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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of US Patent Application No. 18/649,542, filed April 29, 2024, which itself is a continuation of US Patent Application No. 18/323,816 filed on May 25, 2023, which is a continuation of US Patent Application No. 17/014,316 filed on September 8, 2020. The 17/014,316 application claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/897,614 filed on September 9, 2019. The 17/014,316 application is also a continuation-in-part (CIP) of: A) US Patent Application No. 16/655,730 filed on October 17, 2019, now US Patent No. 11,226,619. The 16/655,730 Application claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/746,596 filed on October 17, 2018. The 16/655,730 Application is a CIP of US Patent Application No. 16/247,034 filed on January 14, 2019, now US Patent No. 11,029,682. The 16/247,034 Application is a continuation of US Patent Application No. 15/646,729 filed on July 11, 2017, now US Patent No. 10,191,485. The 15/646,729 Application claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/361,711 filed on July 13, 2016. The 15/646,729 Application is also a CIP of US Patent Application No. 15/447,452 filed on March 2, 2017, now US Patent No. 10,274,949. The 15/447,452 Application claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/326,787 filed on April 24, 2016. The 16/655,730 Application is also a CIP of US Patent Application No. 15/649,133 filed on July 13, 2017, now US Patent No. 10,719,086. The 15/649,133 Application claims benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/361,505 filed on July 13, 2016. B) US Patent Application No. 16/247,034 filed on January 14, 2019, now US Patent No. 11,029,682. The 16/247,034 Application is a continuation of US Patent Application No. 15/646,729 filed on July 11, 2017, now US Patent No. 10,191,485. The 15/646,729 Application claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/361,711 filed on July 13, 2016. The 15/646,729 Application is also a CIP of US Patent Application No. 15/447,452 filed on March 2, 2017, now US Patent No. 10,274,949. The 15/447,452 Application claims the benefit of US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/326,787 filed on April 24, 2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, and 18 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 12, 17, and 21 of Bash et al., U.S Patent 11,762,384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1, 5-6, 8, 10-11, 15-16, and 18 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1, 6, 12, 17, and 21 of U.S Patent 11,762,384, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13-18, 20, and 24 of Bash et al., U.S Patent 12,001,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-19 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13-18, 20, and 24 of U.S Patent 12,001,204, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claims 1-19 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory non-obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13-18, 20, and 24 of Bash et al., U.S Patent 12,298,761. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distant from each other because they are drawn to obvious variations.
In view of the above, since the subject matters recited in the claims 1-19 of the instant application were fully disclosed in and covered by the claims 1-5, 7, 11, 13-18, 20, and 24 of U.S Patent 12,298,761, allowing the claims to result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
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)(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 1, 4-7, 9-11, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raptopoulos et al. (USPGPub 2017/0129603). As per claim 1, Raptopoulos discloses a method for safely terminating navigation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising: generating a navigation plan for a UAV (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein calculate flight routes for UAV 130 to transport a payload from an originating location to a destination location), the navigation plan including a start point, an end point (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein calculate flight routes for UAV 130 to transport a payload from an originating location to a destination location), and a dimensional geofence connecting the start point and the end point, the dimensional geofence having a perimeter defined by a first length at the start point; and a second length between the start point and the end point (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight envelop (e.g., Geofence)); configuring the UAV to execute the navigation plan from the start point to the end point (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein autonomously navigates using the flight route); and configuring the UAV to terminate navigation in response to detecting that the UAV is outside of the perimeter (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight termination system 630 can also communicate with the autopilot system and/or the flight control system, which can detect a violation of flight envelop (e.g., Geofence). If one or more of these conditions are satisfied, flight termination system 630 may engage the emergency landing system to search for and/or land the UAV immediately at a nearby UAV station or location. For example, flight termination system 630 may cut power to the motors or rotors of the UAV, retain power to the avionics, and/or deploy a parachute for immediate landing of the UAV near its current location). As per claims 4 and 14, Raptopoulos discloses further comprising: configuring the UAV to initiate a navigation termination protocol in response to detecting that the UAV is outside of the perimeter (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight termination system 630 can also communicate with the autopilot system and/or the flight control system, which can detect a violation of flight envelop (e.g., Geofence)). As per claims 5 and 15, Raptopoulos discloses further comprising: configuring the UAV to cut power to a propelling system of the UAV (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight termination system 630 may cut power to the motors or rotors of the UAV). As per claims 6 and 16, Raptopoulos discloses further comprising: configuring the UAV to deploy a protection device (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein deploy a parachute for immediate landing of the UAV near its current location). As per claims 7 and 17, Raptopoulos discloses further comprising: deploying the protection device in response to detecting that the UAV is in a first area; and halting deployment of the protection device in response to detecting that the UAV is in a second area (see at least paragraph 0261; wherein before deploying a parachute, UAV 130 may be required to search for a suitable place for landing (e.g., a place that has a solid surface and free of obstacles). In some embodiments, if one or more of these conditions are not satisfied, FTS controller 940 may not engage emergency landing system 908 to deploy the emergency landing mechanism). As per claims 9 and 19, Raptopoulos discloses further comprising: receiving a request to deliver a payload from the start point to the end point; and generating the navigation plan in response to receiving the request (see at least paragraph 0045; wherein payload transportation system 100 can enable or facilitate requesting, scheduling, controlling, and/or navigating of UAVs for transporting payloads to locations). As per claim 10, Raptopoulos discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for safely terminating navigation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (see at least paragraph 0068), the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (see at least paragraph 0068), cause the device to: generate a navigation plan for a UAV (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein calculate flight routes for UAV 130 to transport a payload from an originating location to a destination location), the navigation plan including a start point, an end point (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein calculate flight routes for UAV 130 to transport a payload from an originating location to a destination location), and a dimensional geofence connecting the start point and the end point, the dimensional geofence having a perimeter defined by a first length at the start point; and a second length between the start point and the end point (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight envelop (e.g., Geofence)); configure the UAV to execute the navigation plan from the start point to the end point (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein autonomously navigates using the flight route); and configure the UAV to terminate navigation in response to detecting that the UAV is outside of the perimeter (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight termination system 630 can also communicate with the autopilot system and/or the flight control system, which can detect a violation of flight envelop (e.g., Geofence). If one or more of these conditions are satisfied, flight termination system 630 may engage the emergency landing system to search for and/or land the UAV immediately at a nearby UAV station or location. For example, flight termination system 630 may cut power to the motors or rotors of the UAV, retain power to the avionics, and/or deploy a parachute for immediate landing of the UAV near its current location). As per claim 11, Raptopoulos discloses a system for safely terminating navigation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising: a processing circuitry (see at least paragraph 0068); a memory, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry (see at least paragraph 0068), configure the system to: generate a navigation plan for a UAV (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein calculate flight routes for UAV 130 to transport a payload from an originating location to a destination location), the navigation plan including a start point, an end point (see at least paragraph 0087; wherein calculate flight routes for UAV 130 to transport a payload from an originating location to a destination location), and a dimensional geofence connecting the start point and the end point, the dimensional geofence having a perimeter defined by a first length at the start point; and a second length between the start point and the end point (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight envelop (e.g., Geofence)); configure the UAV to execute the navigation plan from the start point to the end point (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein autonomously navigates using the flight route); and configure the UAV to terminate navigation in response to detecting that the UAV is outside of the perimeter (see at least paragraph 0193; wherein flight termination system 630 can also communicate with the autopilot system and/or the flight control system, which can detect a violation of flight envelop (e.g., Geofence). If one or more of these conditions are satisfied, flight termination system 630 may engage the emergency landing system to search for and/or land the UAV immediately at a nearby UAV station or location. For example, flight termination system 630 may cut power to the motors or rotors of the UAV, retain power to the avionics, and/or deploy a parachute for immediate landing of the UAV near its current location).
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.
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(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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et al. (USPGPub 2017/0129603) in view of Downey et al. (USPGPub 2016/0260332). As per claims 2 and 12, Raptopoulos does not explicitly mention generating the navigation plan to further include a waypoint; configuring the UAV to navigate from the start point to the waypoint; and configuring the UAV to navigate from the waypoint to any one of: another waypoint or the end point. However Downey does disclose: generating the navigation plan to further include a waypoint; configuring the UAV to navigate from the start point to the waypoint; and configuring the UAV to navigate from the waypoint to any one of: another waypoint or the end point (see at least paragraph 0083; wherein the system can optionally determine and provide an updated geofence envelope that includes zero or more of the waypoints the requesting UAV wishes to pass through). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Downey with the teachings as in Raptopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a safe and airworthy regions for the UAV to fly, see Downey paragraph 0002.
As per claims 3 and 13, Raptopoulos does not explicitly mention configuring the UAV to continuously execute the navigation plan in response to detecting that the UAV is within the perimeter. However Downey does disclose: configuring the UAV to continuously execute the navigation plan in response to detecting that the UAV is within the perimeter (see at least paragraph 0070; wherein a geofence envelope is a virtual perimeter for a real-world geographic area. After the cloud system provides approval for a specific geofence envelope, the cloud system can allocate the geofence envelope to the UAV. The UAV can then receive information identifying the approval, and limit its location movements to the specifically approved geofence envelope). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Downey with the teachings as in Raptopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a safe and airworthy regions for the UAV to fly, see Downey paragraph 0002.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raptopoulos et al. (USPGPub 2017/0129603), in view of Downey et al. (USPGPub 2016/0260332), and further in view of Dekel et al. (USPGPub 2014/0339372). As per claims 8 and 18, Raptopoulos does not explicitly mention initiating terminating navigation in response to determining that a total amount of time during which the UAV is outside of the perimeter exceeds a threshold. However Dekel does disclose: initiating terminating navigation in response to determining that a total amount of time during which the UAV is outside of the perimeter exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraphs 0282-0284; wherein checking whether flight parameters are within an envelope permitting deceleration to hover at a predetermined hover destination position. Such repeated checking may be carried out at regular or irregular intervals, and each instance may be triggered by time…If a negative result is received in the checking (i.e. if at least one of the flight parameters exceeds such an envelope), the method may include either an aborting of the landing). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Dekel with the teachings as in Raptopoulos. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide safety of the aircraft and know when to abort, see Dekel paragraph 0284.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2013/0261945 – Provides a method and device for automatically managing the separation between two aircraft following one another. The device (1) comprises a means (6, 7) for automatically calculating, prior to performing a function to acquire and maintain separation, orders for controlling speed that enable a trailing aircraft to acquire and maintain a time separation relative to a target aircraft preceding the former. USPGPub 2004/0044444 – Provides a system and method for detecting if a UAV is operating within its flight envelope. The invention includes defining the flight envelope of the UAV. The operating state of the UAV is identified from a present time to a future elapsed time. The invention determines if the UAV will be within its flight envelope at the end of the elapsed time in the future. It can then command the UAV to maintain operation within the flight envelope if the operating state determined is outside the flight envelope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights