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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 03/31/2026 with respect to the objection to the speciation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the speciation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/31/2026 are moot because they are directed toward the newly added claim limitations regarding capturing images while the UAV changes direction. The newly added claim limitations overcome the previous rejection. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, is made in view of reference US 2017/00313355 (Jung et al.).
The Examiner notes, Jung teaches continuously taking images while the UAV travels on a new route, and has updated the rejection to show how Jung reads on the amended language.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “boundary components”, “position components”, and “control components” in claims 11 and 16; “operation components” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0189548 (Thurling et al.) in view of US 2017/00313355 (Jung et al.).
With respect to claims 1, 11, 12, and 16
Thurling teaches: A system (see at least Fig 1; #100; and ¶0032), comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least Fig 1 and 2(A-H); #102 and #200; and ¶0032 and ¶0038), and
one or more physical processors (see at least Fig 3; #300 and #304; and ¶0048) configured by machine readable instructions (see at least Fig 3; #300 and #304; and ¶0048) to:
obtain boundaries (see at least Fig 2-3; #204-210 and #310; and ¶0049) of a user-defined space (see at least ¶0035; Discussing the user can create flight boundaries) related to a location where the UAV is in operation (see at least Fig 2-3; #204-210 and #310; and ¶0035 and ¶0049), the boundaries of the user-defined space being fixed with respect to some reference frame (see at least Fig 2-3; #204-210, #310, and #328; and ¶0031-32, ¶0049, and ¶0054-55; Discussing the use of a geofence);
obtain a user-defined operation associated with the user-defined space (see at least 2-3 and 12; #204-210 and #1210; ¶0031 and ¶0075; The Examiner notes that anyone could be a user and who is inputting an operation would not be limiting);
track position of the unmanned aerial vehicle during an unmanned aerial flight (see at least Fig 2-3 and 12; #314, #316, #1206, and #1208; and ¶0052 and ¶0075); and
responsive to the unmanned aerial vehicle approaching the user-defined space (see at least Fig 2(A-H); #204-210; and ¶0037-47; Discussing detecting when the UAV is within a certain distance from prohibited area #204), generate alert information indicating that the UAV is within a predefined distance of entering the user-defined space (see at least Fig 2(A-H); #204-210; and ¶0037-47; Discussing sending an alert that a boundary #206 [that is a predefined distance from user-defined area #204], has been crossed.); and
perform an aerial maneuver where the UAV changes from a first direction to a second direction (see at least Fig 2-3; #204-210 and #1210; and ¶0041-47 and ¶0075; Showing the UAV changing direction in response to being a certain distance from prohibited area #204).
Although Thurling teaches using a sense and avoid system #312 which includes on optical camera (see ¶0051), Thurling does not specifically teach:
wherein the UAV continues to capture images while the UAV changes from the first direction to the second direction.
However continuously using the sensors include an image sensor while the UAV changes direction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time invention filed, with a reasonable expectation. Specifically Jung teaches:
wherein the UAV continues to capture images while the UAV changes from the first direction to the second direction (see at least Fig 5A; #530 and #611; and ¶0190 and ¶0194; Discussing continually capturing images while flying a corrected route.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for preventing a UAV from crossing a boundary disclosed in Thurling with a UAV that continuously captures images while flying as taught in Jung with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to continue to provide feedback to the user (see Jung ¶0190 and ¶0194). Thus making the system easier to use.
With respect to claims 2, 13, and 16
Thurling teaches:
wherein the reference frame is geography of Earth (see at least Fig 2-3; #314 and ¶0049-52).
With respect to claim 3
Thurling teaches:
wherein the boundaries of the user-defined space are obtained from a map (see at least Fig 2-3; #314 and ¶0049-52).
With respect to claims 4 and 17
Thurling teaches:
wherein the boundaries of the user-defined space form a geo- fence (see at least Fig 2-3; #314 and ¶0049-52).
With respect to claim 5
Thurling teaches:
wherein the aerial maneuver comprises: changing from a first flight control setting to a second flight control setting which is one or more of an altitude, a longitude, a latitude, a geographical location, a heading, and/or a speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least Fig 2-3; #204-210 and #1210; and ¶0041-47 and ¶0075; Discussing multiple different types of actions the UAV may perform if a boundary is crossed.), wherein the first flight control setting is different than the second flight control setting (see at least Fig 2-3; #204-210 and #1210; and ¶0041-47 and ¶0075; discussing switching how the UAV is controlled.
With respect to claims 7 and 15
Thurling does not specifically teach:
wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a sensor control subsystem configured to control a capture operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Jung teaches:
wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a sensor control subsystem defining aspects of capture settings of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least Fig 5(A-D); #801; and ¶0135 and ¶0185-194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Thurling by having the UAV capture images of an area if allowed as taught by Jung, with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to capture images in areas/manners that are allowed. Thus, making the system easier to use.
With respect to claim 8
Thurling does not specifically teach:
wherein the sensor control subsystem includes a sensor configured to generate an output signal conveying visual information.
However Jung teaches:
wherein the sensor control subsystem includes a sensor configured to generate an output signal conveying visual information (see at least Fig 5(A-D); #801; and ¶0135 and ¶0185-194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Thurling by having the UAV capture images of an area if allowed as taught by Jung, with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to capture images in areas/manners that are allowed. Thus, making the system easier to use.
With respect to claim 9
Thurling does not specifically teach:
wherein the user-defined operation includes a capture operation for the sensor control subsystem.
However, Jung teaches:
wherein the user-defined operation includes a capture operation for the sensor control subsystem (see at least Fig 5(A-D); #801; and ¶0135 and ¶0185-194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teaching of Thurling by having the UAV capture images of an area if allowed as taught by Jung, with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to capture images in areas/manners that are allowed. Thus, making the system easier to use.
With respect to claim 10
Thurling does not specifically teach:
wherein the sensor control subsystem is configured to control the sensor to perform the capture operation through adjustments of one or more of an aperture timing, an exposure, a focal length, an angle of view, a depth of field, a focus, a light metering, a white balance, a resolution, a frame rate, an object of focus, a capture angle, a zoom parameter, a video format, a sound parameter, and/or a compression parameter.
However, Jung teaches:
wherein the sensor control subsystem is configured to control the sensor to perform the capture operation through adjustments of one or more of an aperture timing, an exposure, a focal length, an angle of view, a depth of field, a focus, a light metering, a white balance, a resolution, a frame rate, an object of focus, a capture angle, a zoom parameter, a video format, a sound parameter, and/or a compression parameter (see at least Fig 5(A-D); #801; and ¶0135 and ¶0185-194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Thurling by having the sensor control subsystem is configured to control the sensor to perform the capture operation through adjustments of one or more of an aperture timing, an exposure, a focal length, an angle of view, a depth of field, a focus, a light metering, a white balance, a resolution, a frame rate, an object of focus, a capture angle, a zoom parameter, a video format, a sound parameter, and/or a compression parameter as taught by Jung, with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to capture images in areas/manners that are allowed. Thus, making the system easier to use.
With respect to claim 14
Thurling teaches:
wherein the user-defined spaces are located on an interactive map that displays a location of additional ones of the user-defined spaces (see at least Fig 2-3; #314 and ¶0049-52).
With respect to claim 18
Thurling teaches:
servers configured to communicate with one or more client computing platforms via a client/server architecture (see at least Fig 3 and ¶0049).
With respect to claim 19
Thurling teaches:
wherein the one or more client computing platforms are in communication with GPS (#314) or a location tracking system (#316) to provide a location of the system to a user (see at least Fig 3; #314-326; and ¶0054-55).
With respect to claim 20
Thurling teaches:
a controller interface configured to receive flight control information, flight control settings, or both (see at least Fig 3; #302; and ¶0048-52).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2016/0189548 (Thurling et al.) and US 2017/00313355 (Jung et al.) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2018/0025649 (Contreras et al.).
With respect to claim 21
the combination of Thurling and Jung does not specifically teach:
wherein the UAV hovers at the geo-fence.
However Contreras teaches:
wherein the UAV hovers at the geo-fence (see at least Fig 3; #304(A-E); ¶0059-61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for preventing a UAV from crossing a boundary disclosed in Thurling and a UAV that continuously captures images while flying disclosed in Jung with a system for preventing a UAV from crossing a boundary by causing it to hover taught in Contreras with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would prevent the UAV from entering an area it should not be in (see Contreras ¶0059-61).
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights