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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 1/17/2025 have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Withdrawal of Restriction Requirement from 6/22/2026
Based on applicants “Amendments and Remarks”, he Office agrees and therefor the Restriction Requirement mailed on 6/22/2026 is hereby withdrawn and Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending.
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending.
Claims 1, 29, and 34 are the independent claims.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 8/24/2026.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Objections
Claim 32 has typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Claim 32 states “the aerial vehicle” and should read “UAV” for antecedent issues and proper variables naming.
This Office suggests going through all claims and looking for similar errors as the above listed errors, as the above list was exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action is required.
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 22-27 and 35-39 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 22 states “in anticipation of a shutdown of the UAV” and there appears to be a missing crucial step or link on how this “anticipation” is being determined. Is this based on the battery level, a threshold, or some other non-disclosed crucial missing step where the functionality of the system is being analyzed and used? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus Claim 22 is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any connection to possible shutdowns as reading on this, thus a system that periodically saves data to a buffer, would in fact save said data, in anticipation of a shutdown. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 23 states “wherein the data packets are committed to memory if a shutdown is expected” and there are two issues with this limitation. First, what are the metes and bounds of term “memory”? Would not the saving to a buffer be a memory? Is this limitation just broad, or is there a distinct other memory that is being referenced, but not yet captured by the claims? Second, as in Claim 22, in which Claim 23 depends, there again appears to be a missing crucial step or link on how the shutdown is being “expected”. Is this based on the battery level, a threshold, or some other non-disclosed crucial missing step where the functionality of the system is being analyzed and used? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus Claim 23 is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any connection to possible shutdowns as reading on this, thus a system that periodically saves data to a buffer, would in fact save said data, in anticipation of a shutdown. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 24 states “further comprising: reducing power consumption if the shutdown is not imminently expected” and this limitation has several issues. First, is this claim actually stating when a shutdown is not expected, reducing power? Does this mean, randomly reducing power, or is there some threshold when power should be reduced? Second, as in Claim 22, in which Claim 24 depends, there again appears to be a missing crucial step or link on how the shutdown is being “anticipated” and further another step where the “anticipated shutdown” is not “imminent”. For proper analysis and understanding of the metes and bounds of this limitation, how is this anticipation being determined and further what extra step decides if this is imminent or not? Is this based on the battery level, a threshold, or some other non-disclosed crucial missing step where the functionality of the system is being analyzed and used? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus Claim 24 is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any connection to possible shutdowns as reading on this, thus a system that periodically saves data to a buffer, would in fact save said data, in anticipation of a shutdown. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 25 states “determining that communication between the UAV and the controller is lost beginning the storing of the data packets” and this limitation is unclear thus indefinite. There appears to be a missing connection between the lost communication and the storing of data packets. Is the storing of data packets based on the lost connection, is it increased, is it decreased, or would any storing of packets read on this? As currently presented, Claim 25 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claim is indefinite. Further, since Claim 25 depends on Claim 1, which states that the storing of data packets is already being carried out, what is actually being claimed? For example, if the storing of data packets is already carried out in Claim 1, how can the storing of packets now be started when a connection is lost? The Office is going to determine further storing data packets when communication is lost. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 26-27 states “compressing the data packets based on an importance of the data packets” and “data packets with a high importance are compressed more than the data packets of low importance” yet there appears to be a crucial missing step where the importance of the data packets is determined, thus the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is indefinite. Is this “importance” a known feature in data transferring, or is some data more important than other, as Claim 27 states? If so, there appears to be a missing crucial step in where and when this importance is determined. Therefore, Claims 26-27 are indefinite for failing to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. The Office is going to interpret any step of compressing data based on measurable values as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 35 states “in anticipation of a shutdown of the UAV” and there appears to be a missing crucial step or link on how this “anticipation” is being determined. Is this based on the battery level, a threshold, or some other non-disclosed crucial missing step where the functionality of the system is being analyzed and used? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus Claim 35 is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any connection to possible shutdowns as reading on this, thus a system that periodically saves data to a buffer, would in fact save said data, in anticipation of a shutdown. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 36 states “wherein the data packets are committed to memory if a shutdown is expected” and there are two issues with this limitation. First, what are the metes and bounds of term “memory”? Would not the saving to a buffer be a memory? Is this limitation just broad, or is there a distinct other memory that is being referenced, but not yet captured by the claims? Second, as in Claim 35, in which Claim 36 depends, there again appears to be a missing crucial step or link on how the shutdown is being “expected”. Is this based on the battery level, a threshold, or some other non-disclosed crucial missing step where the functionality of the system is being analyzed and used? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly state the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus Claim 36 is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any connection to possible shutdowns as reading on this, thus a system that periodically saves data to a buffer, would in fact save said data, in anticipation of a shutdown. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 38-39 states “compressing the data packets based on an importance of the data packets” and “data packets with a high importance are compressed more than the data packets of low importance” yet there appears to be a crucial missing step where the importance of the data packets is determined, thus the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter is indefinite. Is this “importance” a known feature in data transferring, or is some data more important than other, as Claim 38 states? If so, there appears to be a missing crucial step in where and when this importance is determined. Therefore, Claims 38-39 are indefinite for failing to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. The Office is going to interpret any step of compressing data based on measurable values as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 of this title, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. power102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 21-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tofte et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0192629) in view Garg et al. (United States Patent Publication 2014/0032951).
With respect to Claim 1: While Tofte discloses “A method comprising: powering on a controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (Aspects include central monitoring system 150 communicating with, commanding, and/or controlling one or more of UAVs 102.1-102.N)];
“powering on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (Aspects include central monitoring system 150 communicating with, commanding, and/or controlling one or more of UAVs 102.1-102.N)];
“linking the controller and the UAV” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (Aspects include central monitoring system 150 communicating with, commanding, and/or controlling one or more of UAVs 102.1-102.N)];
“determining a power level of a battery of the UAV” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (determining, at or via the central monitoring system, a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV)];
“communicating the power level of the battery to the controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (determining, at or via the central monitoring system, a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV)];
“determining if the battery level is low” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (determining, at or via the central monitoring system, a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV)];
“storing data packets to a buffer as the data is generated” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state determining how much data is in the buffers, rather periodically sending the collected buffer to the computing devices.
Garg, which is also data transferring system, teaches “and determining an amount of the data packets in the buffer” [Garg, ¶ 0072 (When the dongle 802 buffer is full, the dongle can alert the host 800 over the bus 804 and transfer the data to the host 804 for further processing)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Garg into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also measure the amount of data in the buffer and when it is at a certain level, full, transferring the data over as well as taught by Garg with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Garg into Tofte to create a more robust system that not only account for period transferring of data, but also account for situations where the buffer is full, thus increasing efficiency of saved and not lost data. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 21: While Tofte discloses “storing data packets to a buffer as the data is generated” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state determining how much data is in the buffers, rather periodically sending the collected buffer to the computing devices.
Garg, which is also data transferring system, teaches “further comprising: determining that the buffer is full and transferring the data packets to the controller” [Garg, ¶ 0072 (When the dongle 802 buffer is full, the dongle can alert the host 800 over the bus 804 and transfer the data to the host 804 for further processing)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Garg into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also measure the amount of data in the buffer and when it is at a certain level, full, transferring the data over as well as taught by Garg with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Garg into Tofte to create a more robust system that not only account for period transferring of data, but also account for situations where the buffer is full, thus increasing efficiency of saved and not lost data. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 22: Tofte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the data packets to the buffer in anticipation of a shutdown of the UAV.” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)].
With respect to Claim 23: Tofte discloses “The method of claim 22, wherein the data packets are committed to memory if a shutdown is expected” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)].
With respect to Claim 28: Tofte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: attempting to transmit the data packets between the UAV and the controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)].
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tofte et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0192629) in view Garg et al. (United States Patent Publication 2014/0032951) and in further view of Dao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0171732).
With respect to Claim 24: While Tofte discloses “wherein the data packets are committed to memory” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what happens if a shutdown is expected.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “reducing power consumption if the shutdown is not imminently expected” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0075 (the UE 10 may enter a low power state that reduces power consumption to conserve battery life)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also reduce power consumption to conserve battery life as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data, but extend the life of systems for extended data gathering [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 25: While Tofte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that communication between the UAV and the controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what happens if a connection is lost.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that communication between the UAV and the controller is lost beginning the storing of the data packets” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0075 (However, this may take a period of time, during which critical emergency data may be lost for typical networks. Accordingly, in the embodiment, MC data may be cached for subsequent transmission)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also cache data for later transmission when a connection is lost as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data but also reduce lost data [Dao, ¶ 0047]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 26: While Tofte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending data packets” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what ranking sets of data in the buffers to be sent over.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising: compressing the data packets based on an importance of the data packets” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0074-0076 (he low power state may comprise throttling communications and/or restricting device operations to extend battery life for the duration of an MC session. For example, a video camera equipped UE 10 may transmit a lower bandwidth type of MC data such as voice or text data, or lower the data rate of captured voice or video data rate. In an aspect, the UE 10 may just transmit data packets containing vital information from one or more sensors, or use a narrow (e.g. 15 KHz) bandwidth of air interface instead of the full available spectrum (e.g. 20 MHz, for instance) to reduce the energy consumption in device signal processing modules)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also rank data based on importance and further compresses the data (lower bandwidth) to allow for more data capture as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data but also reduce lost data lost and ensuring vital data is available [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 27: While Tofte discloses “The method of claim 26, further comprising: sending data packets” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what ranking sets of data in the buffers to be sent over.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “The method of claim 26, wherein the data packets with a high importance are compressed more than the data packets of low importance” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0074-0076 (he low power state may comprise throttling communications and/or restricting device operations to extend battery life for the duration of an MC session. For example, a video camera equipped UE 10 may transmit a lower bandwidth type of MC data such as voice or text data, or lower the data rate of captured voice or video data rate. In an aspect, the UE 10 may just transmit data packets containing vital information from one or more sensors, or use a narrow (e.g. 15 KHz) bandwidth of air interface instead of the full available spectrum (e.g. 20 MHz, for instance) to reduce the energy consumption in device signal processing modules)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also rank data based on importance and further compresses the data (lower bandwidth) to allow for more data capture as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data but also reduce lost data lost and ensuring vital data is available [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 29-30 and 34-39 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tofte et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0192629) in view of Dao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0171732) and in further view of Meir et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0233385).
With respect to Claim 29: While Tofte discloses “A method comprising: powering on a controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (Aspects include central monitoring system 150 communicating with, commanding, and/or controlling one or more of UAVs 102.1-102.N)];
“powering on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (Aspects include central monitoring system 150 communicating with, commanding, and/or controlling one or more of UAVs 102.1-102.N)];
“linking the controller and the UAV” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (Aspects include central monitoring system 150 communicating with, commanding, and/or controlling one or more of UAVs 102.1-102.N)];
“transmitting data packets between the UAV and the controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
“determining a power level of a battery of the UAV” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (determining, at or via the central monitoring system, a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV)];
“communicating the power level of the battery to the controller” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (determining, at or via the central monitoring system, a battery charge level of a battery associated with the UAV)];
“storing data packets to a buffer as the data is generated” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state determining storing the data when the battery is low or determing the amount of data in the buffer for continued storage.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “storing data packets to a buffer as the data is generated if the power level of the battery is low; and” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0074-0076 (Further, conserving resources can include turning off some functions (for example the UE display) to conserve energy. The remaining capacity of local memory of UE can be measured so that MC-U 11 can select which types of data to cache or to delete some data segments)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also select what data to store and transmit based on battery level as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data, but extend the life of systems for extended data gathering [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Meir, which is also data saving system, teaches “determining an amount of the data packets in the buffer to determine if the data packets can continue to be stored in the buffer” [Meir ¶ 0017, 0027, 0049, 0054 (If cache memory 34 or 50 is present, then in block 66, controller 18 or operating system 54 determines whether cache memory 34 or 50 is full. If cache memory 34 or 50 is not full, then in block 68 controller 18 or operating system 54 writes the data to cache memory 34 or 50. If cache memory 34 or 50 is full, then in block 70 controller 18 writes the data directly to magnetic medium 14 of platter 16, or operating system 54 writes the data directly to HDD 56. Then, in block 72, controller 18 copies the contents of cache memory 34 to magnetic medium 14 of platter 16, or operating system 54 copies the contents of cache memory 50 to HDD 56. Finally, in block 74, controller 18 or operating system 54 erases cache memory 34 or 50)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Meir into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also determining the amount of data in the cache and transfer to volatile memory when a level is reached as taught by Meir with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Meir into Tofte to create a more robust system save cache space as data is gathered [Meir, ¶ 0054]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 30: While Tofte discloses “A method comprising: storing data packets” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what happens when the buffer is full.
Meir, which is also data saving system, teaches “The method of claim 29, further comprising: committing the data packets to a non-volatile memory from the buffer if the buffer is full” [Meir ¶ 0017, 0027, 0049, 0054 (If cache memory 34 or 50 is present, then in block 66, controller 18 or operating system 54 determines whether cache memory 34 or 50 is full. If cache memory 34 or 50 is not full, then in block 68 controller 18 or operating system 54 writes the data to cache memory 34 or 50. If cache memory 34 or 50 is full, then in block 70 controller 18 writes the data directly to magnetic medium 14 of platter 16, or operating system 54 writes the data directly to HDD 56. Then, in block 72, controller 18 copies the contents of cache memory 34 to magnetic medium 14 of platter 16, or operating system 54 copies the contents of cache memory 50 to HDD 56. Finally, in block 74, controller 18 or operating system 54 erases cache memory 34 or 50)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Meir into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also determining the amount of data in the cache and transfer to volatile memory when a level is reached as taught by Meir with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Meir into Tofte to create a more robust system save cache space as data is gathered [Meir, ¶ 0054]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 34: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 29-30. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 34 can clearly perform as the method of Claims 29-30. Therefore Claim 34 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 35: Tofte discloses “The method of claim 34, further comprising: storing the data packets to the buffer in anticipation of a shutdown of the UAV.” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)].
With respect to Claim 36: Tofte discloses “The method of claim 35, wherein the data packets are committed to memory if a shutdown is expected” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)].
With respect to Claim 37: While Tofte discloses “wherein the data packets are committed to memory” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what happens if a shutdown is expected.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “reducing power consumption if the shutdown is not imminently expected” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0075 (the UE 10 may enter a low power state that reduces power consumption to conserve battery life)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also reduce power consumption to conserve battery life as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data, but extend the life of systems for extended data gathering [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 38: While Tofte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending data packets” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what ranking sets of data in the buffers to be sent over.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “The method of claim 34, further comprising: compressing the data packets based on an importance of the data packets” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0074-0076 (he low power state may comprise throttling communications and/or restricting device operations to extend battery life for the duration of an MC session. For example, a video camera equipped UE 10 may transmit a lower bandwidth type of MC data such as voice or text data, or lower the data rate of captured voice or video data rate. In an aspect, the UE 10 may just transmit data packets containing vital information from one or more sensors, or use a narrow (e.g. 15 KHz) bandwidth of air interface instead of the full available spectrum (e.g. 20 MHz, for instance) to reduce the energy consumption in device signal processing modules)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also rank data based on importance and further compresses the data (lower bandwidth) to allow for more data capture as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data but also reduce lost data lost and ensuring vital data is available [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 39: While Tofte discloses “The method of claim 26, further comprising: sending data packets” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state what ranking sets of data in the buffers to be sent over.
Dao, which is also data transferring system, teaches “The method of claim 38, wherein the data packets with a high importance are compressed more than the data packets of low importance” [Dao, ¶ 0042, 0047, and 0074-0076 (he low power state may comprise throttling communications and/or restricting device operations to extend battery life for the duration of an MC session. For example, a video camera equipped UE 10 may transmit a lower bandwidth type of MC data such as voice or text data, or lower the data rate of captured voice or video data rate. In an aspect, the UE 10 may just transmit data packets containing vital information from one or more sensors, or use a narrow (e.g. 15 KHz) bandwidth of air interface instead of the full available spectrum (e.g. 20 MHz, for instance) to reduce the energy consumption in device signal processing modules)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Dao into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also rank data based on importance and further compresses the data (lower bandwidth) to allow for more data capture as taught by Dao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Dao into Tofte to create a more robust system that can not only save buffered data but also reduce lost data lost and ensuring vital data is available [Dao, ¶ 0075]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Tofte et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0192629) in view of Dao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0171732), in further view of Meir et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0233385) and in further view of Change et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0185416).
With respect to Claim 30: While Tofte discloses “A method comprising: storing data packets from a UAV” [Tofte, ¶ 0017, 0019, 0028-0029, 0053, 0152, 0176, and 0270 with Figures 1-4 (The one or more UAVs may store collected drone data in a rolling buffer, periodically transmit collected drone data to external computing device 400, etc.)];
Tofte does not specifically state determining the UAV will shut down.
Change, which is also a computing system, teaches “determining if the device is expected to shutdown” [Change ¶ 0033 (the computing device 100 determines it is to shut down or hibernate in response to, e.g., a thermal event, a low battery event)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Change into the invention of Tofte to not only include periodically transferring buffered data to central computing device as Tofte discloses but to also determining if based on a low battery the system might shut down as taught by Change with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Change into Tofte to create a more robust system that can save time by automating known processes [Change, ¶ 0014]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as data buffering and transferring and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claims 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
