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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed September 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 12 have been amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed September 9, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant traverses the 35 USC §112(b) rejection given in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated June 10, 2026. The examiner withdraws the rejection based on arguments.
The applicant’s amended claim 1 now recites the following:
A display system configured to display, on a display, positions of a work vehicle and one or more unmanned aerial vehicles that are flying around the work vehicle, the display system comprising:
a processor configured or programmed to
obtain position information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles, and
to display the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles in a field displayed on the display, based on the position information;
wherein the processor is configured or programmed to further
obtain operation information indicating an operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles, and
based on the operation information, display the operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field; and
the operating state includes content of work being performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle.
The applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Ratajczak et al. (US2021/0390868), of record, does not teach present claim 1. In particular, the applicant argues on page 8 that Ratajczak “does not teach or suggest displaying the specific task or work content, such as spraying, transporting, or mowing, which an unmmaned aerial vehicle is currently performing.” The examiner agrees with these arguments.
For support for the amendments the applicant points to paragraphs 0114-0118, Fig. 11, and original claims 6 and 7. Fig. 11 of the present disclosure, shows a display showing that drone #1 is involved in the task of “SPRAYING” and drone #2 is involved in “TRANSPORTING.”
The examiner agrees there is written description for the amendments, with one note. When claim 1 recites “based on the operation information, display the operating state…” this does not mean something like: depending on what the operation information is, the system may or may not display the operating state. That interpretation does not have written description. Rather, as discussed in paragraph 0117, the processor obtains the operating state of each multicopter and “based on this operation information, displays the operating state”. The implication is that the operating state, no matter what it is, is always displayed.
Due to the applicant’s amendments the grounds for rejection have changed. Please see the rejections below.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratajczak et al. (US2021/0390868) in view of Cleland-Huang et al. (US2022/0253076).
Regarding claim 1, Ratajczak teaches:
A display system configured to display, on a display, positions of a work vehicle and one or more unmanned aerial vehicles that are flying around the work vehicle, the display system comprising (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071. The work vehicle is the “delivery truck 110” in Fig. 3 and the unmanned aerial vehicle is the UAV 150. See paragraph 0071 for Fig. 3 being the display on a user interface 260. See paragraph 0081 for the delivery monitoring system 230 which includes the display 260 being output through the delivery truck display.):
a processor configured or programmed to (see paragraph 0100 for all the modules disclosed having a processor)
obtain position information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the position of the delivery truck 110 shown as an arrow. See Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the UAV being item 150 on delivery route 320.), and
to display the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles in a field displayed on the display, based on the position information (see Fig. 3).
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
wherein the processor is configured or programmed to further
obtain operation information indicating an operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles, and
based on the operation information, display the operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field.
the operating state includes content of work being performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Cleland-Huang teaches:
wherein the processor is configured or programmed to further
obtain operation information indicating an operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0033 for information being passed between the components of the system, including what the drone 202 is doing), and
based on the operation information, display the operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field (see Fig. 8 for a “searching” mission involving 1 boat, 5 people, and 3 model IF750 drones with cameras. Fig. 9 for the status of three search-and-rescue drones being displayed as “searching”. See Fig. 10 for the status of one of the drones being switched to “Follow-victim”. See paragraph 0064 for Fig. 9 being an example of what is shown on a user interface. See paragraph 0081 for various roles the UAVs can perform autonomously, including “takeoff, search, track, deliver, and RTL.” See Fig. 26 for showing a “drone actions” list for two drones, as well as a “drone autonomy explanation” including actions in the recent past and in the present. See paragraph 0092 for Fig. 26 showing a user the “behavior/task” of the drone.); and
the operating state includes content of work being performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle (see the previous bullet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Cleland-Huang. The motivation for doing so would be so that “the user may be able to easily see and prioritize their attention toward important tasks,” as recognized by Cleland-Huang (see paragraph 0091).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 2, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to further
obtain speed information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see paragraph 0074 for the system knowing “the speed in which the delivery truck 110 is travelling…and the UAV 150 is travelling”), and
based on the speed information, to display, in the field, movement directions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles together with the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the UAV’s route 320 and the stops that the UAV will make in order. Since the order of the stops are known, the direction the UAV will fly along the movement directions of the UAV is displayed. See paragraph 0030 for showing the “airborne delivery route and the return destination route” See also Fig. 4 and paragraph 0073 for the movement direction (or “delivery route 330”) of the work vehicle.).
Regarding claim 4, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 2.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
display icons of the work vehicle and each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 for the icons 110 of the work vehicle and 150 of the UAV. See paragraph 0087 teaching that “several UAVs …may be associated with the delivery truck 110” such that more than one UAV launches from the truck.), and
arrows indicating the movement directions of
the work vehicle (see Fig. 3 for icon 110.)
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
arrows indicating the movement directions of
each of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the field.
However, Cleland-Huang teaches:
arrows indicating the movement directions of
each of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the field (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0064 for “icon 902 is shown, along with a path indication” including “an arrow” of “where it [the drone] is going.”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Dachi. The motivation for doing so would be to easily check and confirm the surrounding situation of the vehicle, as recognized by Dachi (see pages 5 and 6 of the applicant-provided English translation of Dachi).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 5, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 2.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
sequentially obtain the position information and the speed information of the work vehicle and each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see paragraph 0055 for continuously monitoring and updating the work truck and UAV position in real-time), and
sequentially update the display of the positions and the movement directions of the work vehicle and each of the unmanned aerial vehicles in the field (see paragraph 0055 for continuously monitoring and updating the UAV position in real-time).
Regarding claim 6, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 1.
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein
the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles include a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles; and
the processor is configured or programmed to;
display icons indicating positions of the work vehicle and the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, and arrows indicating movement directions of the work vehicle and the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles in the field; and
further obtain operation information indicating an operating state of each of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, and based on the operation information, display the operating state including content of work being performed by plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field.
However, Cleland-Huang teaches:
the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles include a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 8 for a “searching” mission involving 3 model IF750 drones with cameras, as well as 1 boat and 5 people.); and
the processor is configured or programmed to;
display icons indicating positions of the work vehicle and the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, and arrows indicating movement directions of the work vehicle and the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles in the field (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0064 for “icon 902 is shown, along with a path indication” including “an arrow” of “where it [the drone] is going.”); and
further obtain operation information indicating an operating state of each of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, and based on the operation information, display the operating state including content of work being performed by plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field (see Fig. 9 for the status of three search-and-rescue drones being displayed as “searching”. See Fig. 10 for the status of one of the drones being switched to “Follow-victim”. See paragraph 0064 for Fig. 9 being an example of what is shown on a user interface. See paragraph 0081 for various roles the UAVs can perform autonomously, including “takeoff, search, track, deliver, and RTL.” See Fig. 26 for showing a “drone actions” list for two drones, as well as a “drone autonomy explanation” including actions in the recent past and in the present. See paragraph 0092 for Fig. 26 showing a user the “behavior/task” of the drone.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Cleland-Huang. The motivation for doing so would be so that “the user may be able to easily see and prioritize their attention toward important tasks,” as recognized by Cleland-Huang (see paragraph 0091).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 7, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 6.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, wherein
the operating state further includes at least one of
whether the unmanned aerial vehicle is flying in an autonomous mode,
a remaining flight time of the unmanned aerial vehicle, or
a remaining energy of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see paragraph 0053 for determining the battery life and range of the UAV. See paragraph 0090 for displaying the real-time range of the UAV. See also paragraph 0093 for providing a “bubble displayed to the user” of the range of the UAV. See paragraph 0094 for the bubble radius representing the range of the UAV based on battery life.).
Regarding claim 9, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
obtain information of a map of an area where the work vehicle is located (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0045 for obtaining a map),
generate a map image that overlays the positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles on the map (see Fig. 3), and
display the map image in the field (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 1.
Ratajczak further teaches:
The display system according to Claim 1, further comprising
the display (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071. The work vehicle is the “delivery truck 110” in Fig. 3 and the unmanned aerial vehicle is the UAV 150. See paragraph 0071 for Fig. 3 being the display on a user interface 260. See paragraph 0081 for the delivery monitoring system 230 which includes the display 260 being output through the delivery truck display.).
Regarding claim 11, Ratajczak and Clelan-Huang teaches:
A work vehicle comprising (see Ratajczak Fig. 2 for vehicle 110.)
the display system according to Claim 1 (see also Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071. The work vehicle is the “delivery truck 110” in Fig. 3 and the unmanned aerial vehicle is the UAV 150. See paragraph 0071 for Fig. 3 being the display on a user interface 260. See paragraph 0081 for the delivery monitoring system 230 which includes the display 260 being output through the delivery truck display.); and
a communication device to communicate with the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (see paragraphs 0038, 0101, and 0103).
Regarding claim 12, Ratajczak teaches:
A display method (see claim 11) in a system including a work vehicle and one or more unmanned aerial vehicles flying around the work vehicle, the display method comprising:
obtaining position information of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the position of the delivery truck 110 shown as an arrow. See Fig. 3 and paragraph 0071 for the UAV being item 150 on delivery route 320.);
displaying positions of the work vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicles in a field shown on a display based on the position information (see Fig. 3);
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
obtaining operation information indicating an operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles; and
based on the operation information, displaying the operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field,
wherein the operating state includes content of work being performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Cleland-Huang teaches:
obtaining operation information indicating an operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0033 for information being passed between the components of the system, including what the drone 202 is doing); and
based on the operation information, displaying the operating state of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles on the display together with the field (see Fig. 8 for a “searching” mission involving 1 boat, 5 people, and 3 model IF750 drones with cameras. Fig. 9 for the status of three search-and-rescue drones being displayed as “searching”. See Fig. 10 for the status of one of the drones being switched to “Follow-victim”. See paragraph 0064 for Fig. 9 being an example of what is shown on a user interface. See paragraph 0081 for various roles the UAVs can perform autonomously, including “takeoff, search, track, deliver, and RTL.” See Fig. 26 for showing a “drone actions” list for two drones, as well as a “drone autonomy explanation” including actions in the recent past and in the present. See paragraph 0092 for Fig. 26 showing a user the “behavior/task” of the drone.),
wherein the operating state includes content of work being performed by the unmanned aerial vehicle (see the previous bullet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Cleland-Huang. The motivation for doing so would be so that “the user may be able to easily see and prioritize their attention toward important tasks,” as recognized by Cleland-Huang (see paragraph 0091).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratajczak in view of Cleland-Huang in further view of Dachi (JP2019/175312A).
Regarding claim 3, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to Claim 2.
Yet Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang do not further teach:
The display system according to Claim 2, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
display the position and the movement direction of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles with the position of the work vehicle as a center in the field.
However, Dachi teaches:
display the position and the movement direction of each of the unmanned aerial vehicles with the position of the work vehicle as a center in the field (see Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Dachi. The motivation for doing so would be to easily check and confirm the surrounding situation of the vehicle, as recognized by Dachi (see pages 5 and 6 of the applicant-provided English translation of Dachi).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratajczak in view of Cleland-Huang in further view of Curlander et al. (US 11,231,706).
Regarding claim 8, Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang teach the display system according to claim 1.
Yet Ratajczak does not further teach:
The display system according to Claim 1, wherein the processor is configured or programmed to
output an alert to the display when any unmanned aerial vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the position of the work vehicle; and
display a message indicating that the unmanned aerial vehicle is approaching and a purpose of the approach of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Curlander teaches:
output an alert to the display when any unmanned aerial vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the position of the work vehicle (see Fig. 1 for a UAV 104 that wants to land on a target 140 of a land vehicle 130. See col. 3, lines 15-34 for the UAV 104 reaching within a threshold distance 124 of the delivery location 106.); and
display a message indicating that the unmanned aerial vehicle is approaching and a purpose of the approach of the unmanned aerial vehicle. (see col. 4, lines 16-38 for the UAV having an approach notification module 116 that causes the UAV to notify both people and the robot 130 of the arrival of the UAV “for delivery”. See col. 20, lines 46-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Ratajczak and Cleland-Huang, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Curlander. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance landing zone authentication and the safety of the approach, as recognized by Curlander (see col. 4, line 54-col. 5, line 2, and col. 6, lines 26-39).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Prior art
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Harris et al. (US 9,984,579). See Harris, Fig. 3, step 308 and col. 8 line 57-col. 9, line 10 for giving a person an “approach notification” or “land indicator, a takeoff indicator, and so forth.” See col. 2, lines 8-36 for displaying. Motivation: “to enable people to understand and interpret actions by the UAV, such as an intention to land or deposit a package at a particular location,” as recognized by Harris (see Abstract).
Shehata et al. (US2015/0142211). Teaches a vehicle receiving status updates from a plurality of UAVs. See paragraph 0097.
Miyagi et al. (US2022/0185456). See Fig. 8 and paragraph 00725 for “The aircraft condition display region (803) displays at least one of current statuses of the drone (100) such as in preparation for flight, during replenishment with chemical agent, during takeoff, during flight, and during emergency evacuation. In addition, a notice of the next operation or a request for an action to a user (e.g., “Please be ready for chemical agent replenishment”) may be displayed.” See claim 10.
Cutu (US2021/0064020). See paragraph 0047 for “Drone control system 2 420 includes video feed display(s) 446 for displaying streamed video feeds from cameras of the aerial drone, drone status display(s) 448, e.g., for displaying current status of the aerial drone, e.g., docked, deployed, active, inactive, no failures, failures detected, current drone position, current drone position with respect to base vehicle, moving, stationary, etc., input device(s) 450, e.g., a joystick and a set of switches for controlling the aerial drone, e.g., when deployed, and one or more processors 452.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights