reference is from Internation search Report) and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2016/0288905A1) (hereinafter Gong).
Claim 18. The teaching of Imai as modified by the teaching of Fine, Pillai and Kageyama teaches the unmanned moving object according to claim 17, but they fail to teach wherein the unique information includes information designated by a remote ID system mandated by a country regarding flight of an unmanned flying object.
However, Gong teaches, wherein the unique information includes information designated by a remote ID system mandated by a country regarding flight of an unmanned flying object (See Para. [0146]-[0147], [061], “The ID registration database 210 [i.e., ID system mandated by country or government] may maintain identity information for a user 250a, 250b, 250c and a UAV 260a, 260b, 260c, and The authentication center 220 may provide authentication of an identity of a user 250a, 250b, 250c or a UAV 260a, 260b, 260c. The authentication center may optionally authentication an identity of a geo-fencing device and/or remote controller, or any other device that may be involved in the UAV safety system.” Furthermore, see Para. [0164], “A UAV in operation within the safety system may be assigned a UAV ID and a key. The ID and key may be assigned from the ID registration database. The ID and key may be globally unique and may optionally not be copied.”, and Para. [0167], “The authentication system, as provided herein, may comprise an identification registration database configured to store one or more UAV identifiers that uniquely identify UAVs with respect to one another; an authentication center configured to authenticate an identity of a UAV and an identity of a user; and an air control system configured to receive a UAV identifier for the authenticated UAV and a user identifier for the authenticated user and provide a set of flight regulations based on at least one of: the authenticated UAV identifier and the authenticated user identifier.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai in view of the teaching of Fines, Pillai and Kageyama with Id registration database to maintain UAV ID at taught by Gong in order to permit/authenticate user to operate UAV, and provide a set of flight regulations based on authenticated UAV identifier and the authenticated user identifier.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2022/0185474) in view of Pillai et al. (US 2015/0301529A1) (hereinafter Pillai).
Claim 19. Imai teaches an information processing method performed in an unmanned moving object (See Para. [0018], [0030], [0037], discloses “unmanned aerial vehicle 100 that moves in path that does not collide with another object”), the information processing method comprising:
receiving unique information sent out from another moving object for identifying presence and/or a position of the another moving object (See Para. [0030]-[0031], “the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 acquires the location information [construed as unique information] indicating a location of the object and the movement state of the object”, and/or see Para. [0049], “an object information receiving unit receives the object information including the location information of the object from the communication partner's aerial vehicle), and
Nevertheless, the teaching of Imai as modify by the teaching of Fine does not explicitly spell out, control driving of the unmanned moving object to move away from the another moving object when a distance between the unmanned moving object and the another moving object, calculated based on the unique information, is equal to or less than a predetermined value.
However, Pillai teaches, control driving of the unmanned moving object to move away from the another moving object when a distance between the unmanned moving object and the another moving object, calculated based on the unique information, is equal to or less than a predetermined value (See Abstract “detect when one or more airborne unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) are close to each other, and to take necessary actions to maintain a minimum distance between drones as well as a maximum distance among the drones in a dynamic environment by automatic navigation. “, and/or Para. [0058], discloses, “move away the drone from other drone so they don’t within a minimum distance whose value [i.e., predetermined value] is stored in computer memory” or change speed to cause distance between the drone 310 and other drones to be greater than the minimum distance”, same as claimed invention)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Imai with moving away the drone from other drone as taught by Pillai to maintaining a safe distance between the them in order to perform collision prevention operations.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim and having substantially the same technical features as claim 19, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 20 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2020014930, discloses “Method For Controlling Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Involves Predicting Maximum Degree Of Threat Posed By Unmanned Aerial Vehicle To Aircraft, And Performing Collision Avoidance Operation On Basis Of Maximum Degree Of Threat”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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 at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights