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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04 April 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) was/were submitted on 11 July 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/378,723 (filed 2022-10-07) and PCT/US2023/074572 (filed 2023-09-19) is acknowledged. Examiner notes that the current claims do not appear to be fully supported by the provisional application and further notes that the Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application dated 04 April 2025 and the provisional application dated 07 October 2022. No action on the part of the Applicant is requested at this time.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7-8, and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 7-8: “wherein the step of receiving” should be “wherein
Claim 12: “program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media” should be “program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "130" and "134" have both been used to designate the same structure in FIG. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, “joint all-domain command and control (JADC2)” is a military “connect-everything effort,” and therefore does not have a singular technological definition. It is therefore unclear what specific component or technology is further disclosed in Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The independent claims, 1 and 12, recite subject matter (a payload system and a payload carrying method for a multi-rotor flight vehicle) that falls within the following group of abstract ideas: mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind - including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards a method (i.e., a process) and claim 12 is directed towards a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 and 12 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (MPEP 2106), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 12 recites:
A universal payload assembly system, comprising:
a flight vehicle, including:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle;
program instructions to receive an input from the payload;
program instructions to determine, from the input, data related to the payload; and
program instructions to send the data to a remote location.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process.” Specifically, the “determine” step determining information/data about the payload through observation. Accordingly, claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A universal payload assembly system, comprising:
a flight vehicle, including:
one or more computer processors;
one or more computer readable storage media; and
program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors, the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle;
program instructions to receive an input from the payload;
program instructions to determine, from the input, data related to the payload; and
program instructions to send the data to a remote location.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a flight vehicle,” “one or more computer processors,” “one or more computer readable storage media”, and “program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors,” the examiner submits that these limitation(s) are merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea. In particular, the “computer processors” and the “computer readable storage media” with “program instructions” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the “determine” step, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The “flight vehicle” is claimed generically and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These additional limitation(s) is/are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (the processors and computer readable storage media of the flight vehicle).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle,” “receive an input from the payload,” and “send the data to a remote location,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities. Specifically, the following limitations are pre-solution activities of mere data gathering: “receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle” and “receive an input from the payload,” while the limitation, “send the data to a remote location,” is a post-solution activity of mere data outputting.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an order combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a flight vehicle,” “one or more computer processors,” “one or more computer readable storage media”, and “program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors,” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle,” “receive an input from the payload,” and “send the data to a remote location,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors and computing devices are all conventional sensors and computing devices mounted on the multi-rotor flight vehicle (see Specification – 04 April 2025, para. 0030-0031). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent subject matter eligible. Claim 1 recites similar limitations to those discussed above with regards to claim 12, and therefore discussion is omitted for brevity. Hence, independent claims 1 and 12 are not subject matter eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be subject matter eligible. The dependent claims further characterize aforementioned abstract concepts (further characterizing the information/data that is received and processed, such as coupling status, codes, payload types/status, tasks). The additional elements in dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are as follows:
insignificant extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data (e.g., signals from sensors, transmissions that are sent and received, etc.; see claims 2, 7-11, 15, and 18-20, see analysis above for case law in support of well-understood, routine and conventional activity);
generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., further characterizing transmission/input types, such as wireless transmission, RFID tags, tactical data links, Link 16, JADC2, etc., and flight vehicle types such as multi-rotor flight vehicle and respective vehicle parts; see Claim 7-11, 13-15, and 18-20).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are not subject matter eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20180072418-A1, hereinafter “Shannon”.
Regarding claim 12, and analogous claim 1: Shannon discloses A universal payload assembly system (Shannon, para. 0005: “An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is provided having a tether attached to a winch system within the UAV and to a payload coupling apparatus [i.e., universal payload assembly system].”), comprising:
a flight vehicle (Shannon, para. 0005: “An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [i.e., a flight vehicle] is provided having a tether attached to a winch system within the UAV and to a payload coupling apparatus.”), including:
one or more computer processors; one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors (Shannon, para. 0109: “UAV 200 also includes one or more processors 208 [i.e., one or more computer processors]. A processor 208 may be a general-purpose processor or a special purpose processor (e.g., digital signal processors, application specific integrated circuits, etc.). The one or more processors 208 can be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 212 [i.e., program instructions] that are stored in the data storage 210 [i.e., one or more computer readable storage media] and are executable to provide the functionality of a UAV described herein [i.e., program instructions…for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors].”), the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle (Shannon, para. 0109: “The one or more processors 208 can be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 212 [i.e., program instructions] that are stored in the data storage 210 and are executable to provide the functionality of a UAV described herein.”; para. 0143: “Active payload release mechanisms are also possible. For example, sensors such as a barometric pressure based altimeter and/or accelerometers may help to detect the position of the release mechanism (and the payload) relative to the ground [i.e., receive an indication that a payload is connected to the flight vehicle]. Data from the sensors can be communicated back to the UAV and/or a control system over a wireless link and used to help in determining when the release mechanism has reached ground level (e.g., by detecting a measurement with the accelerometer that is characteristic of ground impact). In other examples, the UAV may determine that the payload has reached the ground based on a weight sensor detecting a threshold low downward force on the tether and/or based on a threshold low measurement of power drawn by the winch when lowering the payload.”);
program instructions to receive an input from the payload (Shannon, para. 0109: “The one or more processors 208 can be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 212 [i.e., program instructions] that are stored in the data storage 210 and are executable to provide the functionality of a UAV described herein.”; para. 0143: “Active payload release mechanisms are also possible. For example, sensors such as a barometric pressure based altimeter and/or accelerometers [i.e., receive an input from the payload] may help to detect the position of the release mechanism (and the payload) relative to the ground. Data from the sensors can be communicated back to the UAV and/or a control system over a wireless link and used to help in determining when the release mechanism has reached ground level (e.g., by detecting a measurement with the accelerometer that is characteristic of ground impact). In other examples, the UAV may determine that the payload has reached the ground based on a weight sensor [i.e., receive an input from the payload] detecting a threshold low downward force on the tether and/or based on a threshold low measurement of power drawn by the winch when lowering the payload.”);
program instructions to determine, from the input, data related to the payload (Shannon, para. 0109: “The one or more processors 208 can be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 212 [i.e., program instructions] that are stored in the data storage 210 and are executable to provide the functionality of a UAV described herein.”; para. 0143: “Active payload release mechanisms are also possible. For example, sensors such as a barometric pressure based altimeter and/or accelerometers [i.e., the input] may help to detect the position of the release mechanism (and the payload) relative to the ground [i.e., determine, from the input, data related to the payload]. Data from the sensors can be communicated back to the UAV and/or a control system over a wireless link and used to help in determining when the release mechanism has reached ground level (e.g., by detecting a measurement with the accelerometer that is characteristic of ground impact). In other examples, the UAV may determine that the payload has reached the ground [i.e., determine, from the input, data related to the payload] based on a weight sensor [i.e., the input] detecting a threshold low downward force on the tether and/or based on a threshold low measurement of power drawn by the winch when lowering the payload.”); and
program instructions to send the data to a remote location (Shannon, para. 0109: “The one or more processors 208 can be configured to execute computer-readable program instructions 212 [i.e., program instructions] that are stored in the data storage 210 and are executable to provide the functionality of a UAV described herein.”; para. 0143: “Active payload release mechanisms are also possible. For example, sensors such as a barometric pressure based altimeter and/or accelerometers may help to detect the position of the release mechanism (and the payload) relative to the ground. Data from the sensors can be communicated back to the UAV and/or a control system over a wireless link [i.e., send the data to a remote location] and used to help in determining when the release mechanism has reached ground level (e.g., by detecting a measurement with the accelerometer that is characteristic of ground impact).”; para. 0145: “In particular, UAVs may be provided at a number of different launch sites that may be in communication with regional and/or central control systems [i.e., a remote location].”).
Regarding claim 13: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12,
wherein the flight vehicle is a multi-rotor flight vehicle (Shannon, para. 0093: “A UAV can take various forms. For example, a UAV [i.e., flight vehicle] may take the form of a fixed-wing aircraft, a glider aircraft, a tail-sitter aircraft, a jet aircraft, a ducted fan aircraft, a lighter-than-air dirigible such as a blimp or steerable balloon, a rotorcraft such as a helicopter or multicopter [i.e., multi-rotor flight vehicle], and/or an ornithopter, among other possibilities.”).
Regarding claim 14, and analogous claim 2: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12,
wherein the flight vehicle further comprises a first uniform mechanical coupler (Shannon, para. 0005: “An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [i.e., the flight vehicle] is provided having a tether attached to a winch system within the UAV and to a payload coupling apparatus [i.e., a first uniform mechanical coupler].”).
Regarding claim 15, and analogous claim 2: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 14,
wherein the program instructions to receive an indication that the payload is connected to the flight vehicle comprise: program instructions to determine that the first uniform mechanical coupler is connected to a second uniform mechanical coupler of the payload (Shannon, para. 0205: “When the payload attachment period ends, the control system may operate the winch motor in the second mode for a predetermined attachment verification period, as shown by block 1708. In particular, the motor may operate so as to pull upwards on the tether during the attachment verification period in order to hold the tether in place or retract the tether at a certain rate. The motor current required to hold the tether in place or retract the tether at a certain rate will be greater when the payload is attached, due to the added weight of the payload. As such, the control system may determine [i.e., program instructions to determine], based at least in part on motor current during the predetermined attachment verification period, whether or not the payload coupling apparatus is mechanically coupled to the payload [i.e., determine that the first uniform mechanical coupler is connected to a second uniform mechanical coupler of the payload], as shown by block 1710.”).
Regarding claim 3: Shannon discloses The method as recited in claim 1,
wherein the input comprises one or more codes (Shannon, para. 0143: “In other examples, the UAV may determine that the payload has reached the ground based on a weight sensor detecting a threshold low downward force on the tether and/or based on a threshold low measurement of power drawn by the winch when lowering the payload [i.e., the input comprises one or more codes].”).
Regarding claim 16, and analogous claim 4: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12,
wherein the data related to the payload includes a payload type (Shannon, para. 0161: “The deployment systems 314 may further be configured to provide additional functions, including for example, diagnostic-related functions such as verifying system functionality of the UAV, verifying functionality of devices that are housed within a UAV (e.g., a payload delivery apparatus), and/or maintaining devices or other items that are housed in the UAV (e.g., by monitoring a status of a payload such as its temperature, weight, etc.) [i.e., the data related to the payload includes a payload type].”).
Regarding claim 17, and analogous claims 5 and 6: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12,
wherein the data related to the payload includes at least one of a payload type, a payload status, and a payload specific command/control task (Shannon, para. 0161: “The deployment systems 314 may further be configured to provide additional functions, including for example, diagnostic-related functions such as verifying system functionality of the UAV, verifying functionality of devices that are housed within a UAV (e.g., a payload delivery apparatus), and/or maintaining devices or other items that are housed in the UAV (e.g., by monitoring a status of a payload such as its temperature, weight, etc.) [i.e., the data related to the payload includes at least one of a payload type, a payload status, and a payload specific command/control task].”; para. 0140: “In some embodiments, the tether control module 216 may be configured to determine a status of the tether 224 and/or the payload 228 based on the amount of current supplied to the motor 222 [i.e., the data related to the payload includes at least one of a payload type, a payload status, and a payload specific command/control task].”).
Regarding claim 18, and analogous claim 7: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12,
wherein the program instructions to receive the input from the payload comprise: program instructions to receive the input via wireless transmission (Shannon, para. 0143: “Active payload release mechanisms are also possible. For example, sensors such as a barometric pressure based altimeter and/or accelerometers may help to detect the position of the release mechanism (and the payload) relative to the ground. Data from the sensors can be communicated back to the UAV and/or a control system over a wireless link [i.e., program instructions to receive the input via wireless transmission] and used to help in determining when the release mechanism has reached ground level (e.g., by detecting a measurement with the accelerometer that is characteristic of ground impact).”; para. 0128: “the UAV 200 includes one or more communication systems 218. The communications systems 218 may include one or more wireless interfaces and/or one or more wireline interfaces, which allow the UAV 200 to communicate via one or more networks. Such wireless interfaces may provide for communication under one or more wireless communication protocols, such as Bluetooth, WiFi (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 protocol), Long-Term Evolution (LTE), WiMAX (e.g., an IEEE 802.16 standard), a radio-frequency ID (RFID) protocol, near-field communication (NFC), and/or other wireless communication protocols.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US-20190197646-A1, hereinafter “Prager”.
Regarding claim 19, and analogous claim 8: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the program instructions to receive the input from the payload comprise: program instructions to receive the input from a radio frequency identification tag arranged on the payload.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Prager teaches:
wherein the program instructions to receive the input from the payload comprise: program instructions to receive the input from a radio frequency identification tag arranged on the payload (Prager, para. 0136: “In particular, the package identification device can identify [i.e., program instructions to receive the input] the package by scanning, reading, or otherwise sensing a unique identifier coupled to the package [i.e., arranged on the payload]. The unique identifier can be some combination of a 1-D or 2-D barcode, RFID [i.e., receive the input from a radio frequency identification tag], printed label, or other identifying feature, attached to the package.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Shannon, with the concept of a multi-rotor flight vehicle with a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader and payloads with RFID tags, taught by Prager, in order to identify the correct payload to be managed by the multi-rotor flight vehicle and confirm the tasks associated with the payload (Prager, para. 0137: “Once the package identification device determines the unique identifier of the package, the device can send the unique identifier to the ATSP. The ATSP can use the unique identifier to identify the package, for example by searching the task requests sent to the ATSP by the item provider. Within examples, the transport task requests can include information about the package, including a delivery location of the package, a dimension of the package, a scheduled time of delivery, a level of urgency, fragility, a temperature constraint on the package, among other information. Accordingly, the ATSP can use the unique identifier to determine, among other things, the delivery location of the package.”).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters".
Regarding claim 20, and analogous claim 9: Shannon discloses The universal payload assembly system as recited in claim 12, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the program instructions to send the data to a remote location comprise: program instructions to send the data to the remote location using a tactical data link.
However, in the same field of endeavor, "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters" teaches:
wherein the program instructions to send the data to a remote location comprise: program instructions to send the data to the remote location using a tactical data link ("Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", paragraph 3: “Link 16 is a military tactical data link network used by the U.S. military and its NATO allies that enables military aircraft, ships, and ground forces to exchange their tactical picture in near-real time. Link 16 also supports the exchange of text, imagery, and digital voice messages.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Shannon, with the concept of an aircraft using a tactical data link, taught by "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", in order to securely communicate data to and from an aircraft with military uses ("Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", paragraph 4: “Link-16 will enable the AH-1Z and UH-1Y to carry out sensor networking, and share data and communications securely with other aircraft and other users of secure military networks.”).
Regarding claim 10: Shannon and "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters" teach The method as recited in claim 9, and "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters" further teaches the following:
wherein the tactical data link comprises Link 16 ("Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", paragraph 3: “Link 16 is a military tactical data link network used by the U.S. military and its NATO allies that enables military aircraft, ships, and ground forces to exchange their tactical picture in near-real time. Link 16 also supports the exchange of text, imagery, and digital voice messages.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Shannon, as modified by "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", with the concept of an aircraft using a tactical data link, taught by "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", in order to securely communicate data to and from an aircraft with military uses ("Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", paragraph 4: “Link-16 will enable the AH-1Z and UH-1Y to carry out sensor networking, and share data and communications securely with other aircraft and other users of secure military networks.”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon, in view of "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of “Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Take Off?”.
Regarding claim 11: Shannon and "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters" teach The method as recited in claim 9, but do not appear to explicitly teach the following:
wherein the tactical data link comprises joint all-domain command and control (JADC2).
However, in the same field of endeavor, “Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Take Off?” teaches:
wherein the tactical data link comprises joint all-domain command and control (JADC2) (“Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Take Off?”; first paragraph: “Pentagon leaders want 2021 to be the year that their connect-everything effort—Joint All Domain Command and Control, or JADC2—really takes flight. In this vision of future warfare, everything on the battlefield [i.e., multi-rotor flight vehicles are used in military contexts; see “Hexa Multi-Rotor eVTOL Aircraft, USA”] is digitally linked, allowing artificially intelligent decision aides to help commanders find and hit targets before the enemy can adapt.”; Note: JADC2 is a military “connect-everything effort,” and therefore does not have a singular technological definition. Therefore, examiner interprets this limitation as the multi-rotor flight vehicle can operate in a military context.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success to modify the invention disclosed by Shannon, as modified by "Northrop goes full-rate production of Link 16 tactical data link for sensor networking on Marine helicopters", with the concept of a multi-rotor flight vehicle that uses a tactical data link to be useable in a military context, taught by “Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Take Off?”, in order to tightly control the entities that have access to the data sent and received by a multi-rotor flight vehicle (“Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Take Off?”; para. 1: “Pentagon leaders want 2021 to be the year that their connect-everything effort-Joint All Domain Command and Control, or JADC2-really takes flight. In this vision of future warfare, everything on the battlefield is digitally linked, allowing artificially intelligent decision aides to help commanders find and hit targets before the enemy can adapt. But the effort faces major financial and logistical challenges.”).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160180126-A1 (2016-06-23) | “The invention is a system for managing assets, and includes; at least one RFID tag coupled to one or more assets, an unmanned aerial vehicle with an RFID reader, a ground management subsystem with a host computing unit and an enterprise resource planning module, a network subsystem, a portable computing and communications device for facilitating transmission, reception, processing and storage of data, and one or more sensors for capturing images and data.” Relevant to claims 8 and 19.
“Hexa Multi-Rotor eVTOL Aircraft, USA" (2021) | The US military uses multi-rotor flight vehicles. Relevant to claim 11.
"Remote Split: A History of US Drone Operations and the Distributed Labor of War: A History of US Drone Operations and the Distributed Labor of War." (2017) | Relevant to claim 9-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leah N Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Leah N Miller/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
