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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 11 and 11 are presented as currently or previously amended claims.
Claims 1 and 11 are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 24, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
IDS dated September 24, 2025 lists seven non-patent literature references; however, copies do not appear to have been provided in the immediate file. Full copies of four of the referenced art are of record in the immediate parent file application number 17/605,942 (17605942) and were considered. However, the following three references do not appear to be in the instant file wrapper or in the immediate parent application file wrapper and therefore have not been considered:
Martin R. ABRAHAM ET AL, Dynamic Optimization of High - Altitude Solar Aircraft Trajectories Under Station - Keeping Constraints, JOUNAL OF GUIDANCE AND CONTROL ANDDYNAMICS , United States, November 26, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,2018 , VOL.42, NO.3, 26 November 2018, 538 -552.
MARTIN, R.A. ET AL., Dynamic Optimization of High-Altitude Solar Aircraft Trajectories Under Station-Keeping Constraints. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 21 November 2018, Vol.42, No. 3, pages 538-552.
Sumada Tomolawn, Miyagi, special : jet-engine digital control system for a microcomputer aircraft for carrying moving objects, research report of information processing society, Japan, Incorporated Information Processing Society, December 12, 1991, Vol. 91, No. 109, pp. 1-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark et al. (US 20140249693 A1) in view of Margolin (US 20080033604 A1) in view of Parras (US 20110264314 A1) (the combination of which will be referenced as “combination Stark” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Stark teaches a system of:
a fleet of three or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), (Stark: ¶ 040; system 200 further includes a number of UAVs 220 shown in the form of multicopters in this example. The multicopters 220 may be in groups/sets with set 222 shown to include two copters 223, set 224 including one copter, and set 226 includes four copters.) wherein each UAV of the fleet of UAVs comprise a respective flight control computer (FCC); (Stark: ¶ 032; Each multicopter 150 is shown to include one or more processors 152 that control operation of the two radios 154, 156 so as to process received data/signals on channel 117, 119 and to, as appropriate, store data in onboard memory 170. The processor 152 also may nm or execute code, programs, or software such as a local control module 160 to function to perform the UAV-control functions described herein. The memory 170 may be used to store a flight path 174 provided by the ground station 110 and to also store determined positions and telemetry data 178 (that may be provided to the ground station 119 as shown in memory 128). The telemetry data 178 may include a heartbeat (each UAV in fleet 130 indicates to the ground station that is operational or "alive").) . . . and wherein the first UAV remains as part of the fleet of three or more UAVs above the threshold altitude (Stark: ¶ 012; system for controlling two to many UAVs, such as but not limited to multicopters, during synchronized flight.) . . .
Stark does not explicitly teach: at least one computing device at a ground control station, wherein each computing device is in communication with each FCC of the fleet of three or more UAVs, and wherein each computing device is associated with at least one operator of a set of operators; wherein each UAV of the fleet of UAVs above a threshold altitude is in communication with a first computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of UAVs above the threshold altitude to operators exceeds a 1:1 ratio; however, Margolin does teach:
at least one computing device at a ground control station, wherein each computing device is in communication with each FCC of the fleet of three or more UAVs, and wherein each computing device is associated with at least one operator of a set of operators; (Margolin: Clm. 001; A system for safely flying an unmanned aerial vehicle in civilian airspace comprising: (a) a ground station equipped with a synthetic vision system; (b) an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of supporting said synthetic vision system; (c) a remote pilot operating said ground station; (d) a communications link between said unmanned aerial vehicle and said ground station; (e) a system onboard said unmanned aerial vehicle for detecting the presence and position of nearby aircraft and communicating this information to said remote pilot) wherein upon the descent of the first UAV below a threshold altitude, the first computing device triggers a second computing device to operate the descent of the first UAV; (Margolin: ¶¶ 023-024; This may be accomplished by requiring that during selected phases of the flight the UAV be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System such as the one taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,724 Method and apparatus for remotely piloting an aircraft. These selected phases include: (a) When the UAV is within a selected range of an airport or other designated location and is below a first specified altitude.) (Margolin: ¶ 026; Each UAV flown under these conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.) wherein each UAV of the fleet of UAVs above a threshold altitude is in communication with a first computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of UAVs above the threshold altitude to operators exceeds a 1:1 ratio; (Margolin: ¶ 074; When the UAV is outside Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and is below Selected Altitude 202 the UAV must also be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System.) (Margolin: ¶ 075; Each UAV flown under these [Synthetic Vision] conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.) (Margolin: ¶¶ 076-077; UAVs flying beyond Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and above Altitude 202 may be flown autonomously using an Autonomous Control System (ACS) as long as the following conditions are met: (a) A remote pilot must monitor the operation of the UAV at all times. A remote pilot may monitor several UAVs simultaneously once it is established that this practice may be safely performed by a single pilot.) . . .
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stark with the teachings of Margolin with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Margolin's base systems are similar systems to control a plurality of networked UAVs; however, Stark's base systems has been improved by controlling operator numbers in relation to specific flight characteristics of the UAV flight. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Margolin's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would allow more careful tailoring of the number of UAV operators required reducing the cost of operating the network.
Stark does not explicitly teach: and wherein the first computing device does not transmit a descend command signal to a first UAV of the fleet of three or more UAVs to cause the first UAV to descend below the threshold altitude until a specific operator of the set of operators is allocated to control the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude, . . . and in communication with the first computing device until the specific operator is allocated; however, Parras does teach:
and wherein the first computing device does not transmit a descend command signal to a first UAV of the fleet of three or more UAVs to cause the first UAV to descend below the threshold altitude until a specific operator of the set of operators is allocated to control the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude, (Parras: ¶ 031; landing sequence may be initiated manually by an operator 144 using ground station 140 and communicated to UAV 100 by communications link 142) . . . and in communication with the first computing device until the specific operator is allocated (Parras: ¶ 028; ground station [may be used to] receive data from one or more sensors aboard UAV 100, such as images from the gimbaled camera . . . UAV 100 is capable of running autonomously, executing missions such as a program or reconnaissance)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Parras with the teachings of Stark because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing ordering the landing of the UAV once the mission is complete. (Parras: ¶ 029).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Margolin further teaches:
wherein upon the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude, the first computing device triggers a second computing device to operate the descent of the first UAV (Margolin: ¶¶ 023-024; This may be accomplished by requiring that during selected phases of the flight the UAV be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System such as the one taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,724 Method and apparatus for remotely piloting an aircraft. These selected phases include: (a) When the UAV is within a selected range of an airport or other designated location and is below a first specified altitude.) (Margolin: ¶ 026; Each UAV flown under these conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.)
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Margolin further teaches:
wherein the first UAV below the threshold altitude is in communication with the second computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of UAVs below the threshold altitude to operators does not exceed the 1:1 ratio (Margolin: ¶¶ 023-024; requiring that during selected phases of the flight the UAV be flown by a remote pilot . . include: (a) When the UAV is within a selected range of an airport or other designated location and is below a first specified altitude.) (Margolin: ¶ 026; Each UAV flown under these conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.) (Margolin: ¶ 074; When the UAV is outside Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and is below Selected Altitude 202 the UAV must also be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System.) (Margolin: ¶ 075; Each UAV flown under these [Synthetic Vision] conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV.) (Margolin: ¶¶ 076-077; UAVs flying beyond Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and above Altitude 202 may be flown autonomously using an Autonomous Control System (ACS))
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Stark further teaches:
wherein the first computing device transmits a descend signal to the first UAV of the fleet of three or more UAVs to cause the first UAV to descend. (Stark: ¶ 058; During operations, the GCS is used to trigger each of the UAVs to begin their stored flight plan [which] may define a series of earth points or way points along with elevation/altitude values for the UAV)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Stark further teaches:
wherein the first computing device transmits an ascend signal to a second UAV of the fleet of three or more UAVs to cause the second UAV to ascend. (Stark: ¶ 058; During operations, the GCS is used to trigger each of the UAVs to begin their stored flight plan [which] may define a series of earth points or way points along with elevation/altitude values for the UAV)
Regarding claim 11, Stark teaches a method comprising:
transmitting, by a first computing device at a ground control station, a descend command signal for a first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Stark: ¶ 058; During operations, the GCS is used to trigger each of the UAVs to begin their stored flight plan [which] may define a series of earth points or way points along with elevation/altitude values for the UAV) of a fleet of three or more UAVs ; (Stark: ¶ 040; system 200 further includes a number of UAVs 220 shown in the form of multicopters in this example. The multicopters 220 may be in groups/sets with set 222 shown to include two copters 223, set 224 including one copter, and set 226 includes four copters.) . . . and wherein the first UAV remains as part of the fleet of three or more UAVs above the threshold altitude (Stark: ¶ 012; system for controlling two to many UAVs, such as but not limited to multicopters, during synchronized flight.) . . .
Stark does not explicitly teach: triggering, by the first computing device, a second computing device to operate a descent of the first UAV based on the descent of the first UAV below a threshold altitude; wherein each UAV of the fleet of three of more UAVs above the threshold altitude is in communication with the first computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of UAVs above the threshold altitude to operators exceeds a 1:1 ratio; however, Margolin does teach:
triggering, by the first computing device, a second computing device to operate the descent of the first UAV upon the descent of the first UAV below a threshold altitude; wherein the fleet of UAVs above the threshold altitude are in communication with the first computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of operators to UAVs above the threshold altitude exceeds a 1:1 ratio; and wherein the first UAV below the threshold altitude is in communication with the second computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of operators to UAVs below the threshold altitude does not exceed the 1:1 ratio (Margolin: ¶¶ 023-024; This may be accomplished by requiring that during selected phases of the flight the UAV be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System such as the one taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,724 Method and apparatus for remotely piloting an aircraft. These selected phases include: (a) When the UAV is within a selected range of an airport or other designated location and is below a first specified altitude.) (Margolin: ¶ 026; Each UAV flown under these conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.) (Margolin: ¶ 074; When the UAV is outside Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and is below Selected Altitude 202 the UAV must also be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System.) (Margolin: ¶ 075; Each UAV flown under these [Synthetic Vision] conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.) (Margolin: ¶¶ 076-077; UAVs flying beyond Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and above Altitude 202 may be flown autonomously using an Autonomous Control System (ACS) as long as the following conditions are met: (a) A remote pilot must monitor the operation of the UAV at all times. A remote pilot may monitor several UAVs simultaneously once it is established that this practice may be safely performed by a single pilot.) . . .
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stark with the teachings of Margolin with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Margolin's base methods are similar methods to control a plurality of networked UAVs; however, Stark base method has been improved by controlling operator numbers in relation to specific flight characteristics of the UAV flight. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Margolin's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would allow more careful tailoring of the number of UAV operators required reducing the cost of operating the network.
Stark does not explicitly teach: and wherein the first computing device does not transmit the descend command signal until a specific operator of a set of operators is allocated to control the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude; . . . and in communication with the first computing device until the specific operator is allocated; however, Parras does teach:
and wherein the first computing device does not transmit the descend command signal until a specific operator of a set of operators is allocated to control the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude (Parras: ¶ 031; landing sequence may be initiated manually by an operator 144 using ground station 140 and communicated to UAV 100 by communications link 142) . . . and in communication with the first computing device until the specific operator is allocated (Parras: ¶ 028; ground station [may be used to] receive data from one or more sensors aboard UAV 100, such as images from the gimbaled camera . . . UAV 100 is capable of running autonomously, executing missions such as a program or reconnaissance)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Parras with the teachings of Stark because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing ordering the landing of the UAV once the mission is complete. (Parras: ¶ 029).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Margolin further teaches:
wherein the first UAV below the threshold altitude is in communication with the second computing device monitored by at least one operator such that a ratio of UAVs below the threshold altitude to operators does not exceed the 1:1 ratio (Margolin: ¶¶ 023-024; requiring that during selected phases of the flight the UAV be flown by a remote pilot . . include: (a) When the UAV is within a selected range of an airport or other designated location and is below a first specified altitude.) (Margolin: ¶ 026; Each UAV flown under these conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV. The rules will be similar to those for operating piloted aircraft with automatic pilot systems including those with autoland capability.) (Margolin: ¶ 074; When the UAV is outside Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and is below Selected Altitude 202 the UAV must also be flown by a remote pilot using a Synthetic Vision System.) (Margolin: ¶ 075; Each UAV flown under these [Synthetic Vision] conditions must be under the direct control of a remote pilot whose sole responsibility is the safe operation of that UAV.) (Margolin: ¶¶ 076-077; UAVs flying beyond Distance Range 102, within Distance Range 203, and above Altitude 202 may be flown autonomously using an Autonomous Control System (ACS))
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Stark further teaches:
wherein each UAV of the fleet of UAVs comprises a respective flight control computer (FCC), (Stark: ¶ 058; During operations, the GCS is used to trigger each of the UAVs to begin their stored flight plan [which] may define a series of earth points or way points along with elevation/altitude values for the UAV) wherein the first computing device and the second computing device are in communication with each FCC of the fleet of three or more UAVs, (Stark: ¶ 032; Each multicopter 150 is shown to include one or more processors 152 that control operation of the two radios 154, 156 so as to process received data/signals on channel 117, 119 and to, as appropriate, store data in onboard memory 170. The processor 152 also may nm or execute code, programs, or software such as a local control module 160 to function to perform the UAV-control functions described herein. The memory 170 may be used to store a flight path 174 provided by the ground station 110 and to also store determined positions and telemetry data 178 (that may be provided to the ground station 119 as shown in memory 128). The telemetry data 178 may include a heartbeat (each UAV in fleet 130 indicates to the ground station that is operational or "alive").)
Margolin further teaches:
and wherein the first computing device and the second computing device are associated with at least one operator of a set of operators. (Margolin: Clm. 001; A system for safely flying an unmanned aerial vehicle in civilian airspace comprising: (a) a ground station equipped with a synthetic vision system; (b) an unmanned aerial vehicle capable of supporting said synthetic vision system; (c) a remote pilot operating said ground station; (d) a communications link between said unmanned aerial vehicle and said ground station; (e) a system onboard said unmanned aerial vehicle for detecting the presence and position of nearby aircraft and communicating this information to said remote pilot;)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 13. Stark teaches:
receiving, by the respective FCC of the first UAV, the transmitted descend command signal; and descending, by the first UAV controlled by the respective FCC, in response to the transmitted descend command signal. (Stark: ¶ 058; During operations, the GCS is used to trigger each of the UAVs to begin their stored flight plan [which] may define a series of earth points or way points along with elevation/altitude values for the UAV)
Claims 6-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Stark as applied to claim 5 and claim 13 respectively, and in further view of Mazzarella et al. (US 9654200 B2). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Stark does not explicitly teach:
wherein upon a launch of the second UAV from a landing area, the first computing device triggers a third computing device to operate the launch and ascent of the second UAV; however, Mazzarella does teach:
wherein upon a launch of the second UAV from a landing area, the first computing device triggers a third computing device to operate the launch and ascent of the second UAV (Mazzarella: ¶ 015; Col. 3, ln. 66, Lns. Col. 4, ln. 20; The flight pattern of the two or more ANDs includes a persistent coverage rotation cycle, where a replacement AN is scheduled to launch and land on a staggered basis based on an actual or projected flight duration time of the two or more ANs. In addition, the first AN of the two or more ANs occupies a relational position within the flight pattern. As the first AN retires, the replacement AN launches to fill the relational position within the flight pattern vacated by the first AN . . . Embodiments include receiving a request from the new AN to join the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network, sending an acceptance to the new AN, and changing to a new flight path based on the addition of the new AN to the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network.) (Mazzarella: ¶ 147; Col. 27, Lns. 45-55; An AND is typically remotely controlled. The remote control provides the capability of directing and controlling the flight path of each AND. The remote control may be accomplished manually, automatically, or semi-automatically (e.g., a combination of manual and automatic control). The remote control consists of a software and/or hardware application, which may be operated through a server client, or distributed peer application model, wherein the flight paths and patterns of each AND are input and converted into flight commands which are then sent wirelessly to each AND.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stark with the teachings of Mazzarella with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Mazzarella's base systems are similar systems to control multiple networked UAVs; however, Stark’s base system has been improved by automating the coordination of UAV stationing actions. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Mazzarella's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would reduce the likelihood of having too many or too few UAVs on station or mismatching the number of operators with the number of UAVs.
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Stark in view of Mazzarella teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Mazzarella further teaches:
wherein upon the ascent of the second UAV above the threshold altitude, the third computing device triggers the first computing device to operate the second UAV as part of the fleet of three or more UAVs (Mazzarella: ¶ 015; Col. 3, ln. 66, Lns. Col. 4, ln. 20; The flight pattern of the two or more ANDs includes a persistent coverage rotation cycle, where a replacement AN is scheduled to launch and land on a staggered basis based on an actual or projected flight duration time of the two or more ANs. In addition, the first AN of the two or more ANs occupies a relational position within the flight pattern. As the first AN retires, the replacement AN launches to fill the relational position within the flight pattern vacated by the first AN . . . Embodiments include receiving a request from the new AN to join the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network, sending an acceptance to the new AN, and changing to a new flight path based on the addition of the new AN to the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network.) (Mazzarella: ¶ 147; Col. 27, Lns. 45-55; An AND is typically remotely controlled. The remote control provides the capability of directing and controlling the flight path of each AND. The remote control may be accomplished manually, automatically, or semi-automatically (e.g., a combination of manual and automatic control). The remote control consists of a software and/or hardware application, which may be operated through a server client, or distributed peer application model, wherein the flight paths and patterns of each AND are input and converted into flight commands which are then sent wirelessly to each AND.)
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 13. Stark does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: transmitting, by the first computing device, an ascend command signal for a second unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) located on a landing area; however, Mazzarella does teach:
further comprising: transmitting, by the first computing device, an ascend command signal for a second unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) located on a landing area (Mazzarella: ¶ 015; Col. 3, ln. 66, Lns. Col. 4, ln. 20; The flight pattern of the two or more ANDs includes a persistent coverage rotation cycle, where a replacement AN is scheduled to launch and land on a staggered basis based on an actual or projected flight duration time of the two or more ANs. In addition, the first AN of the two or more ANs occupies a relational position within the flight pattern. As the first AN retires, the replacement AN launches to fill the relational position within the flight pattern vacated by the first AN . . . Embodiments include receiving a request from the new AN to join the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network, sending an acceptance to the new AN, and changing to a new flight path based on the addition of the new AN to the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network.). (Mazzarella: ¶ 147; Col. 27, Lns. 45-55; An AND is typically remotely controlled. The remote control provides the capability of directing and controlling the flight path of each AND. The remote control may be accomplished manually, automatically, or semi-automatically (e.g., a combination of manual and automatic control). The remote control consists of a software and/or hardware application, which may be operated through a server client, or distributed peer application model, wherein the flight paths and patterns of each AND are input and converted into flight commands which are then sent wirelessly to each AND.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of combination Stark with the teachings of Mazzarella with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Mazzarella's base systems are similar systems to control multiple networked UAVs; however, Stark’s base system has been improved by automating the coordination of UAV stationing actions. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Mazzarella's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would reduce the likelihood of having too many or too few UAVs on station or mismatching the number of operators with the number of UAVs.
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Stark in view of Mazzarella teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 15. Mazzarella's further teaches:
further comprising: triggering, by the first computing device, a third computing device to operate a launch and ascent of the second UAV up to the threshold altitude (Mazzarella: ¶ 015; Col. 3, ln. 66, Lns. Col. 4, ln. 20; The flight pattern of the two or more ANDs includes a persistent coverage rotation cycle, where a replacement AN is scheduled to launch and land on a staggered basis based on an actual or projected flight duration time of the two or more ANs. In addition, the first AN of the two or more ANs occupies a relational position within the flight pattern. As the first AN retires, the replacement AN launches to fill the relational position within the flight pattern vacated by the first AN . . . Embodiments include receiving a request from the new AN to join the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network, sending an acceptance to the new AN, and changing to a new flight path based on the addition of the new AN to the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network.) (Mazzarella: ¶ 147; Col. 27, Lns. 45-55; An AND is typically remotely controlled. The remote control provides the capability of directing and controlling the flight path of each AND. The remote control may be accomplished manually, automatically, or semi-automatically (e.g., a combination of manual and automatic control). The remote control consists of a software and/or hardware application, which may be operated through a server client, or distributed peer application model, wherein the flight paths and patterns of each AND are input and converted into flight commands which are then sent wirelessly to each AND.);
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Stark in view of Mazzarella teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Mazzarella's further teaches:
further comprising: triggering, by the third computing device, the first computing device to operate the second UAV upon the ascent of the second UAV above the threshold altitude as part of the fleet of three or more UAVs (Mazzarella: ¶ 015; Col. 3, ln. 66, Lns. Col. 4, ln. 20; The flight pattern of the two or more ANDs includes a persistent coverage rotation cycle, where a replacement AN is scheduled to launch and land on a staggered basis based on an actual or projected flight duration time of the two or more ANs. In addition, the first AN of the two or more ANs occupies a relational position within the flight pattern. As the first AN retires, the replacement AN launches to fill the relational position within the flight pattern vacated by the first AN . . . Embodiments include receiving a request from the new AN to join the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network, sending an acceptance to the new AN, and changing to a new flight path based on the addition of the new AN to the first dynamic wireless aerial mesh network.) (Mazzarella: ¶ 147; Col. 27, Lns. 45-55; An AND is typically remotely controlled. The remote control provides the capability of directing and controlling the flight path of each AND. The remote control may be accomplished manually, automatically, or semi-automatically (e.g., a combination of manual and automatic control). The remote control consists of a software and/or hardware application, which may be operated through a server client, or distributed peer application model, wherein the flight paths and patterns of each AND are input and converted into flight commands which are then sent wirelessly to each AND.)
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Stark as applied to claim 1 and 11 respectively, and further in view of Sham (US 20170195048 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Stark does not explicitly teach:
wherein the threshold altitude is 65,000 feet; however, Sham does teach:
wherein the threshold altitude is 65,000 feet (Sham: ¶ 025; A UAV in accordance with the disclosure can collect multi-spectral imagery of any object in an area covered the UAV. In certain embodiments, the UAV can fly up to 65,000 feet and can cover as much as 500 km in range. However, as mentioned above, such applications will require a large amount of information to be collected and processed. Onboard processing of such information for the commercial applications will require large processing power, which in turn requires heavy payloads and power. One motivation of the present disclosure is to “outsource” some or entire processing of such information to existing infrastructure, such as processing stations on the ground. Embodiments provide communication technologies to create a UAV network that comprises multiple UAVs, ground processing stations, and/or any other components. The UAVs in the network can be equipped with communication hardware to enable the UAVs to communicate with each other and as well as ground processing stations.) (Sham: ¶ 003; Such vehicles provide significant potential benefits. For example, weather conditions, such as wind strengths and turbulence levels, are reduced between around 50,000 to 100,000 feet altitude. High-altitude long endurance aircraft that flies above 50,000 feet can thus avoid severe weather conditions)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stark with the teachings of Sham because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Sham's base systems are similar systems for implementing a high elevation long duration aircraft network; however, Stark’s base system has been improved by detailing an operating target of 65,000 ft. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Sham's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because that elevation is a logical transition of UAV behavior due to the reduce susceptibility to adverse weather and winds.
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Stark does not explicitly teach:
wherein each UAV in the fleet of three or more UAVs is a High Altitude Long Endurance Aircraft; however, Sham does teach:
wherein each UAV in the fleet of three or more UAVs is a High Altitude Long Endurance Aircraft (Sham: ¶ 003; High-altitude long endurance aircraft that flies above 50,000 feet can thus avoid severe weather conditions. This allows extended fly time. Additionally, this altitude range is above normal aviation authority certification needs, and large areas of the planet can be observed at this range, with the distance to the horizon being over 500 km. High-altitude long endurance aircraft flying in this altitude range is therefore suitable for aerial surveys, surveillance and emergency communications in disaster recovery situations, and/or any other applications.) (Sham: ¶ 003; Such vehicles provide significant potential benefits. For example, weather conditions, such as wind strengths and turbulence levels, are reduced between around 50,000 to 100,000 feet altitude. High-altitude long endurance aircraft that flies above 50,000 feet can thus avoid severe weather conditions)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stark with the teachings of Sham because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Sham's base systems are similar systems for implementing a high elevation long duration aircraft network; however, Stark’s base system has been improved by detailing as a HALE vehicle. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Sham's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because that elevation is a logical transition of UAV behavior due to the reduce susceptibility to adverse weather and winds.
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Stark does not explicitly teach:
wherein the threshold altitude is 65,000 feet; however, Sham does teach:
wherein the threshold altitude is 65,000 feet; (Sham: ¶ 025; A UAV in accordance with the disclosure can collect multi-spectral imagery of any object in an area covered the UAV. In certain embodiments, the UAV can fly up to 65,000 feet and can cover as much as 500 km in range. However, as mentioned above, such applications will require a large amount of information to be collected and processed. Onboard processing of such information for the commercial applications will require large processing power, which in turn requires heavy payloads and power. One motivation of the present disclosure is to “outsource” some or entire processing of such information to existing infrastructure, such as processing stations on the ground. Embodiments provide communication technologies to create a UAV network that comprises multiple UAVs, ground processing stations, and/or any other components. The UAVs in the network can be equipped with communication hardware to enable the UAVs to communicate with each other and as well as ground processing stations.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stark with the teachings of Sham because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Sham's base systems are similar systems for implementing a high elevation long duration aircraft network; however, Stark’s base system has been improved by detailing an operating target of 65,000 ft. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Sham's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would reduce susceptibility to adverse weather and winds.
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Stark does not explicitly teach:
wherein each UAV in the fleet of three or more UAVs is a High Altitude Long Endurance Aircraft.; however, Sham does teach:
wherein each UAV in the fleet of three or more UAVs is a High Altitude Long Endurance Aircraft. (Sham: ¶ 025; A UAV in accordance with the disclosure can collect multi-spectral imagery of any object in an area covered the UAV. In certain embodiments, the UAV can fly up to 65,000 feet and can cover as much as 500 km in range. However, as mentioned above, such applications will require a large amount of information to be collected and processed. Onboard processing of such information for the commercial applications will require large processing power, which in turn requires heavy payloads and power. One motivation of the present disclosure is to “outsource” some or entire processing of such information to existing infrastructure, such as processing stations on the ground. Embodiments provide communication technologies to create a UAV network that comprises multiple UAVs, ground processing stations, and/or any other components. The UAVs in the network can be equipped with communication hardware to enable the UAVs to communicate with each other and as well as ground processing stations.). (Sham: ¶ 003; High-altitude long endurance aircraft that flies above 50,000 feet can thus avoid severe weather conditions. This allows extended fly time. Additionally, this altitude range is above normal aviation authority certification needs, and large areas of the planet can be observed at this range, with the distance to the horizon being over 500 km. High-altitude long endurance aircraft flying in this altitude range is therefore suitable for aerial surveys, surveillance and emergency communications in disaster recovery situations, and/or any other applications.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of combination Stark with the teachings of Sham because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Stark and Sham's base systems are similar systems for implementing a high elevation long duration aircraft network; however, Stark’s base system has been improved by detailing as a HALE vehicle. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Sham's known improvement to Stark using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would reduce susceptibility to adverse weather and winds.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Stark as applied to claim 1 and 11 respectively, and in further view of Tuukkanen et al. (US 20190101934 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Stark does not explicitly teach:
wherein the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude is delayed until there are more favorable weather conditions; however, Tuukkanen does teach:
wherein the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude is delayed until there are more favorable weather conditions (Tuukkanen: ¶ 072; wind model 145, may define, either manually or automatically, selected spots or zones at the location 140 where the drone 124 may safely “pause” and wait until the sudden severe weather anomaly passes. A drone 124 may “pause” by landing or hovering in a safe zone until being further instructed or authorized by the system 120 or an operator to continue along its calculated route.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuukkanen with the teachings of Stark because “[r]eal-time wind condition data may also improve the safety of the drone.” (Tuukkanen : ¶ 071).
Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, combination Stark teach the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Stark does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: delaying the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude until there are more favorable weather conditions; however, Tuukkanen does teach:
further comprising: delaying the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude until there are more favorable weather conditions. (Tuukkanen: ¶ 072; wind model 145, may define, either manually or automatically, selected spots or zones at the location 140 where the drone 124 may safely “pause” and wait until the sudden severe weather anomaly passes. A drone 124 may “pause” by landing or hovering in a safe zone until being further instructed or authorized by the system 120 or an operator to continue along its calculated route.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuukkanen with the teachings of Stark because “[r]eal-time wind condition data may also improve the safety of the drone.” (Tuukkanen : ¶ 071).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed May 22. 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s terminal disclaimer with respect to issued patent 12130639 is effective in overcoming the previously applied 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that:
First, Spicer does not teach or suggest that a computing device withholds a descent command signal until a specific operator is allocated. In Spicer, the vehicle has already arrived at or near the controlled volume and is directed into an automated circling routine, i.e., it is not a computing device at a ground control station making a deliberate decision to withhold a descent command. Amended independent Claims 1 and 11 require an affirmative architectural feature: the first computing device does not transmit the descend command signal until a specific operator is allocated. This is a fundamentally different control paradigm from Spicer's fallback circling routine, which is a reactive, autonomous safety measure undertaken by the vehicle itself using its own sense-and-avoid systems, i.e., "using the same sense and avoid systems which have brought it to its current position" (Spicer at page 7, lines 24-26). (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pg. 9).
Newly applied art Parras teaches a system in which an autonomous UAV can conduct a variety of autonomous or manually controlled missions which can be directed to end by an operator available to take control of the UAV pressing a button at a ground control station which sends a control signal to the UAV to commence landing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that not pressing the button would result in no signal being sent, and would prevent the UAV from landing as the instant claims recite.
Applicant also argues:
Second, Spicer does not teach or suggest that the first UAV remains as part of a fleet of three or more UAVs above a threshold altitude while awaiting operator allocation. In Spicer, the vehicle that enters the automated circling routine does so "outside the controlled volume" (Spicer at page 7, line 25), i.e., it is a lone aircraft waiting to enter a controlled airspace for landing. There is no concept of a fleet of UAVs in Spicer, let alone a UAV maintaining its membership in a fleet at high altitude while the ground control station determines operator availability. Amended independent Claims 1 and 11 expressly require that the first UAV "remains as part of the fleet of three or more UAVs above the threshold altitude and in communication with the first computing device until the specific operator is allocated." (Claims 1 and 11). These limitations reflect the core innovation of the claimed invention: fleet-level management where the UAV continues its station-keeping duties in the stratosphere as part of the fleet until an operator is specifically designated for descent operations. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pg. 9).
Previously applied prior art Stark teaches “a fleet manager module and with memory [covering] a different flight plan for each of the UAVs” (Stark: ¶ 014) which can include “two to many UAVs, such as but not limited to multicopters, during synchronized flight.” (Stark: ¶ 012). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that newly applied art Parras’s teaching of not landing until a signal is received is consistent with the UAV remaining “above a threshold altitude . . . until a specific operator of the set of operators is allocated to control the descent” (above a landing approach elevation until an operator is available to push the button) as taught by the instant claim, and that when combined with Stark’s fleet of multiple UAVs controlled in synchronous flight, teaches the instant claim “remains as part of a fleet of three or more UAVs” limitation.
Applicant also argues:
Third, Spicer's "automated circling routine" is entirely autonomous, i.e., the vehicle in Spicer uses its own "sense and avoid systems" with no ongoing communication with a ground control station or fleet management computing device. In contrast, amended independent Claims 1 and 11 require that the first UAV remains "in communication with the first computing device" while awaiting operator allocation. This maintained communication link is integral to the claimed fleet management system, where the first computing device monitors the fleet above the threshold altitude at an N:M operator-to-UAV ratio exceeding 1:1, and the UAV remains under the supervision of that computing device until a specific operator is allocated and the descent command is transmitted. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pgs. 9-10).
Newly applied art Parras teaches a system in which an autonomous UAV can conduct a variety of autonomous or manually controlled missions (Parras: ¶ 028; ground station, such as a portable ground station 140 shown in FIG. 4, may be used to guide UAV 100), which in combination with Stark’s teaching of a formation of UAVs teaches the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11.
Applicant also argues:
With respect to Claims 4 and 14, the Office action relies on paragraph 0058 of Stark for the limitation of transmitting a descend/ascend command signal, citing Stark's disclosure that "the GCS is used to trigger each of the UAVs to begin their stored flight plan [which] may define a series of earth points or way points along with elevation/altitude values for the UAV." The Applicant respectfully submits that triggering a pre-stored flight plan with waypoints is not the same as transmitting a specific descend command signal from a ground control station to cause a specific UAV to descend from an airborne fleet. The claimed invention involves active, real-time fleet management where the first computing device selectively transmits a descend command signal to a particular UAV, as distinguished from Stark's pre-programmed waypoint-based flight plans for aerial displays. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pgs. 11-12).
Stark teaches concurrent fleet control or individual UAV control based on the current operational requirements. Stark at ¶ 016 recites “the fleet manager module may compare, for each of the UAVs, the present position of the UAV with an expected position of the UAV and, based on the comparing, transmit a GCS action to control operations for at least one of the UAVs to override the local control module.” In other words, if one UAV needs specific control, such as landing due to malfunction, a single aircraft can be command to land by the GCS (Ground Control Station).
Applicant also argues:
Specifically, [regarding claims 6-7 and 15-17,] the Applicant respectfully asserts that Mazzarella does not teach that a first computing device triggers a third computing device (distinct from both the first and second computing devices) to operate the launch and ascent of a replacement UAV, or that the third computing device subsequently triggers the first computing device to resume operation of the replacement UAV as part of the fleet upon ascent above the threshold altitude. Mazzarella's remote control is a single system that sends flight commands to all ANs. It does not involve handoffs among three separate computing devices each associated with different operators performing distinct roles in fleet management (fleet monitoring, descent control, and launch/ascent control) (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pg. 13).
Mazzarella teaches both a centralized server and a “distributed peer application model, wherein the flight paths and patterns of each AND are input and converted into flight commands which are then sent wirelessly to each AND.” (Mazzarella: ¶ 147; Col. 27, Lns. 52-55). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., each associated with different operators performing distinct roles in fleet management (fleet monitoring, descent control, and launch/ascent control)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19 that
[w]hile Sham discloses UAVs operating at altitudes up to 65,000 feet for telecommunications relay purposes, Sham does not disclose or suggest using 65,000 feet as a threshold altitude that delineates a transition between different operator-to-UAV ratios in a fleet management context, nor does Sham disclose High Altitude Long Endurance Aircraft managed as a fleet with the operator allocation and fleet membership features recited in the amended independent claims. The combination with Sham does not remedy the deficiencies of the Stark, Margolin, and Spicer combination with respect to the limitations of Claims 8-9 and 18-19. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pg. 14).
First, to the extent the combination of Stark in view of Margolin in view of Parras does not teach a threshold altitude of 65,000 feet, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention that the Stark combination teaches the limitation as claimed because choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions known in the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious (Perfect Web Tech., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29, 92 USPQ2d 1849, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2009); MPEP § 2143(E)). In the instant case, one skilled in the art would have realized there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the problem of an altitude threshold and the proper altitude could be determined by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Further the selection of 65,000 feet yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A) (quoting In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (claimed process where acid concentrations and temperatures varied from prior art).
Second, to the extent an altitude threshold of 65,000 feet provides unexpected benefit and is not merely a design choice, Sham teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art the wide communications reach of aircraft at that elevation, which would suggest combination with combination Stark.
Finally Applicant argues regarding claims 10 and 20 that
Tuukkanen is directed to link-level wind factor computation for drone routing in urban environments. Tuukkanen's disclosure that a drone may "pause by landing or hovering in a safe zone until being further instructed or authorized by the system 120 or an operator to continue along its calculated route" (Tuukkanen and paragraph 0072) relates to a small delivery drone pausing along an urban delivery route due to a weather anomaly. This is fundamentally different from the claimed limitations of delaying the descent of a High Altitude Long Endurance UAV that is part of a managed fleet operating in the stratosphere until there are more favorable weather conditions for descent and recovery operations. The combination with Tuukkanen does not remedy the deficiencies of the Stark, Margolin, and Spicer combination with respect to the limitations of Claims 10 and 20. The Applicant respectfully notes that all claim limitations must be considered when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 22. 2026, pg. 15).
Examiner disagrees that Tuukkanen’s teaching that a drone “may define, either manually or automatically, selected spots or zones at the location 140 where the drone 124 may safely “pause” and wait until the sudden severe weather anomaly passes” (Tuukkanen: ¶ 072) is not applicable to the limitation wherein “the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude is delayed until there are more favorable weather condition” (Instant Application: Clm. 10). Tuukkanen is teaching considering pausing a drone due to unfavorable weather exactly as dependent claims 10 and 20 recite. Furthermore, with respect to the claim 10 system, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. With respect to the method claim 20, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Tuukkanen’s teachings could be applied to any UAV operating in inclement weather conditions and would not be limited to weather observation uses. Consequently, Applicant’s amendments and arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Kim et al. (US 20150327136 A1) which discloses a method for controlling hand-over in a drone network that is established by a plurality of drones that constitute a formation, and controlled by a ground control station (GCS) that controls the location, configuration and mobility of each of the plurality of drones.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights