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 .
1. This action is responsive to restriction election received Sep. 30, 2026. Applicant elected Group I with traverse. Applicant argues that Groups I, II and III would not impose a serious search burden. In response, as previously stated in the restriction requirement mailed July 31, 2026, Groups I, II and III are related as sub-combinations useable together. Each of the subcombinations identified is not required for the other subcombinations and each of the subcombinations would require a separate and independent search which would result in a serious search burden. Similarly, the subcombninations of claims 2-3 and 9 defines the beacon signal as I) RF signal, II) position including confidence, III) IR light or LED. The species are mutually exclusive and would require different search strategies. Restriction is made FINAL.
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)(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.
2. Claims 1, 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huber et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0279105 (referred to hereafter as Huber).
As to claim 1, Huber teaches a system configured to enhance resilience against electronic warfare, comprising:
a plurality of drones each configured to switch to a low power mode upon being downed (see para. 4, 54 and 120);
a processing system configured to: continually determine whether a drone of the plurality of drones has been downed (see para. 54 and 141-142), and
emit a beacon signal from a downed drone, the beacon signal containing position data (see para. 141-142); and
a communication system enabling formation of a mesh network among downed and active drones of the plurality of drones (see para. 51 and 159).
As to claim 3, Huber teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the beacon signal contains the position data along with a confidence in the position data (see para. 115-116).
As to claim 4, Huber teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the position data is determined using global positioning system (GPS) receiver onboard the downed drone (see para. 69-70).
As to claim 12, Huber teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the active drones include a first active drone, wherein the first active drone receives the beacon signal from the downed drone via one or more of the plurality of drones using the mesh network (see para. 51 and 159).
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.
3. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0164434.
As to claims 5 and 6, Huber teaches a system for emitting a beacon signal from a downed drone, the beacon signal containing position data (see para. 141-142). Huber does not explicitly teach the position data based on environmental data received from a barometer or IMU onboard the drone.
However, Cantaloube teaches a system and method for using a IMU or a barometer to determine the position of a drone (see para. 50). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to install a barometer or IMU on the drone of Huber as taught by Cantaloube. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings well know in the art that using signals obtained from IMU, barometer or other similar sensors would improve the accuracy of the position of the drone and would therefore make it easier to determine the location of a drone.
4. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Ogun et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,393,346 (referred to hereafter as Ogun)
As to claim 7, Huber teaches a system configured to enhance resilience against electronic warfare, comprising: a processing system configured to: continually determine whether a drone of the plurality of drones has been downed (see para. 54 and 141-142).
Huber does not explicitly teach a first active drone, wherein the first active drone uses the beacon signal to determine a range from the downed drone.
However, Ogun teaches a system and method comprising a first active drone, wherein the first active drone uses the beacon signal to determine a range (see col. 4 lines 52-col. 5 lines 2).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to use the beacon to determine a range in Huber as taught by Ogun. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ogun that doing so would provide a faster and more accurate method for determining the correct target location without requiring dedicated infrastructure or additional hardware installation.
As to claim 8, Huber in view of Ogun teach the system of claim 7. Ogun further teaches the range is determined using at least one Wi-Fi or Ultra-wideband (UWB) round-trip time (RTT) protocol (see col. 5 lines 8-14).
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Arya et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0309088 (referred to hereafter as Arya)
Huber teaches a system configured to enhance resilience against electronic warfare, comprising: a processing system configured to: continually determine whether a drone of the plurality of drones has been downed (see para. 54 and 141-142).
Huber does not explicitly teach switch the drone to a low-power mode in response to determining that the drone has been downed, wherein in the low-power mode, the drone deactivates non-essential systems and functions.
However, Arya teaches a system comprising a drone that detects a crash and in response switches the drone to a low-power mode in response to determining that the drone has been downed, wherein in the low-power mode, the drone deactivates non-essential systems and functions (see para. 133).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to switch the drone to a low-power mode in response to determining that the drone has been downed, wherein in the low-power mode, the drone deactivates non-essential systems and functions in Huber as taught by Arya. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Arya that doing so would allow the drone to conserve power consumption and then allow important data to be retrieved from the crashed drone.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Moon et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0132943 (referred to hereafter as Moon)
Huber teaches a system configured to enhance resilience against electronic warfare, comprising: a processing system configured to: continually determine whether a drone of the plurality of drones has been downed (see para. 54 and 141-142).
Huber does not explicitly teach a first active drone, wherein the first active drone receives the beacon signal from the downed drone via one or more of the plurality of drones using the mesh network.
However, Moon teaches a system comprising a first active drone, wherein the first active drone receives the beacon signal from the downed drone via one or more of the plurality of drones using the mesh network (see para. 54).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to configure the first active drone to receive the beacon signal from the downed drone via one or more of the plurality of drones using the mesh network in Huber as taught by Moon. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Moon that doing so would improve safety while flying drones.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
