DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous, 35 USC 103(a) rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: (thereby). Appropriate correction is required.
Specification objections
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 in the specification.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the Specification and correct all such informalities.
Reference of prior art
Litton et al. (US 20220194578, Systems And Methods For Inspecting Structures With An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).
Jackson. (US 4664340, Vehicles).
Oh. (US 20220074712, Drone For Detecting And Removing Mines).
Wang et al. (US 20170146990, AUGMENTED COMMUNICATION AND POSITIONING USING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES).
Richter et al. (US 20230205197, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REDISTRIBUTING ELECTRICAL LOAD IN AN ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 12, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litton in view of Jackson and further in view of Oh.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton discloses:
A system comprising: an aerial vehicle (100) comprising:
a propulsion system extending a first length (110);
However Litton fails to teach as disclosed by Jackson: a sensor bar extending a second length (54), wherein the sensor bar has a first end and a second end (a first end and a second end of item 54),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Jackson teachings of a sensor bar extending a second length, wherein the sensor bar has a first end and a second end into the Litton, to support the required sensors for the mission performance.
On the other hand, Litton, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the second length is at least one and a half times the first length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the second length is at least one and a half times the first length to avoid obstruction of the sensors by the drone body, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
However Litton, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Oh: a first magnetic field sensor disposed at the first end of the sensor bar (0027, to replace Jackson sensor 55a);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Oh teachings of a first magnetic field sensor disposed at the first end of the sensor bar into the Litton, as modified above, to detect and measure magnetic fields in surrounding environments to detect magnetized object.
a second magnetic field sensor disposed at the second end of the sensor bar (Oh ¶ 0027, to replace Jackson sensor 55b).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the propulsion system comprises: a propeller (Litton 114); a motor coupled to drive the propeller (Litton 112); a memory that stores computer readable flight instructions (Litton ¶ 0052); and a processor (Litton ¶ 0052), wherein when the computer readable flight instructions are executed or interpreted by the processor, the processor controls the aerial vehicle to traverse a flight path over a geographic area (Litton ¶ 0052, item 210 is capable of performing the limitation).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein when the computer readable flight instructions are executed or interpreted by the processor, the processor also controls the aerial vehicle to traverse the flight path at an elevation,
However Litton, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the second length of the sensor bar is proportional to a range of expected flight path elevations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the second length of the sensor bar is proportional to a range of expected flight path elevations to avoid obstruction of the sensors by the drone body, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The system of claim 3, wherein the magnetic field information is usable to identify a magnetized object within the geographic area (Oh 0027).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising: a positioning system configured to generate position information of the aerial vehicle (Oh 0024).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising: an energy storage system (Litton ¶ 0034); altitude sensor (Litton ¶ 0020).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
A method comprising: controlling an aerial vehicle to navigate along a path within a geographic area, wherein the aerial vehicle has a propulsion system and two or more magnetic field sensors disposed along opposite ends of a sensor bar, wherein the sensor bar has a sensor bar length that is at least one and a half times a propulsion system length;
collecting magnetic field information generated by the magnetic field sensors and position information while the aerial vehicle navigates along the path; and
analyzing the magnetic field information to predict a magnetized object within the geographic area.
(Claim 12 above is similar in scope to Claims 1, 4 and 5; therefore, Claim 12 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1, 4 and 5).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the analyzing of the magnetic field information to predict the magnetized object comprises: generating expected magnetic field signatures for one or more potential magnetized object locations; comparing the magnetic field information to the expected magnetic field signatures of the potential magnetized object locations; and generating predicted magnetized object locations based on the comparison (Litton ¶ 0052, item 210 is capable of performing the limitation and Oh ¶ 0027).
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the magnetic field information includes data points for each of magnetic field sensors, and wherein each data point has a latitude, a longitude, and magnetic field strengths along at least two axes (¶ 0027, ... detects a mine using a magnetic field sensor, and maps the location of a detected mine provides magnetic field strengths, the GPS provides a latitude, a longitude).
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, discloses:
The method of claim 12, further comprising: configuring a magnetic field strength threshold that indicates whether the magnetized object is a Unexploded ordnance (UXO) or landmine (¶ 0027, detection of a mine using a magnetic field sensor is capable of performing the limitation).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litton in view of Jackson and further in view of Oh and further in view of Wang.
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Wang: The system of claim 5, wherein the position system includes a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning System (GPS) (¶ 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Oh teachings of the position system includes a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning System (GPS) into the Litton, as modified above, to solves accuracy, motion, and timing challenges, enabling satellite positioning systems to deliver highly precise location information.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litton in view of Jackson and further in view of Oh and further in view of Richter.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Litton, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Richter: The system of claim 1, wherein each of the first magnetic field sensor and the second magnetic field sensor is a magnetometer that detects magnetic field strength along at least two axes (¶ 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Richter teachings of each of the first magnetic field sensor and the second magnetic field sensor is a magnetometer that detects magnetic field strength along at least two axes into the Litton, as modified above, to operate in diverse environments, wide measurement range and low power consumption
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh.
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Oh discloses the claimed invention except for the means is a first magnetic field sensor and a second magnetic field sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the means is a first magnetic field sensor and a second magnetic field sensor for a better detection of the required objects laid on or under the ground, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh.
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Oh discloses:
An aerial vehicle comprising: a propulsion system; and means for collecting magnetic field information over a geographic area, wherein the magnetic field information is usable to predict presence of one or more magnetic objects by comparing collected magnetic field information to expected magnetic field signatures of potential magnetized objects within the geographic area (¶ 0027).
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Oh discloses:
The aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the means is a single magnetic field sensor (¶ 0027).
Re claim 21 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Oh discloses:
A method comprising: receiving magnetic field information from one or more magnetic field sensors over a geographic area (¶ 0027).
generating expected magnetic field signatures for one or more potential magnetized object locations within the geographic area(¶ 0027).
comparing the magnetic field information to the expected magnetic field signatures of the potential magnetized object locations (¶ 0027).
and generating predicted magnetized object locations based on the comparison (¶ 0027).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 14 and 15 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, and overcome all the rejections above.
The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's response filed on 10/14/2025 did not include any arguments, thus the previous rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642