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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of Japan 2011-105514 on 5/10/2011 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 11/20/24. It has been annotated and considered.
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of US Patent 11709491. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims in the instant application are encompassed by the claims of US Patent 11709491 as mapped below:
US Application 18953188
US Patent 11709491
1, 9, 16
1, 9, 16
2, 17
1, 9, 16
3, 12, 18
3, 12, 18
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
14, 19
14, 19
8, 15, 20
8, 15, 20
10
10
11
11
13
13
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 9 (and similarly 16), the Applicant claims “prevent navigation of the UAV to one or more of the geospatial locations based on corresponding RSSI values.” However, as at least disclosed in [0069] of the Applicant’s specification, RSSI values that are too high and above a safe RSSI threshold are used to prevent navigation specifically, not any RSSI values as disclosed by the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
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 1-2, 8-11, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magson et al. (US Publication 201601061258 hereinafter Magson) in view of Kotecha (US Patent 9,537,561 hereinafter Kotecha) and further in view of Contreras et al. (US Publication 2018/0025649 hereinafter Contreras).
Regarding claim 1, Magson teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising (See at least: [0022] via “The ground control station 106 can send a sequence of commands to instruct the UAV 104 to travel to one or more specific locations and/or to establish a desired flight pattern, such as circling a perimeter surrounding a particular location.”) :
a radio frequency (RF) signal sensor configured to monitor RF signals (See at least: [0022] via “The ground control station 106 may establish a mobile control system communication channel 110 with respect to the mobile control system 102 and a UAV communication channel 112 with respect to the UAV 104. The mobile control system communication channel 110 may be a radio communication link that enables voice communication between an operator of the mobile control system 102 and an operator of the ground control station 106. The UAV communication channel 112 may be a data link that enables the operator of the ground control station 106 to issue control commands and receive status information from the UAV 104.”);
the RF signal sensor configured to determine a received signal strength indication (RSSI) value for each of the RF signals at respective geospatial locations (See at least: [0023] via “In an embodiment, in order for the mobile control system 102 to receive perception sensor data from the UAV 104 and/or control the UAV 104, the mobile control system 102 and UAV 104 must be within a communication range constraint.”);
but fails to teach a received signal strength indication (RSSI) value for each of the RF signals at respective geospatial locations and a memory configured to store the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations.
However, Kotecha teaches a received signal strength indication (RSSI) value for each of the RF signals at respective geospatial locations and a memory configured to store the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations (See at least: Col. 10 lines 48- 52 via “For example, as discussed with reference to data structure 500 (FIG. 5), UAV 210 may measure and store signal strength values, such as SINR and RSSI values, for each of the various antenna facet/cell combinations that are detectable by UAV 210.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Magson in view of Kotecha to teach a received signal strength indication (RSSI) value for each of the RF signals at respective geospatial locations and a memory configured to store the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations so the RSSI values can be used to determine the location of the UAV and/or locations of importance while navigating the UAV.
Modified Magson further fails to teach a flight control module configured to control navigation of the UAV based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations.
However, Contreras teaches a flight control module configured to control navigation of the UAV based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations (See at least: [0090] via “The UAV may receive or calculate signal strength indicator (RSSI) values to determine how close the UAV is to the signal source. Based on an estimated distance to the signal source, the UAV may perform operations meant to maintain the privacy of the area around the signal source. For example, a UAV may detect Wi-Fi router signals, cell phone signals or other radio tower signals, frequency modulation (FM) signals, amplitude modulation (AM) signals, microwave signals, Bluetooth signals or other wireless signals. When the UAV detects proximity to the signal source, the UAV may conduct a flight operation, such as increase altitude or change the flight path to maintain a certain distance from the signal source.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Contreras to teach a flight control module configured to control navigation of the UAV based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations so that the UAV can maintain proper distance from certain locations as needed while completing a task.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 17), modified Magson fails to teach the following limitation but Contreras teaches the flight control module configured to prevent navigation of the UAV to locations where the RSSI values are above a threshold (See at least: [0090] via “The UAV may receive or calculate signal strength indicator (RSSI) values to determine how close the UAV is to the signal source. Based on an estimated distance to the signal source, the UAV may perform operations meant to maintain the privacy of the area around the signal source. For example, a UAV may detect Wi-Fi router signals, cell phone signals or other radio tower signals, frequency modulation (FM) signals, amplitude modulation (AM) signals, microwave signals, Bluetooth signals or other wireless signals. When the UAV detects proximity to the signal source, the UAV may conduct a flight operation, such as increase altitude or change the flight path to maintain a certain distance from the signal source.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Contreras to teach the flight control module configured to prevent navigation of the UAV to locations where the RSSI values are above a threshold so that the UAV can maintain proper distance from certain locations as needed while completing a task.
Regarding claim 8 (and similarly 15 and 20), Magson teaches the RF signal sensor configured to receive the RF signals from RF transmitters coupled to two different structures (See at least: Fig. 1 via “mobile control system” and “ground control station’).
Regarding claim 9 (and similarly 16), modified Magson teaches a method and system, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: monitor radio frequency (RF) signals external to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); determine a received signal strength indication (RSSI) value for the RF signals at geospatial locations; and prevent navigation of the UAV to one or more of the geospatial locations based on corresponding RSSI values (Refer at least to claims 1 and 2 for reasoning and rationale.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Magson in view of Contreras teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: store the RSSI values and respective geospatial locations (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Magson in view of Contreras wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: adjust navigation of the UAV to locations where the RSSI values remain below a threshold (Refer at least to claim 2 for reasoning and rationale.).
Claims 3, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magson in view of Kotecha in view of Contreras and further Wuoti et al. (US Publication 2013/0328725 hereinafter Wuoti).
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 12 and 18), modified Magson fails to teach the RF signal sensor configured to obtain a received signal strength indication (RSSI) map corresponding to an area around at least one of an object or structure; and the flight control module configured to adjust flight of the UAV to avoid areas indicated by the RSSI map.
However, Contreras teaches the flight control module configured to adjust flight of the UAV to avoid areas indicated by the RSSI map (See at least: [0090] via “The UAV may receive or calculate signal strength indicator (RSSI) values to determine how close the UAV is to the signal source. Based on an estimated distance to the signal source, the UAV may perform operations meant to maintain the privacy of the area around the signal source. For example, a UAV may detect Wi-Fi router signals, cell phone signals or other radio tower signals, frequency modulation (FM) signals, amplitude modulation (AM) signals, microwave signals, Bluetooth signals or other wireless signals. When the UAV detects proximity to the signal source, the UAV may conduct a flight operation, such as increase altitude or change the flight path to maintain a certain distance from the signal source.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Contreras to teach the RF signal sensor configured to obtain a received signal strength indication (RSSI) map corresponding to an area around at least one of an object or structure; and the flight control module configured to adjust flight of the UAV to avoid areas indicated by the RSSI map so that the UAV can maintain proper distance from certain locations as needed while completing a task.
Modified Magson further fails to teach wherein the RF signal sensor configured to obtain a received signal strength indication (RSSI) map corresponding to an area around at least one of an object or structure.
However, Wuoti teaches wherein the RF signal sensor configured to obtain a received signal strength indication (RSSI) map corresponding to an area around at least one of an object or structure (See at least: [0018] via “Specifically, Wi-Fi fingerprinting creates a radio map of a given area through the RSSI data obtained for several access points, and creates a probability distribution of the RSSI values for the given location. These RSSI values are then compared with the fingerprint to identify the closest match, and predict of the location coordinates of the given location.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Wuoti to teach wherein the RF signal sensor configured to obtain a received signal strength indication (RSSI) map corresponding to an area around at least one of an object or structure so that the UAV can maintain proper distance from certain locations as needed while completing a task.
Claim 4-5, 7, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magson in view of Kotecha in view of Contreras and further in view of Boutayeb et al. (US Publication 2015/0380815 hereinafter Boutayeb).
Regarding claim 4, modified Magson fails to teach the RF signal sensor configured to determine at least one of a shape of an RF signal lobe generated by an RF transmitter coupled to a structure based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations.
However, Boutayeb discloses determining the shape of an RF signal lobe generated by an RF transmitter coupled to a structure (See at least: [0002] via “Modern wireless transmitters of radio frequency (RF) signals or antennas perform beamsteering to manipulate the direction of a main lobe of a radiation pattern and achieve enhanced spatial selectivity.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Boutayeb to teach the RF signal sensor configured to determine at least one of a shape of an RF signal lobe generated by an RF transmitter coupled to a structure based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations so that the UAV can determine a direction of the RF transmitter.
Regarding claim 5, modified Magson fails to teach the RF signal sensor configured to determine whether an RF transmitter coupled to the structure is aimed in a particular direction or azimuth based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations.
However, Boutayeb discloses the RF signal sensor configured to determine whether an RF transmitter coupled to the structure is aimed in a particular direction or azimuth based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations (See at least: [0002] via “Modern wireless transmitters of radio frequency (RF) signals or antennas perform beamsteering to manipulate the direction of a main lobe of a radiation pattern and achieve enhanced spatial selectivity.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Boutayeb to teach the RF signal sensor configured to determine whether an RF transmitter coupled to the structure is aimed in a particular direction or azimuth based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations so that the UAV can determine a direction of the RF transmitter and complete a task accordingly based on the direction.
Regarding claim 7, modified Magson teaches the RF signal sensor configured to determine an orientation of an RF transmitter coupled to the structure based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations (Refer at least to claim 34 for reasoning and rationale).
Regarding claim 14 (and similarly 19), modified Magson teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine, based on the RSSI values and respective geospatial locations, at least one of a shape of an RF signal lobe generated by an RF transmitter coupled to a structure, whether an RF transmitter coupled to a structure is aimed in a particular direction or azimuth, whether an RF transmitter coupled to a structure is operating at a particular frequency or power level, or an orientation of an RF transmitter coupled to a structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magson in view of Kotecha in view of Contreras and further in view of Sung (US Patent 8,744,379 hereinafter Sung).
Regarding claim 6, modified Magson fails to teach the RF signal sensor configured to determine whether an RF transmitter coupled to the structure is operating at a particular frequency or power level based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations.
However, Sung discloses the RF signal sensor configured to determine whether an RF transmitter coupled to the structure is operating at a particular frequency or power level based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations (See at least: Col. 1 lines 23-25 via “RF power detectors may be used in wireless RF communication systems to monitor the output power of a RF transmitter and/or the input power of a RF receiver.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Sung to teach the RF signal sensor configured to determine whether an RF transmitter coupled to the structure is operating at a particular frequency or power level based on the RSSI values and the respective geospatial locations so that the UAV can determine a direction of the RF transmitter and complete a task accordingly based on the direction.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magson in view of Kotecha in view of Contreras and further in view of Bethke et al. (US Patent 9513635 hereinafter Bethke).
Regarding claim 13, modified Magson fails to teach the following limitation, but Bethke teaches wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: generate an RSSI map for the RF signals for an area surrounding a structure (See at least: Col. 19 lines 27-42 via “Also, the UAV computer system may log RSSI and geospatial location around a tower and antennas to generate a 3D coverage map of the tower. For example, the UAV may receive a flight plan to fly a pattern of certain distance from the radios on the tower structure. For example, the UAV may fly a 360 degree pattern, or set radius from the tower, at a first altitude below antennas on a tower. The UAV records the geospatial location, and the RSSI. The UAV then may ascend to a higher altitude, and fly another 360 degree pattern, or set radius from the tower, again recording RSSI. The number of different altitudes to fly the 360 degree pattern may be set by the user device. Optionally, the UAV computer system can automatically fly a pattern around the top of the tower, until enough RSSI data is collected to provide a signal strength map of the antenna(s). The RSSI may be recorded for different frequencies of the antennas..”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to take modified Magson in view of Bethke to teach wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: generate an RSSI map for the RF signals for an area surrounding a structure so that the UAV can generate and use an RSSI map to determine how it wants to navigate an area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657