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 .
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1 have been amended. Claim(s) 2-5 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 6-8 have been newly added. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: In response, the Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to overcome this rejection [...].
Claim 1, as amended, requires that the processor is configured to (i) determine relative angles between the motor vehicle and a utility pole; and (ii) identify pole-mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on the relative angles and data from the high-resolution camera.
Starr is directed to an unmanned autonomous aerial vehicle (UAV) that conducts power line monitoring according to a "preset schedule" to provide "real-time data... to prevent failure" (Starr at [0033]-[0034], [0061]). Starr lacks any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion of calculating relative angles between the vehicle and a utility pole for the express purpose of identifying specific "pole-mounted instruments." In Starr, the UAV performs general path planning and vegetation encroachment mapping. Passive mapping and data transmission do not constitute the targeted, angle-based identification of pole-mounted hardware claimed by Applicant. As Starr fails to disclose these limitations of Claim 1, it is respectfully requested that the rejection under § 102 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is moot due to the amendments made to claim 1; however, new grounds of rejection have been formulated under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al. (US 2021/0173414 A1) in view of and Fujita et al. (US 2020/0364848 A1) and further in view of Durand et al. US (20170337524 A1).
Applicant Argues: To the extent the Examiner maintains or shifts the obviousness rejections to apply the combination of Starr, Davis, Fujita, and Durand against amended Claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination substantively fails to disclose, teach, or suggest all of the recited limitations. Specifically, amended Claim 1 requires a processor configured to: (i) determine relative angles between the motor vehicle and a utility pole; and (ii) identify pole-mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on the relative angles and data from the high-resolution camera.
Even assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to combine the UAV system of Starr, the classification logic of Davis, the angle determination of Fujita, and the component identification of Durand, the resulting combined system still fails to arrive at the claimed invention. The fatal deficiency in the combination lies in the functional relationship between the calculated "relative angles" and the "identification" of the instruments.
The Examiner relies on Fujita for teaching the determination of a "relative angle." However, Fujita explicitly teaches that the relative angle is calculated solely to determine whether the image quality is sufficient or if a "re-image capture operation" is required (Fujita at [0008], [0030], [0045]). The angle in Fujita is a positioning metric used to control the camera's vantage point, not a data input used for classification.
The Examiner further relies on Durand for teaching the identification of pole-mounted instruments (e.g., cross arms, alley arms). Durand performs this identification by analyzing the visual details of asset components in imagery during a post-event assessment (Durand at [0020]).
If one were to combine Fujita and Durand as proposed, the resulting system would use Fujita's logic to position the vehicle at a favorable relative angle to capture a clear image, and then subsequently use Durand's logic to analyze the visual contents of that image to identify an instrument. Taking a clear image from a known angle is functionally and algorithmically distinct from identifying an instrument based on that angle. Nowhere do the cited references-individually or in combination-disclose, teach, or suggest utilizing the geometric physical relationship (the relative angle) between the vehicle and the pole as an active algorithmic input to identify the specific pole-mounted instruments.
In the claimed invention, the real-time kinematic data (the angle) is integrated with the visual data to execute the identification, providing a highly targeted spatial awareness that reduces the computational burden of purely vision-based classification.
Because the proposed combination of Starr, Davis, Fujita, and Durand fails to teach or suggest identifying pole-mounted instruments based on the relative angles, the combination is substantively deficient. Therefore, Claim 1, and the claims dependent thereon, are patentable over the cited art. Withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the combination of Starr in view of Fujita, and Durand, does in fact disclose, the claim as amended.
The examiner respectfully notes that Fujita teaches
[wherein [a] processor is configured to]:
(i) determine relative angles between the vehicle and a utility pole (FIG. 4 and [0030] - The object detecting unit 130 detects a relative distance and a relative angle to the object to be inspected. and [0045] - At this time, the object detecting unit 130 detects a relative angle θw of the overhead power wire W with respect to a reference line G extending in the vertical direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100); and
(ii) wherein the processor is configured to [capture an image] based on the relative angles and data form the high resolution camera (FIG. 4 and [0030] - The object detecting unit 130 detects a relative distance and a relative angle to the object to be inspected. and [0045] - At this time, the object detecting unit 130 detects a relative angle θw of the overhead power wire W with respect to a reference line G extending in the vertical direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and [0050]).
While Fujita focuses on capturing an image/relative angles, such image capturing, can be combined to the camera of Starr to include the image capturing/relative angles and further motivation for such a combination would provide / allows easy [determination] whether a re-image capture operation of an object to be inspected is required (Fujita, [0008]).
Further, Durand teaches to identify pole mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on [imagery] ([0020] - For example, separate and independent detailed assessments may be performed on the pole, power line support (e.g., cross arms, alley arms standoffs, etc.), and power line in which the details of asset components are thoroughly analyzed to determine the extent of damage to the asset and [0023] - In embodiments, preliminary and detailed damage assessments may be automatically performed with a single set of sensor data and imagery (e.g., without requiring a separate flight or collection of “baseline” data) and [0024]-][0027] - For example, a more detailed assessment may identify the condition of the asset's components (e.g., the pole, the power lines connected to the asset, a power line support of the asset, etc.). As noted the components taught in Durand are consistent to Applicant’s Specification describing pole mounted instruments, see Applicant’s Specification ⁋⁋[0031]-[0043].
Thus, Durand focuses on identifying pole mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on an image, therefore, the captured image can be combined to the image captured as taught by Starr in view of Fujita to thus include identifying pole mounted instruments and further motivation for such a combination would provide/allow utilizing sensor and imagery data to automatically assess infrastructure damage (Durand, [0001]).
Thus, as shown above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Therefore, the examiner respectfully notes that the combination of Starr in view of Fujita and Durand does in fact disclose amended claim 1, therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Regarding newly added claim(s) 6-8, new grounds of rejection have been established therefore, the examiner finds these arguments moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1; claim 1 contains the limitation “(ii) identify pole mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on the relative angles and data form the high resolution camera.” Applicant’s specification, in [0045] states “As illustratively shown in that figure, an illustrative hardware platform may include a stereo camera, an inertial measurement unit, a high resolution camera, and a GPS module among others. Software and Al platforms include real time pole detection, determining relative angle between vehicle and utility pole, high resolution image detection and determination of any instruments located on the utility poles and GPS location of the moving vehicle and of the utility pole. Al techniques provide for object detection of any pole mounted instruments as well as environmental conditions including vegetation contact.” As best, [0045] supports capturing high resolution image detection and determination of any instruments located on the utility poles and/or Al techniques provide for object detection of any pole mounted instrument, however, said aforementioned capturing is not based on based on the relative angles. Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claim(s) 6-8 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph of claim(s) 1.
Separately, regarding Claim 7; claim 7 contains the limitation “wherein the utility pole response comprises a physical corrective action executed by the motor vehicle system based on the specific identification of the pole-mounted instruments.” Applicant’s specification appears to be silent regarding “a physical corrective action executed by the motor vehicle system based on the specific identification of the pole-mounted instruments”. Therefore, claim 7 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Separately, regarding Claim 8; claim 8 contains the limitation “wherein the processor is configured to dynamically update the determined relative angles while the motor vehicle is in motion to continuously track and identify the pole-mounted instruments.” Applicant’s specification, in [0045] states “As illustratively shown in that figure, an illustrative hardware platform may include a stereo camera, an inertial measurement unit, a high resolution camera, and a GPS module among others. Software and Al platforms include real time pole detection, determining relative angle between vehicle and utility pole, high resolution image detection and determination of any instruments located on the utility poles and GPS location of the moving vehicle and of the utility pole. Al techniques provide for object detection of any pole mounted instruments as well as environmental conditions including vegetation contact.” As best, [0045] relative angles however there is no discussion regarding “configured to dynamically update the determined relative angles while the motor vehicle is in motion to continuously track and identify the pole-mounted instruments.” Therefore, claim 8 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al. (US 2021/0173414 A1) in view of and Fujita et al. (US 2020/0364848 A1) and further in view of Durand et al. US (20170337524 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Starr discloses a system for infrastructure inspection and localization (Abstract) comprising:
a motor vehicle ([0034] - ...unmanned autonomous aerial vehicle (UAV) for power line monitoring...) including;
a stereo camera ([0047]-[0048] - ...CCTV camera...a stereo camera, infrared camera...);
an inertial measurement unit ([0047]-[0048] - ...gyroscopes and IMUs, magnetometers...);
a high-resolution camera ([0047]-[0048] - ...CCTV camera...a stereo camera, infrared camera...);
a global positioning system (GPS) receiver ([0047]-[0048] - ...a global positioning sensor (GPS) unit...); and
a computer system including a processor ([0047]-[0048] - This includes but is not limited to a processor package 501 comprising at least one central processing unit (CPU) and at least one graphics processing unit (GPU)), the processor configured at least in part to perform real-time utility pole detection ([0033]-[0034] - The system would consist of both UAVs operating continuously in order to perform inspections, as well as stationary docking stations mounted on, along, adjacent to, or nearby transmission lines, providing real-time data through communication networks to prevent failure and identify potential hazards);
perform utility pole GPS location determination and mapping ([0047] - For example, for a given received task, UAV 100 uses processors 501, on-board sensors 503-512, and wireless communication resources to construct a task list and a map of where to go. More detailed information on how these inputs are received and integrated is provided in the discussion of FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 and [0009] - analyzing, using a processor, the sensor data using a trained model, wherein the trained model is trained using one or more of path planning algorithms, GPS data, LIDAR point clouds; performing one or more of: identifying, using a processor, a type of path for effectively navigating to objects for purposes of sensor data collection or live data communication to other UAVs or locations for recommended interventions and identifying a high-level task strategy for data collection on objects, and dissemination of commands to a collective of UAVs; and moving the UAV using the path and flight strategy to identify and inspect the object and [0061] - With knowledge of the individual UAV locations, docking stations, telemetry and the geography of the power line system subject to inspection, the infrastructure platform can disperse the UAVs throughout the system in order to make condition assessments in its entirety according to a preset schedule and [0066]); perform real-time infrastructure detection ([0033]-[0034] - ... providing real-time data through communication networks to prevent failure and identify potential hazards); and perform vegetation overgrowth detection ([0069]) - For example, if data on vegetation encroachment is desired, the system can show the entire system and mark areas with imminent vegetation risks in red, near term vegetation risks in yellow, and far field vegetation risks in green) and utility pole damage detection and utility pole response ([0033] - ... providing real-time data through communication networks to prevent failure and identify potential hazards).
Starr fails to explicitly disclose
(i) wherein the processor is configured to determine relative angles between the vehicle and a utility pole; and
(ii) identify pole mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on the relative angles and data form the high resolution camera.
However, in an analogous art, Fujita teaches
[wherein [a] processor is configured to]:
(i) determine relative angles between the vehicle and a utility pole (FIG. 4 and [0030] - The object detecting unit 130 detects a relative distance and a relative angle to the object to be inspected. and [0045] - At this time, the object detecting unit 130 detects a relative angle θw of the overhead power wire W with respect to a reference line G extending in the vertical direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100); and
(ii) wherein the processor is configured to [capture an image] based on the relative angles and data form the high resolution camera (FIG. 4 and [0030] - The object detecting unit 130 detects a relative distance and a relative angle to the object to be inspected. and [0045] - At this time, the object detecting unit 130 detects a relative angle θw of the overhead power wire W with respect to a reference line G extending in the vertical direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fujita to the camera of Starr to include (i) determine relative angles between the vehicle and a utility pole (FIG. 4 and and (ii) wherein the processor is configured to [capture an image] based on the relative angles and data form the high resolution camera (
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fujita to Starr and Davis to do so as it provides / allows easily [determination] whether a re-image capture operation of an object to be inspected is required (Fujita, [0008]).
However, in an analogous art, Durand teaches
wherein [a] processor is configured:
to identify pole mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole based on [imagery] ([0020] - For example, separate and independent detailed assessments may be performed on the pole, power line support (e.g., cross arms, alley arms standoffs, etc.), and power line in which the details of asset components are thoroughly analyzed to determine the extent of damage to the asset and [0023] - In embodiments, preliminary and detailed damage assessments may be automatically performed with a single set of sensor data and imagery (e.g., without requiring a separate flight or collection of “baseline” data) and [0024]-][0027] - For example, a more detailed assessment may identify the condition of the asset's components (e.g., the pole, the power lines connected to the asset, a power line support of the asset, etc.). As noted the components taught in Durand are consistent to Applicant’s Specification describing pole mounted instruments, see Applicant’s Specification ⁋⁋[0031]-[0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Durand to the system and specifically the processor of Starr in view of Fujita to include wherein the processor is configured to identify pole mounted instruments mounted on the utility pole
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Durand to Starr in view of Fujita to do so as it provides / allows utilizing sensor and imagery data to automatically assess infrastructure damage (Durand, [0001]).
Regarding Claim 8;
Starr in view of Fujita and Durand discloses the system of claim 1.
Fujita further teaches wherein the processor is configured to dynamically update the determined relative angles while the motor vehicle is in motion to continuously track [wire] (FIG. 4 and [0030] - The object detecting unit 130 detects a relative distance and a relative angle to the object to be inspected and [0039] - While the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 is continuously flying along the overhead power wire W, an image capture control program controls the imaging camera 140 so that the image of the overhead power wire W is captured and [0045] - At this time, the object detecting unit 130 detects a relative angle θw of the overhead power wire W with respect to a reference line G extending in the vertical direction of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 and [0050]).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Fujita to Starr in view of Fujita and Durand, as per claim 1, above.
Duran further teaches [and] identify the pole-mounted instruments ([0020] - For example, separate and independent detailed assessments may be performed on the pole, power line support (e.g., cross arms, alley arms standoffs, etc.), and power line in which the details of asset components are thoroughly analyzed to determine the extent of damage to the asset and [0023] - In embodiments, preliminary and detailed damage assessments may be automatically performed with a single set of sensor data and imagery (e.g., without requiring a separate flight or collection of “baseline” data) and [0024]-][0027] - For example, a more detailed assessment may identify the condition of the asset's components (e.g., the pole, the power lines connected to the asset, a power line support of the asset, etc.). As noted the components taught in Durand are consistent to Applicant’s Specification describing pole mounted instruments, see Applicant’s Specification ⁋⁋[0031]-[0043].
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Fujita to Starr in view of Fujita and Durand, as per claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al. (US 2021/0173414 A1) in view of and Fujita et al. (US 2020/0364848 A1) and further in view of Durand et al. US (20170337524 A1) and further in view of Davis, II (US 2022/0131375 A1) (hereinafter, Davis).
Regarding Claim 6;
Starr in view of Fujita and Durand discloses the system of claim 1.
Durand further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate... [including] the identified pole-mounted instruments ([0020] - For example, separate and independent detailed assessments may be performed on the pole, power line support (e.g., cross arms, alley arms standoffs, etc.), and power line in which the details of asset components are thoroughly analyzed to determine the extent of damage to the asset and [0023] - In embodiments, preliminary and detailed damage assessments may be automatically performed with a single set of sensor data and imagery (e.g., without requiring a separate flight or collection of “baseline” data) and [0024]-][0027] - For example, a more detailed assessment may identify the condition of the asset's components (e.g., the pole, the power lines connected to the asset, a power line support of the asset, etc.). As noted the components taught in Durand are consistent to Applicant’s Specification describing pole mounted instruments, see Applicant’s Specification ⁋⁋[0031]-[0043].
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Durand to Starr in view of Fujita and Durand, as per claim 1, above.
Starr in view of Fujita and Durand fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate an operating condition of an electric grid... utilizing an artificial an artificial intelligence (Al).
However, in an analogous art, Davis teaches wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate an operating condition of an electric grid... utilizing an artificial an artificial intelligence (Al). ([0015] - In an embodiment, an automated inspection algorithm may be a trained machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence algorithm. Such machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence algorithm may be trained, for example, by reference to a plurality of correlated lidar data sets and grid infrastructure and [0196] - Collection of power line imaging data 900 may be performed, for example, by a Lidar imaging system carried on a flight platform such as a helicopter, plane, or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flown along the power line route and [0201] - Classifier 950 may include a trained classification algorithm 960 executed by a processor 530, in run-time mode, to compare the collected power line imaging data 900 to reference classification information. ...It will be understood that the trained classification algorithm may be a suitable machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence algorithm. In an embodiment, the trained classification algorithm, executing the training mode during the training period, may develop the reference classification information in relation to receiving reference power line imaging data 900 in a reference view of infrastructure including a utility asset, where the reference view may be a virtual view, a real-world image, or both.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Davis to the evaluation of Starr in view of Fujita and Durand to include wherein the processor is further configured to evaluate an operating condition of an electric grid... utilizing an artificial an artificial intelligence (Al).
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Davis to Starr in view of Fujita and Durand to do so as it provides / allows improved systems, apparatus and methods for electrical power grid inspection, resiliency and post-storm recovery (Davis, [0010]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starr et al. (US 2021/0173414 A1) in view of and Fujita et al. (US 2020/0364848 A1) and further in view of Durand et al. US (20170337524 A1) and further in view of Herron (US 2018/0191118 A1).
Regarding Claim 7;
Starr in view of Fujita and Durand discloses the system of claim 1.
Durand further teaches [determine damage] based on the specific identification of the pole-mounted instruments. ([0020] - For example, separate and independent detailed assessments may be performed on the pole, power line support (e.g., cross arms, alley arms standoffs, etc.), and power line in which the details of asset components are thoroughly analyzed to determine the extent of damage to the asset and [0023] - In embodiments, preliminary and detailed damage assessments may be automatically performed with a single set of sensor data and imagery (e.g., without requiring a separate flight or collection of “baseline” data) and [0024]-][0027] - For example, a more detailed assessment may identify the condition of the asset's components (e.g., the pole, the power lines connected to the asset, a power line support of the asset, etc.). As noted the components taught in Durand are consistent to Applicant’s Specification describing pole mounted instruments, see Applicant’s Specification ⁋⁋[0031]-[0043].
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Durand to Starr in view of Fujita and Durand, as per claim 1, above.
Starr in view of Fujita and Durand fail to explicitly disclose wherein the utility pole response comprises a physical corrective action executed by the motor vehicle system...
However, in an analogous art, Herron teaches wherein the utility pole response comprises a physical corrective action executed by the motor vehicle system... ([0002] - Utility transmission lines, for example power lines, are typically strung along long distances and supported at intermediate lengths by poles or towers and [0007] - Drone usage is increasing as the technology for these remotely controlled vehicles develops to allow for a broader range of applications, such as home delivery services. Various exemplary embodiments described herein are directed to an apparatus and methods for utilizing a drone to perform repair or installation operations associated with utility transmission line).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Herron to the system/damage of Starr in view of Fujita and Durand to include wherein the utility pole response comprises a physical corrective action executed by the motor vehicle system...
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Herron to Starr in view of Fujita and Durand to do so as it provides / allows a less hazardous repair (as gleaned from, Herron, [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carpenter et al. (US 2019/0028904 A1) discusses Novel tools and techniques are provided for implementing self-organizing mobile networks (“SOMNETs”) of drones and platforms. In various embodiments, a computing system might receive first data from each of a plurality of vehicles; might receive second data from each of a plurality of platforms; might analyze the first data to determine a status of each vehicle; and might analyze the second data to determine a status of each platform. Based at least in part on the analyzed first and second data, the computing system might generate at least one of first control instructions to at least one first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles or second control instructions to at least one first platform of the plurality of platforms that respectively cause the at least one first vehicle to perform one or more first actions or cause the at least one first platform to perform one or more second actions. (Abstract).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights