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 Amendment
As a preliminary matter, the instant Amendment of 7/3/2026 failed to fully address the outstanding issues set forth in the preceding Office Action. Namely, Figures 2 and 3 lack reference numerals are required. The Abstract has not been corrected. And the priority claim of the instant application has not been perfected by retrieval of the certified copy of the priority application. It is suggested to contact the Formalities Officer in this regard. Further, dependent claims 8-16 are method claims depending from an apparatus claims, which is impermissible. Finally, the dependent claims remain indefinite because as before it is impermissible to claim an undefined encoding/network type. See 112 rejections below.
Regarding the amended claims, and the arguments proffered in regard to the cited Tolstov reference, the claims still seem to be drawn to claiming YOLOv5 which is the work of another, and would seem to be a known standard, with SNR, which is well known. That is to say, the claims by admission seem to be drawn to well known aspects developed by others, or that which is well known, which is certainly not patentable. Still further, the argumentation asserting that Tolstov fails to disclose the amended features of sole independent claim 1 is wholly wrong: Tolstov identically discloses the amended features of claim 1. See claims mapping below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 11/25/2024. It is noted, however, that a certified copy of the CN202411688426.0 application has not been placed in the file wrapper as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Therefore, currently the priority claim is unperfected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include reference sign(s) in the description or figures such that correlations to illustrated aspects are unclear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because said abstract is in claim, not narrative form as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Namely, just as in the preceding Office Action, said claims recite undefined standards known by those of skill in the art which is impermissible, namely you only look once v5 network, ffmpeg and H.264 encoding.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Namely, claims 8-16 are method claims written in dependent form and ultimately depending from independent claim 1, a system claim. Thus this is impermissible mixing of claim types. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tolstov (US 2026/0029796).
Regarding claim 1, Tolstov (as supported by the provisional application) discloses a multi-modal communication dynamic switching and adaptive compression system for a low-altitude intelligent network, (Abstract, multi-modal communication system for UAVs) comprising an airborne terminal and a ground terminal; (paragraph 0061, shown Figure 4, drone 100 wireless interface 410 is airborne terminal and controller 450/access point 425 is ground terminal) wherein the airborne terminal comprises an embedded computing platform (paragraph 0042, processor 335 on subsystem 330 board) configured for target detection, (paragraph 0026, target identification) video compression, (paragraphs 0060/0063, video data transmitted over link per standard) network state sensing, data transmission, and route intelligent planning, (Abstract, network state sensing, data transmission, route planning) an airborne expansion board (paragraph 0042, processor 335 on subsystem 330 board) configured for sensing connection data and transmitting data, (Abstract, network state sensing, data transmission) an airborne ad hoc network radio, (Figure 3, radio transceiver 359) a flight control computer, (Figure 3, controller 340/346) and an optical pod camera; (Figure 3, cameras 349) and the ground terminal comprises a ground expansion board (shown Figure 4, controller 450 is integrated into a board which may be the access point or to interface with the access point) configured for establishing an ad hoc network and a 5G connection, (paragraph 0060, 5G ad hoc connection, further connection) sensing a connection state of a link in real-time, switching a data transmission link, and transmitting a current transmission quality, (paragraphs 0061/0063, sensing link state, switching links, transmitting link quality) and a ground ad hoc network radio. (paragraph 0061, controller or access point has radio transceiver to establish link to UAV)
Regarding claim 2, Tolstov discloses wherein the embedded computing platform is equipped with a target detection model, (paragraph 0026, target detection model) a video compression module, (paragraph 0060, video compression such as 5G or LTE) a network state sensing module, (paragraph 0061, link management module 402) a data transmission module, (paragraph 0050, communication model 359) and a route intelligent planning module. (paragraph 0048, mission module 329)
As in the previous Office Action, remaining claims 3-16 merely describe operations well known to those of skill in the art between airborne terminal and ground, and are generally not supported by the description for the reasons above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bader (US 2025/0132988) implicates communication system between UAV and ground, and operation of the same.
Wetzel (US 2024/0412650) implicates communication system between UAV and ground, and operation of the same.
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 KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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 KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights