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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on June 30, 2026, and an information disclosure statement (IDS) received May 13, 2026. Claims 1-20 were cancelled prior to examination. Claims 21, 25, 29, 32, 36 and 38 have been amended. Claims 41-42 have been added. Claims 24 and 28 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23, 25-27 and 29-42 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-23, 25-27, 29-33 and 35-40 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of patent application 17/505257, now U.S. Patent No. US 12,266,131.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations are the same or substantially the same in such a manner that one of ordinary skill may recognize them as such.
In regards to claims 21-22, 26-27, 29-30 and 39: Claims 21-22, 26-27, 29-30 and 39 are considered patentably indistinct from the combination of claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,266,131.
In regards to claims 23 and 31: Claims 23 and 31 are considered patentably indistinct from the combination of claims 8 and 12 and/or claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,266,131.
In regards to claims 25, 32-33 and 38: Claims 25, 32-33 and 38 are considered patentably indistinct from the combination of claims 8, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,266,131.
In regards to claims 35-37 and 40: Claims 35-37 and 40 are considered patentably indistinct from the combination of claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,266,131.
Examiner’s Note: Applicant should note that Claims 34, 41 and 42 is not rejected under nonstatutory double patenting because claims 34, 41 and 42 claim wherein the onboard light source is omnidirectional, which is not present in or considered obvious in view of the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,266,131.
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 pre-AIA 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 21, 27, 29, 35-36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira et al. (US 20200284883 A1) herein Ferreira, in view of Lee et al. (US 20200209893 A1) herein Lee, and Hsu et al. (US 20120092549 A1) herein Hsu, as provided in Applicant information disclosure (IDS) dated February 26, 2026.
In regards to Claim 21, Ferreira discloses the following:
21. An unmanned aerial vehicle, (see at least [1817] “The optical system 3400 may be implemented in an automotive device or any kind of vehicle or flying object such as e.g. an unmanned (autonomous) flying object (e.g. a drone).” and [3083] “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)”) comprising:
an onboard light source at a first location of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least Figures 2-7 and [0431] “Light Source 42 configured to emit electro-magnetic or other radiation 120” [0052] “LIDAR Sensor Device can encompass one or many LIDAR Sensor Systems that themselves can be comprised of infrared or visible light emitting modules”)
and configured to emit an infrared light (see at least [0401] “A high-resolution LIDAR Sensor System emits a (mostly infrared) laser beam” and [2499] “a rather large light emitting surface is configured to emit infrared radiation into a wide exterior Field-of-Illumination. This offers the effect that such radiation, non-coded or as a sequence of infrared light pulses and/or as a modulated infrared radiation, are easily detectable by vehicle-external infrared sensors as are used, for example, in night vision cameras or other devices employing CCD, CMOS, APD, SPAD etc. sensors, this means, also LIDAR sensors devices are included.”) while the unmanned aerial vehicle is in a night mode configuration; (see at least [0484] “low light condition (see FIG. 13A)”, “medium light condition (see FIG. 13B)”, and “high light condition (see FIG. 13C)”, [0488] “threshold values could also be a function of day/night, i.e. ambient light level.” and “The backend can also decide best whether and how the thresholds can be adapted to the various light conditions (day/night).” and [2340] “night vision conditions”, “night vision operation”, “cameras may include IR cut-off filters that may be removed from the camera imaging system in case of low ambient light levels. By way of example, the pixel read out thresholds may be set in accordance with night vision conditions (night operation) or in accordance with twilight conditions (twilight operation). By way of example, a night vision equipment of the camera 81 may be active in to this case.”)
an onboard camera at a second location of the unmanned aerial vehicle and configured to capture image data while the infrared light is emitted; (see at least [2499] “a rather large light emitting surface is configured to emit infrared radiation into a wide exterior Field-of-Illumination. This offers the effect that such radiation, non-coded or as a sequence of infrared light pulses and/or as a modulated infrared radiation, are easily detectable by vehicle-external infrared sensors as are used, for example, in night vision cameras or other devices employing CCD, CMOS, APD, SPAD etc. sensors, this means, also LIDAR sensors devices are included.”, see also Fig. 2-7 and [0433] “Second LIDAR Sensing System 50 that is configured to receive and measure electromagnetic or other radiation” [5716] “receiver optics arrangement 17306”)
For clarity and the sake of compact prosecution, the above limitations are also more explicitly taught by Lee. (see at least Fig. 1 and [0027] “UAV obstacle avoidance system 100”, “infrared light source 140”, “obstacle avoidance lens modules 130” and [0033] “UAV obstacle avoidance system 100 can determine that the environment is a day environment or a night environment based on the environment light intensity, and select an operating mode applicable to the environment.”, and [0038] “obstacle avoidance lens modules 130 respectively capture image information, the image information being infrared image information”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Lee with the invention of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of developing a UAV obstacle avoidance system and technology that can be used in day and night environments. (Lee, [0006])
Ferreira is silent, but Hsu teaches the following:
one or more physical protrusions at one or more third locations of the unmanned aerial vehicle and configured to reduce an amount of glare, caused by the infrared light, from reaching the onboard camera, wherein the one or more third locations are in between the first location and the second location; (see at least Figs. 1, 2 and [0024] “auxiliary light sources 30 are infrared LED, and can emit invisible infrared light. In a dark environment (for example, at night)”, [0025] “light-shielding sleeve 40 is sleeved on the lens 23… so as to prevent the infrared light emitted by the auxiliary light sources 30 from directly entering the lens 23 to affect the imaging”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Hsu with the unmanned aerial vehicle of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing the halo phenomenon or the ghost image phenomenon on formed images, causing the image to be blurred or unrecognizable. (Hsu, [0006])
Ferreira discloses the following:
and a processor configured to cause the unmanned aerial vehicle to avoid an object collision based on the image data. (see at least Fig. 84, step 8408 and Fig. 87, step 8712 and [2686] “in 8712, the method 8700 may include to control the vehicle 8502 taking into consideration the determined presence probability factor(s)… for the recognized object(s) 8512. The control may include… controlling the driving of the vehicle 8502 (control, e.g. change driving direction or speed of the vehicle 8502).”)
In regards to Claim 27, Ferreira discloses the following:
27. (New) The unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to: detect an object within an environment in which the unmanned aerial vehicle is operating based on the image data; determine a flight operation for the unmanned aerial vehicle to perform to avoid a collision with the object; and cause the unmanned aerial vehicle to perform the flight operation. (see at least Fig. 84, step 8408 and Fig. 87, step 8712 and [2686] “in 8712, the method 8700 may include to control the vehicle 8502 taking into consideration the determined presence probability factor(s)… for the recognized object(s) 8512. The control may include… controlling the driving of the vehicle 8502 (control, e.g. change driving direction or speed of the vehicle 8502).”)
For clarity and the sake of compact prosecution, determining a flight operation for the unmanned aerial vehicle to perform to avoid a collision with the object is also taught by Lee. (see at least [0003] “UAV needs to judge an object in front and avoids it in time to maintain the normal and stable operation” and [0010] “UAV obstacle avoidance system includes a cover, at least two obstacle avoidance lens modules and an infrared light source”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Lee with the invention of Ferreira to generate flight operations to avoid a collision with an object, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of developing a UAV obstacle avoidance system and technology that can be used in day and night environments. (Lee, [0006])
In regards to Claims 29 and 36: Claims 29 and 36 claim unmanned aerial vehicles that contain all the same or patentably similar limitations as claim 21, and are therefore rejected per claim 21, above.
In regards to claims 35 and 39-40: Claims 35 and 39-40 claim unmanned aerial vehicles that contain all the same or patentably similar limitations as claim 27, and are therefore rejected per claim 27 above.
Claims 22-23, 25, 30-33 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Hsu, as applied, or in the alternative, Ferreira in view of Lee and Hsu, as applied, and in further view of Xiong et al. (WO 2021243705 A1) herein Xiong.
In regards to Claim 22, Ferreira is silent, but Xiong teaches the following:
22. The unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 21, wherein the onboard light source, the onboard camera, and the one or more physical protrusions are located on a first arm of the unmanned aerial vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1 “motor mount(s) 40, indicator light(s) 41” and “vision sensor(s) 60”, all substantially located on each arm(s) 20 of the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein motor mount 40 appears substantially located between indicator light(s) 41 and vision sensor(s) 60. See also [0019] and [0024])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Xiong with the invention of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing multiple functions of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as obstacle avoidance, speed measurement, positioning, and navigation by determining its own attitude and the surrounding environment based on the collected images. (Xiong, [0002])
In regards to Claim 23, Ferreira is silent, but Xiong teaches the following:
23. The unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 22, wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle includes multiple arms including the first arm and a second arm and the second arm includes a second onboard light source, a second onboard camera, and one or more second physical protrusions. (see at least Fig. 1 “motor mount(s) 40, indicator light(s) 41” and “vision sensor(s) 60”, all substantially located on each arm(s) 20 of the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein motor mount 40 appears substantially located between indicator light(s) 41 and vision sensor(s) 60. See also [0019] and [0024])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Xiong with the invention of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing multiple functions of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as obstacle avoidance, speed measurement, positioning, and navigation by determining its own attitude and the surrounding environment based on the collected images. (Xiong, [0002])
In regards to Claim 25, Ferreira is silent, but Xiong teaches the following:
25. The unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 24, comprising: a second onboard light source; and a second onboard camera, wherein the second onboard light source and the second onboard camera are located on the first arm, and wherein at least a first protrusion of the one or more physical protrusions is in between the onboard light source and the onboard camera and at least a second protrusion of the one or more physical protrusions is in between the second onboard light source and the second onboard camera. (see at least Fig. 1 “motor mount(s) 40, indicator light(s) 41” and “vision sensor(s) 60”, all substantially located on each arm(s) 20 of the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein motor mount 40 appears substantially located between indicator light(s) 41 and vision sensor(s) 60. See also [0019] and [0024])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Xiong with the invention of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing multiple functions of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as obstacle avoidance, speed measurement, positioning, and navigation by determining its own attitude and the surrounding environment based on the collected images. (Xiong, [0002])
See also the teachings of Hsu, that teaches protrusions [that] are intermediate to the onboard light source and the onboard camera, as detailed in the rejection of claim 21, above. See also claim 21 above for obviousness to combine.
In regards to Claims 30-33 and 37-38: Claims 30-33 and 37-38 claim unmanned aerial vehicles that contain all the same or patentably similar limitations as claims 22-23 and 25, and are therefore rejected per claim 22-23 and 25, above.
Claims 34, 41 and 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira in view of Hsu, as applied, or in the alternative, Ferreira in view of Lee and Hsu, as applied, in further view of Obkircher et al. (US 20030197332 A1) herein Obkircher.
In regards to claim 34, Ferreira is silent, but Obkircher teaches the following:
34. The unmanned aerial vehicle of claim 29, wherein the onboard light source is omnidirectional. (see at least [0010] “IR irradiation is possible in almost any desired direction”, [0012] “infrared radiator is a conical component” and [0019] “With this arrangement, IR irradiation is possible in the flight direction of the flying device and also in a lateral direction according to the generating angle of the conical IR radiator.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Obkircher with the invention of Ferreira, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of assisting infrared (IR) guidance while tracking unmanned flying devices. (Obkircher, [0003]-[0004])
In regards to Claims 41-42: Claims 41-42 claim unmanned aerial vehicles that contain all the same or patentably similar limitations as claim 34, and are therefore rejected per claim 34, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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. Applicant should note that this is in view of the prior art only, and that the double patenting rejection above remains outstanding as applied to claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
August 31, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights