DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of United States Patent Application No. 18/364,070, filed August 2, 2023, entitled MOBILE AERIAL DRONE EARLY WARNING PRIVACY BREACH DETECT, INTERCEPT, AND DEFEND SYSTEMS AND METHODS, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application No. 17/591,556, filed February 2, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,756,438, entitled MOBILE AERIAL DRONE EARLY WARNING PRIVACY BREACH DETECT, INTERCEPT, AND DEFEND SYSTEMS AND METHODS, which is a continuation of United States Patent Application No. 16/151,258, filed October 3, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 11,270,595, entitled MOBILE AERIAL DRONE EARLY WARNING PRIVACY BREACH DETECT, INTERCEPT, AND DEFEND SYSTEMS AND METHODS.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 and 11/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 18-19 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10-11, and 18-19 of Yocam et al., U.S. Patent 11,270,595. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1-2, 11-12, and 18-19 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-2, 10-11, and 18-19 of US Patent 11,270,595, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Yocam et al., U.S. Patent 11,756,438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1-20 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-20 of US Patent 11,756,438, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Yocam et al., U.S. Patent 12,154,443. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1-20 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,154,443, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 18.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1 and 11 are directed to one of the statutory categories, while claim 18 is not directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“determine one or more factors associated with the unmanned aerial vehicle": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally process data and detect objects from that data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"determine, based on the one or more factors, a set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle": A person of ordinary skill in the art can estimate a positon of an object. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “receive an indication of presence of an unmanned aerial vehicle within a vicinity of a mobile device”, “output one or more signals indicative of the presence of the unmanned aerial vehicle within the vicinity of the mobile device”, and “receive instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “processors” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claims 18-20, it is being rejected in view of the OG Notice on Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media posted on USPTO’s website on 1/28/2010. It is being reproduced partially below to maintain a clear record:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. [[]]
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.”
The claimed invention in claim 18 recites in line 1 “…computer-readable memory…” and given that the specification is silent on not containing a transitory propagating signal as explained above in the OG Notice clearly medium by definition incorporates a transitory propagating signal and makes claim 18 non-statutory under USC 101.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. (USPGPub 2020/0344569) in view of Trundle et al. (USPGPub 2017/0092138). As per claim 1, Burgess discloses a system for managing breaches carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles, the system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors of the system (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein non-transitory computer-readable medium includes instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations) cause the system to: receive an indication of presence of an unmanned aerial vehicle within a vicinity of a mobile device (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein a user may select an option to receive a notification when a particular UAS 510 is in proximity to the computing device); determine one or more factors associated with the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510), wherein the one or more factors comprise at least one of: a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a distance from a user, a type of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or capabilities of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510); output one or more signals indicative of the presence of the unmanned aerial vehicle within the vicinity of the mobile device (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510). Burgess does not explicitly mention determine, based on the one or more factors, a set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle; wherein the one or more signals comprise indications of the set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle; and receive instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures. However Trundle does disclose: determine, based on the one or more factors, a set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like); wherein the one or more signals comprise indications of the set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like); and receive instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a drone device can be dispatched to confront (by, e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like) an unidentified drone in response to a notification from a drone detector even if the drone device is not equipped with a drone detector). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Trundle with the teachings as in Burgess. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve public safety and privacy concerns, see Trundle paragraph 0026. As per claim 2, Burgess discloses wherein the one or more factors includes one or more features of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510). As per claim 4, Burgess discloses wherein the one or more signals comprise information of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and wherein the information of the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises: features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, proximity of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the mobile device or a location selected by the user, a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, an authorization status of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510). As per claim 5, Trundle discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors of the system further cause the system to: output a visual representation depicting: a current location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a relative position of the unmanned aerial vehicle with respect to the mobile device or a location selected by the user, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0116; wherein a user device, monitor control unit, central alarm stations server, or the like may maintain a map includes data points that represent each of the drones that are detected within a predetermined geographic distance of a property regardless of whether the detected drones are authorized or unauthorized). As per claim 7, Trundle discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors of the system further cause the system to: output a set of privacy breach countermeasures that can be performed against the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the set of privacy breach countermeasures is determined based on one or more of the following: features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a proximity of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the mobile device or the location selected by the user, trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, authorization status of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like). As per claim 8, Trundle discloses wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors of the system further cause the system to: output a set of countermeasures that can be performed against the unmanned aerial vehicle, and receive a selection of the at least one countermeasure from the set of countermeasures (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like). As per claim 11, Burgess discloses a method for detecting, intercepting, and defending against breaches carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles, the method comprising: receiving an indication of presence of an unmanned aerial vehicle within a vicinity of a location (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein a user may select an option to receive a notification when a particular UAS 510 is in proximity to the computing device); determining, based on one or more factors associated with the unmanned aerial vehicle, a set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510), wherein the one or more factors comprise at least one of: the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a distance from a user, a type of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or capabilities of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510); outputting one or more signals indicative of the presence of the unmanned aerial vehicle within the vicinity of the location (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510). Burgess does not explicitly mention wherein the one or more signals are indicative of the set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle; and receiving instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures. However Trundle does disclose: wherein the one or more signals are indicative of the set of available countermeasures against the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like); and receiving instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a drone device can be dispatched to confront (by, e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like) an unidentified drone in response to a notification from a drone detector even if the drone device is not equipped with a drone detector). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Trundle with the teachings as in Burgess. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve public safety and privacy concerns, see Trundle paragraph 0026. As per claim 12, Burgess discloses wherein the location is a current location of mobile device or a location selected by the user (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein a user may select an option to receive a notification when a particular UAS 510 is in proximity to the computing device). As per claim 14, Burgess discloses wherein the one or more signals include video signals, audio signals, visual alerts, haptic signals, vibrations, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0068; wherein the one or more drone detectors 380 may include one or more displays, one or more speakers, one or more projectors, and/or any type of output devices that allow the one or more drone detectors 380 to communicate information to a nearby user). As per claim 15, Burgess discloses wherein the one or more signals are based on one or more features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or both (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510). As per claim 18, Burgess discloses at least one computer-readable memory carrying instructions to be executed by at least one processor, wherein the instructions are for performing a method of defending against privacy breaches carried out by unmanned aerial vehicles (see at least paragraph 0007; wherein non-transitory computer-readable medium includes instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform operations), the method comprising: receiving an indication of presence of at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a vicinity of a mobile device (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein a user may select an option to receive a notification when a particular UAS 510 is in proximity to the computing device); determining one or more factors associated with the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510), wherein the one or more factors comprise at least one of: a location of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, a distance from a user, a type of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, or capabilities of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510); outputting one or more signals indicative of the presence of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within the vicinity of the mobile device (see at least paragraph 0148; wherein the proximity to the computing device may be defined by the geofence 530 surrounding the location of the computing device, and the notification is displayed on the display of the computing device in response to detecting a breach of the geofence by the UAS 510). Burgess does not explicitly mention determining, based on the one or more factors, a set of available countermeasures against the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; wherein the one or more signals comprise indications of the set of available countermeasures that can be performed against the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and receiving instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures. However Trundle does disclose: determining, based on the one or more factors, a set of available countermeasures against the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like); wherein the one or more signals comprise indications of the set of available countermeasures that can be performed against the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0036; wherein the graphical alert may include information identifying the unauthorized drone device 170 and one or more options for responding to the unauthorized drone. The one or more options may include, for example, notifying a central alarm station server, notifying law enforcement, instructing the drone device 138 equipped with the drone detector 128 to engage the unauthorized drone device 170 (e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like), or the like); and receiving instructions that enable execution of at least one countermeasure of the set of available countermeasures (see at least paragraph 0037; wherein a drone device can be dispatched to confront (by, e.g., jamming the unauthorized drone, flashing lights at the unauthorized drone, crashing into the unauthorized drone, using water tank/pump/sprayer to spray water on the unauthorized drone, or the like) an unidentified drone in response to a notification from a drone detector even if the drone device is not equipped with a drone detector). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Trundle with the teachings as in Burgess. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve public safety and privacy concerns, see Trundle paragraph 0026. As per claim 19, Trundle discloses wherein the method further comprises: outputting a map depicting: a current location of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, a trajectory of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, a relative position of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle with respect to the mobile device or a location selected by the user, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0116; wherein a user device, monitor control unit, central alarm stations server, or the like may maintain a map includes data points that represent each of the drones that are detected within a predetermined geographic distance of a property regardless of whether the detected drones are authorized or unauthorized).
Claims 3, 10, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. (USPGPub 2020/0344569), in view of Trundle et al. (USPGPub 2017/0092138), and further in view of Madhav et al. (USPGPub 2017/0359554). As per claim 3, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors of the system further cause the system to: output a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle. However Madhav does disclose: wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors of the system further cause the system to: output a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein motion of the object within the predetermined range is tracked by the tracker 106. At the same time, the camera 112 may be activated to output a video signal of the moving object within the predetermined range to the computing device 116. As the motion of the object is being tracked, the control unit 108 may then activate the countermeasure 110 for a predetermined time period). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Madhav with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent, minimize, or otherwise reduce the possibility of a drone being used to invade the privacy of individuals, see Madhav paragraph 0005. As per claim 10, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention wherein the at least one countermeasure is executed for a configurable time period based on: user preferences, the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a proximity of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the mobile device or the location selected by the user, features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or any combination thereof. However Madhav does disclose: wherein the at least one countermeasure is executed for a configurable time period based on: user preferences, the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, a proximity of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the mobile device or the location selected by the user, features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0008; wherein the control unit is configured to take the action by operating the countermeasure to generate a disturbance in response to the motion detector detecting the motion within the predetermined range. The countermeasure may be configured to generate electromagnetic interference as the disturbance. The control unit may be configured to operate the countermeasure to generate the disturbance for a predetermined time period, and to cease generating the disturbance if the motion detector detects no motion within the predetermined range after the predetermined time period). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Madhav with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent, minimize, or otherwise reduce the possibility of a drone being used to invade the privacy of individuals, see Madhav paragraph 0005. As per claim 16, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention further comprising: outputting a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle. However Madhav does disclose: further comprising: outputting a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein motion of the object within the predetermined range is tracked by the tracker 106. At the same time, the camera 112 may be activated to output a video signal of the moving object within the predetermined range to the computing device 116. As the motion of the object is being tracked, the control unit 108 may then activate the countermeasure 110 for a predetermined time period). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Madhav with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent, minimize, or otherwise reduce the possibility of a drone being used to invade the privacy of individuals, see Madhav paragraph 0005. As per claim 17, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention wherein the at least one countermeasure is executed for a configurable time period based on: user preferences, the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, proximity of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the location, features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or any combination thereof.
However Madhav does disclose: wherein the at least one countermeasure is executed for a configurable time period based on: user preferences, the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle, proximity of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the location, features of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or any combination thereof (see at least paragraph 0008; wherein the control unit is configured to take the action by operating the countermeasure to generate a disturbance in response to the motion detector detecting the motion within the predetermined range. The countermeasure may be configured to generate electromagnetic interference as the disturbance. The control unit may be configured to operate the countermeasure to generate the disturbance for a predetermined time period, and to cease generating the disturbance if the motion detector detects no motion within the predetermined range after the predetermined time period). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Madhav with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent, minimize, or otherwise reduce the possibility of a drone being used to invade the privacy of individuals, see Madhav paragraph 0005. As per claim 20, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention wherein the method further comprises: outputting a trajectory of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle.
However Madhav does disclose: wherein the method further comprises: outputting a trajectory of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0061; wherein motion of the object within the predetermined range is tracked by the tracker 106. At the same time, the camera 112 may be activated to output a video signal of the moving object within the predetermined range to the computing device 116. As the motion of the object is being tracked, the control unit 108 may then activate the countermeasure 110 for a predetermined time period). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Madhav with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent, minimize, or otherwise reduce the possibility of a drone being used to invade the privacy of individuals, see Madhav paragraph 0005.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. (USPGPub 2020/0344569), in view of Trundle et al. (USPGPub 2017/0092138), and further in view of Ohata et al. (USPGPub 2018/0222582). As per claim 6, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention wherein the instructions for outputting the one or more signals cause the system to display alerts about two or more unmanned aerial vehicles simultaneously.
However Ohata does disclose: wherein the instructions for outputting the one or more signals cause the system to display alerts about two or more unmanned aerial vehicles simultaneously (see at least paragraph 0099; wherein two illegitimate drones are displayed on the screen G10 in a distinguished manner based on names and colors). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ohata with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to distinguish legitimate unmanned aircraft registered in advance and other unmanned aircraft (illegitimate unmanned aircraft) when they are flying in the same airspace, see Ohata paragraph 0005.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al. (USPGPub 2020/0344569), in view of Trundle et al. (USPGPub 2017/0092138), and further in view of Zhou et al. (USPGPub 2019/0185178). As per claim 13, Burgess and Trundle do not explicitly mention wherein the one or more signals are outputted at a set of user equipment, and wherein two or more user equipment in the set of user equipment act in tandem to notify the user of the presence of the unmanned aerial vehicle. However Zhou does disclose: wherein the one or more signals are outputted at a set of user equipment, and wherein two or more user equipment in the set of user equipment act in tandem to notify the user of the presence of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least paragraph 0021; wherein the plurality of warning devices are configured to convey the aircraft specific flight information). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Zhou with the teachings as in Burgess and Trundle. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve pilot awareness, see Zhou paragraph 0002.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions when executed by the one or more processors of the system further cause the system to: output a set of countermeasures that can be performed against the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein countermeasures in the set of countermeasures are ranked according to a priority value.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2020/0272827 – Provides a systems, methods, and apparatus for identifying, tracking, and disrupting UAVs are described herein. Sensor data can be received from one or more portable countermeasure devices or sensors. The sensor data can relate to an object detected proximate to a particular airspace. The system can analyze the sensor data relating to the object to determine a location of the object and determine that the object is flying within the particular airspace based at least in part on location data. A portable countermeasure device can be identified that corresponds to the location of the object. USPGPub 2020/0057133 – Provides approaches for registering and monitoring drones for safety and access control are provided. A computer-implemented method includes: receiving, by a computer device, location data from plural drones via low power, long range wireless transmission; updating, by the computer device, a central registry with the location data; generating, by the computer device, display data based on the location data and a location of a display device; and transmitting, by the computer device, the display data to the display device via a network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662