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 .
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2
Claim 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2 reads on claims 1 and 11 of the instant application. Although the claims are not identical, the reference teaches a fleet of UAVs controlled by a plurality of flight control computers wherein a UAV waits to descend until a ratio of operators to UAVs is above a 1:1 ratio. Claims 1 and 11 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the instant application merely omits (1) a descent signal and (2) remote UAV monitoring. Omission of an element and its function in a combination, where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Karlson, 311 F.2d 581, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Furthermore, claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2 reads on claims 2-3 and 12 of the instant application. Claims 2-3 and 12 of the instant application reincorporate the (1) descent signal and (2) monitoring limitations removed from claim 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2 and therefore would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because incorporating them would improve regulatory compliance (U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2; ¶ 025).
Claim 2-7 and 9-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2 read on claims 4-9 and 13-20 of the instant application because the dependent claims are identical except in matters of form and are therefore are obvious based on the obviousness of their respective independent claims.
Finally, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12130639 B2 read on claims 10 of the instant application because the dependent claims are identical except in matters of form and are therefore are obvious based on the obviousness of their respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 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 Spicer (GB 2466039 A) (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").)
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 descent of a first UAV below the threshold altitude is delayed until there is an operator available to control the descent of the first UAV; however, Spicer does teach:
and wherein descent of a first UAV below the threshold altitude is delayed until there is an operator available to control the descent of the first UAV (Spicer: Pg. 7; lens. 14-26; As a vehicle comes within range of a volume . . . If remote pilotage is required, then the control centre sets up communication 23 with the vehicle and allocates a pilot 24. If for some reason, no pilot is available . . .can be directed into an automated circling routine 25, outside the controlled volume, using the same sense and avoid systems which have brought it to its current position.) (Spicer: Fig. 1; Examiner’s note: volume [1] is defined in part with an altitude)
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 Spicer with the teachings of Stark because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing remote vehicle control in applications where wireless communications are insufficient for transmitting real-time video images. (Spicer: Pg. 1, Lns. 11-15).
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.)
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: delaying the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude until there is an operator available to control the descent of the first UAV; however, Spicer does teach:
delaying the descent of the first UAV below the threshold altitude until there is an operator available to control the descent of the first UAV. (Spicer: Pg. 7; lns 14-26; As a vehicle comes within range of a volume . . . If remote pilotage is required, then the control centre sets up communication 23 with the vehicle and allocates a pilot 24. If for some reason, no pilot is available . . .can be directed into an automated circling routine 25, outside the controlled volume, using the same sense and avoid systems which have brought it to its current position.) (Spicer: Fig. 1; Examiner’s note: volume [1] is defined in part with an altitude)
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 Spicer with the teachings of Stark because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing remote vehicle control in applications where wireless communications are insufficient for transmitting real-time video images. (Spicer: Pg. 1, Lns. 11-15).
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.l. (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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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; Cols. 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).
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.
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