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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/14/2026 have been entered. Claims 7-8, 10-16, and 18-28 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 7-8, 10-16, and 18-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Saunamaeki, US 20200005656 A1, herein referred to as Saunamaeki, and in view of Bentley et al., US 20190289469 A1, herein referred to as Bentley.
Regarding claim 7, Saunamaeki discloses machine-readable instructions (Paragraph 0104; system includes machine-readable media and software to execute control), at least one processor circuit (Paragraph 0033; a processor may be included in the system), determine whether a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal at or proximate the aircraft is below a threshold strength based on output of a sensor of the aircraft (Paragraphs 0049-0051; a GNSS signal for a given drone may be determined to fall under a given threshold, this GNSS signal is obtained from an appropriate GNSS sensor (GPS), the GNSS/GPS signal is at or proximate to the aircraft because it is received via the onboard sensors), request guidance from a mobile platform in response to the determination that the GNSS signal is below the threshold strength (Paragraphs 0049-0051; if a GNSS signal is inadequate (below threshold or lost), then the drones may communicate with each other to account for the discrepancy, this assistance may be considered a request for guidance from at least one other drone as it results in a group of drones collectively localizing themselves, the master drone may be considered the mobile platform), calculate a position of the aircraft relative to the mobile platform (Paragraphs 0049-0051, 0058-0061, 0076, 0079, and 0093; localization devices may be used to determine positional information of unmanned aerial vehicles in relation to each other, each drone may determine relative distancing/locations to each other based on RF signals from multiple antennas on each drone, each drone may have a location relative to a master drone in a grouping), and provide the position to the mobile platform for guidance of the aircraft by the mobile platform (Paragraphs 0049-0051, 0058-0061, 0076, 0079, and 0093; locations of drones may be communicated between each other), but fails to disclose transmitting a message to a mobile platform to request guidance from the mobile platform in the response to the determination that the GNSS signal is below the threshold, and calculate a position of the aircraft relative to the mobile platform in response to the transmission of the message to the mobile platform.
However, Bentley, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches transmitting a message to a mobile platform to request guidance from the mobile platform in the response to the determination that the GNSS signal is below the threshold (Paragraphs 0055-0056; a first device (UAV) may transmit an assistance request message to other devices (UAVs)), and calculate a position of the aircraft relative to the mobile platform in response to the transmission of the message to the mobile platform (Paragraphs 0055-0056, 0065; a first device (UAV) may transmit an assistance request message to other devices (UAVs); positioning data of the devices (UAVs) may be performed in response to the message request). Therefore, from the teaching of Bentley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the guidance system of Saunamaeki to include transmitting a message to a mobile platform to request guidance from the mobile platform in the response to the determination that the GNSS signal is below the threshold, and calculate a position of the aircraft relative to the mobile platform in response to the transmission of the message to the mobile platform, as taught/suggested by Bentley. The motivation to do so would be to transmit an assistance request through a message that can be logged. This can help with logging events and can help inform further control changes through hardware/software modifications. Additionally, utilizing transmitted messaging instead of the light-based messaging of Saunamaeki can allow for the system to be usable in a broader range of environments and weather, especially in the case where light visibility may be reduced (fog, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses direct the mobile platform to move toward the aircraft based on a signal strength between the aircraft and the mobile platform (Paragraphs 0049-0051; drones may move towards each other to group up when a GNSS signal is inadequate (below threshold/lost), the aircraft may utilize RF signals to determine grouping and direction from the other drones, during grouping, multiple drones may move towards the master drone (mobile platform)).
Regarding claim 10, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses cause the mobile robot to remain in or move to an uncontested area during guidance of the aircraft via the mobile platform, the uncontested area corresponding to an area at which the GNSS signal is above the signal threshold (Paragraphs 0050, 0067; all of the drones may be in a given flight area during guidance maneuvers (grouping), the drones may all have sufficient GNSS signaling reception at a given point during grouping which can be considered as an uncontested area (no GNSS loss), the drones may operate successfully in the uncontested area and can be considered as remaining in the area).
Regarding claim 11, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses cause the aircraft and the mobile platform to maintain a relative displacement therebetween (Paragraph 0073; drones within a group may be controlled to maintain distances between each other).
Regarding claim 12, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses the position is calculated based on first, second, and third signal strengths measured between the aircraft and the mobile platform (Paragraphs 0049-0051, 0058-0061, 0076, 0079, and 0093; locations of drones may be determined by utilizing multiple RF antennas on a given drone, the multiple RF signals from the multiple RF antennas may be considered first, second, and third signals, each RF signal may have an associated strength which is used to determine the drone’s location).
Regarding claim 13, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses the aircraft and the mobile platform are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (Paragraphs 0049-0051, 0058-0061, 0076, 0079, and 0093; the drones (including the master drone) are unmanned aerial vehicles).
Regarding claim 14, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses the position is calculated based on a direction determined via direction finding antenna array and a time-of-flight signal (Paragraphs 0049-0051, 0058-0061, 0071, 0076, 0079, 0093, 0147; positioning may be estimated based on a time and phase of the signals between the drones and a master drone, RF beacons may also be those that transmit/receive RF signals such as the drones and master drone (see 0071)).
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18-21, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 7-8, 10-12, and 14, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 7-8, 10-12, and 14.
Regarding claims 22-26, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 7-8 and 10-11, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 7-8 and 10-11.
Regarding claim 27, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 10. Saunamaeki further discloses guide the aircraft via GNSS signals received in the uncontested area (Paragraphs 0049-0051, 0058-0061, 0076, 0079, and 0093; drones may be guided based on their GNSS locations during flight; this can occur during successful operation when GNSS signaling is adequate (uncontested area)).
Regarding claim 28, Saunamaeki in view of Bentley renders obvious all the limitations of claim 7. Saunamaeki further discloses request guidance from a mobile platform in response to the determination that the GNSS signal is below the threshold strength (Paragraphs 0049-0051; if a GNSS signal is inadequate (below threshold or lost), then the drones may communicate with each other to account for the discrepancy, this assistance may be considered a request for guidance from at least one other drone as it results in a group of drones collectively localizing themselves, the master drone may be considered the mobile platform), but fails to disclose causing the aircraft to disregard the GNSS signals in response to the transmission of the message to the mobile platform.
However, Bentley teaches causing the aircraft to disregard the GNSS signals in response to the transmission of the message to the mobile platform (at least Paragraph 0065; the resources offered during a request for assistance may be evaluated; these resources can include locations of other UAVs, etc., these resources may be rejected/disregarded if they are inadequate for the response to the assistance request). Therefore, from the teaching of Bentley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the guidance system of Saunamaeki and Bentley to include causing the aircraft to disregard the GNSS signals in response to the transmission of the message to the mobile platform, as taught/suggested by Bentley. The motivation to do so would be to reject or refuse data that is not helpful in locating a given drone/UAV. By disregarding/rejecting inadequate data, the drones/UAVs may save time and resources by only processing data that is known or is likely to help.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7, 15, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights