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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05-01-2026 has been entered.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final on an RCE
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 and 38 have been amended.
Claim 29 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-20,22-25,27 and 30-39 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20, 22-23, 32-35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20160216711 A1) in view of Obaidi (US 20170090484 A1) in further view of Gil (US 20190161190 A1), Jarrell (US 9087451 B1), and Gupta (US 20170032315 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Srivastava discloses, at least one computing system (Srivastava: [0016]) operable by a UAV delivery service provider (Srivastava: [0037]; [0066]), having a non-transient memory with executable instructions (Srivastava: [0029]); a first UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]); a second UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]), the first and the second UAV zones being operable by the UAV delivery service provider (Srivastava: [ABS]; [0037]; [0066]); a database storing details of a flight route network comprising the first and second UAV zones (Srivastava: [0023]), a plurality of nodes (Srivastava: [0057] one or more waypoints), a plurality of route sections connecting the UAV zones to form the flight route network (Srivastava: [0057]; [0065]), the route sections having been pre-approved by a regulatory body (Srivastava: [0008]; [0061]) and the database being connected to the flight management system (Srivastava: [0023]), and the mission planner (Srivastava: [0057]); wherein the computing system is operable with said instructions: a) to provide an article delivery portal (Srivastava: [0040], [0066]), to receive at the portal, from a customer of the UAV delivery service provider, at least one delivery request to deliver at least one article from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]; [0010]); b) to determine if the first UAV zone is available for the at least one delivery request (Srivastava: see at least [FIG. 1A-B], [FIG. 5A-E], and [0011] the UAV platform may determine that the mission is constrained by the number of available UAVs in the pool, the locations of the UAVs in the pool, operational states of the available UAVs, costs associated with operating the available UAVs, the timing of the mission, the type of mission, etc.; [0039]); c) when the first UAV zone is available, to determine if a UAV is available at the first UAV zone (Srivastava: [FIG. 5B-C], [0082] FIGS. 5A-5E are diagrams of an example 500 relating to example process 400 shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B. Assume that user device 210 (e.g., a tablet 210) is associated with a user (e.g., a firefighter) that is located at an origination location; [0043] determine availability of UAVs 220, in a pool of UAVs 220), and when a UAV is available at the first UAV zone, to assign the UAV to the delivery request and designate the UAV as an assigned UAV (Srivastava: [0049]; ¶'s [0082-0090] describe figure 5 and selecting available UAV's from a pool of available UAV's to perform specific tasks and dispatching accordingly); d) when the first UAV zone is not available (Srivastava: [0043]), f) to determine a flight path for the assigned UAV, from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone, at least part of the flight path being predetermined (Srivastava: [0012]; [0015]; [0052]); g) to communicate the UAV flight path to the assigned UAV (Srivastava: [FIG. 1B(see "mission plan instructions")]).
Srivastava does not explicitly disclose the contingent limitations, to determine if the first UAV zone will be available within a predetermined duration of time, and if so, determine if a UAV will be available at the first UAV zone within the predetermined duration of time and if so, to assign the UAV, when available, to the delivery request and designate the UAV as the assigned UAV; e) to determine if the second UAV zone is available for the at least one delivery request within a predetermined time period around an expected arrival time of the assigned UAV, and if the second UAV zone is available, reserve the second UAV zone.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Obaidi discloses, to determine if the first UAV zone will be available within a predetermined duration of time, and if so, determine if a UAV will be available at the first UAV zone within the predetermined duration of time and if so, to assign the UAV, when available, to the delivery request and designate the UAV as the assigned UAV; e) to determine if the second UAV zone is available for the at least one delivery request within a predetermined time period around an expected arrival time of the assigned UAV, and if the second UAV zone is available, reserve the second UAV zone (Obaidi: [0023]; [0025]), for the benefit of providing quick personalized pick-up and delivery within smaller geographic regions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Srivastava to include reservations taught by Obaidi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide quick personalized pick-up and delivery within smaller geographic regions.
Srivastava, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, to monitor the flight of the assigned UAV from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone and the delivery of the article.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gil discloses, “[0432] a variety of types of messages can be provided to various electronic destination addresses in response completing or attempting pick-ups or deliveries. Such notifications/messages may include links or access to parcel information/data and/or the real time location of the parcel. The links or access to information/data sources may be used to provide real-time location information/data of the corresponding UAV computing entity 808. Such notifications/messages can be provided on a periodic or regular basis and/or in response to certain triggers/events; [0450] This type of information/data can be used to provide real time status updates for specific geographic areas”, for the benefit of convenience for parcel users (e.g., consignees) is also enhanced.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include updates taught by Gil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to convenience for parcel users (e.g., consignees) is also enhanced.
Srivastava, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the route sections comprise two or more corridors, including at least two corridors for travel in one direction and at least two corridors for travel in an opposite direction, and wherein, for each direction, a first corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds and a second corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a second range of speeds, and a lateral width.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jarrell discloses, the route sections comprise two or more corridors (Jarrell: (Col. 8, Ln. 58-59) one or more air corridors), including at least two corridors for travel in one direction (Jarrell: (Col. 16, Ln. 3-18) a single air corridor may be defined above a right-of-way zone (e.g., above zone 110a, 110b, 119a, 119b, 128a, or 128b), for example having upper and lower boundary 400 ft. and 100 ft., respectively. In some examples, one or more of the air corridors (e.g., the first, second and third corridors) may be reserved for UAV traffic in a first direction, and one or more of the air corridors (e.g., the fourth, fifth, and sixth corridors) may be reserved for UAV traffic in a second direction (e.g., a direction opposite of the first direction). As another example, the first, third and fifth corridors may be reserved for UAV traffic in a first direction, and the second, fourth, and sixth corridors may be reserved for UAV traffic in a second direction (e.g., a direction opposite of the first direction)) and at least two corridors for travel in an opposite direction (Jarrell: (Col. 16, Ln. 3-18) a single air corridor may be defined above a right-of-way zone (e.g., above zone 110a, 110b, 119a, 119b, 128a, or 128b), for example having upper and lower boundary 400 ft. and 100 ft., respectively. In some examples, one or more of the air corridors (e.g., the first, second and third corridors) may be reserved for UAV traffic in a first direction, and one or more of the air corridors (e.g., the fourth, fifth, and sixth corridors) may be reserved for UAV traffic in a second direction (e.g., a direction opposite of the first direction). As another example, the first, third and fifth corridors may be reserved for UAV traffic in a first direction, and the second, fourth, and sixth corridors may be reserved for UAV traffic in a second direction (e.g., a direction opposite of the first direction)), and wherein, for each direction, a first corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds (Jarrell: (Col. 11, Ln. 28-30) the communications station 101 may provide the UAV 150 with an indication of a speed limit, or of multiple speed limits (e.g., an upper limit and a lower limit)) and a second corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a second range of speeds (Jarrell: (Col. 11, Ln. 28-30) the communications station 101 may provide the UAV 150 with an indication of a speed limit, or of multiple speed limits (e.g., an upper limit and a lower limit)), wherein, each route section has minimum and maximum altitudes (Jarrell: (Col. 2, Ln. 7-9) an air corridor having associated therewith a predetermined minimum altitude and a predetermined maximum altitude) and a lateral width (Jarrell: (Col. 14, Ln. 30-31) an airspace generally bounded laterally or horizontally (e.g., an airspace bounded to the left and to the right)), for the benefit of mitigating concerns have been raised related to the potential for injury or property damage that could be caused by unmanned aerial vehicles, or that operation of unmanned aerial vehicles proximate one's private property or residence would be an unwelcome nuisance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include control corridors taught by Jarrell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigating concerns have been raised related to the potential for injury or property damage that could be caused by unmanned aerial vehicles, or that operation of unmanned aerial vehicles proximate one's private property or residence would be an unwelcome nuisance.
The examiner respectfully submits, Srivastava in view of Obaidi discloses, “if the second UAV zone is available, reserve the second UAV zone”.
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Gupta discloses, see [0046-0048] for reserving a time and date, see [0051] for reserving delivery location, for the benefit of generating reservation information describing a position and an environment of the recipient platform, and providing the information to the delivery entity for security measures, such as authentication and authorization measures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include reserving an available platform taught by Gupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate reservation information describing a position and an environment of the recipient platform, and providing the information to the delivery entity for security measures, such as authentication and authorization measures.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the delivery request includes at least: a UAV category request, a timeframe request, and article description (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 2, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the article description includes a weight and a set of dimensions of the article (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0037]; [0044]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 3, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computing system is operable with the instructions to receive a response from the flight management system in response to the delivery request to convert the response into a customer update, and to communicate the update to the portal (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Srivastava also discloses, wherein at least one of the first and second UAV zones includes an enclosure, an opening in the enclosure, a closure for the opening and 4 lock for the closure, providing for controlled access to the UAV zone by the customer, the lock being connected to flight management system for control thereof, and wherein the flight management system only permits a UAV to enter each UAV zone when that zone is secured and free of obstructions (Srivastava: ) [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0008]; [0037]; [0066].
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the first UAV zone is operable with the computing system to provide for a takeoff of a UAV from the first UAV zone, and the second UAV zone is operable with the computing system to provide for a landing of the UAV in the second UAV zone (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computing system is operable with the executable instructions to generate a unique identifier for the article, to communicate the unique identifier to the portal for access by the customer, and to provide an instruction to the customer via said portal to attach said unique identifier to the article (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0008]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 7, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the UAV delivery system includes at least one UAV; the at least one UAV has a sensor and a communications module; and the sensor and communications module are in communication with a processor and are operable with the processor to: a) read the unique identifier, b) generate a corresponding validation signal, and c) communicate the validation signal to the computing system (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the UAV has a label to identify the UAV (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the UAV has a display operable to display user-instructions to the customer, and the computing system is operable with the executable instructions to validate the validation signal and generate a corresponding result, to generate a set of user-instructions based on the result, and to display the set of user-instructions via the display for the customer (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the set of user-instructions includes at least one of: a) an instruction to reduce the weight of the article by a stated amount, b) an instruction to assign the article to the assigned UAV, and c) an instruction to position the assigned UAV on the first UAV zone (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the second UAV zone includes a landing identifier and the assigned UAV is operable with the computing system and flight management system to identify the landing identifier at least during an approach of the assigned UAV to the second UAV zone, and to land at the landing identifier (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0056]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the second UAV zone includes a portable portion, and said portable portion includes the landing identifier (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0008]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computing system is operable with the executable instructions to perform at least a landing at the second UAV zone (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 11, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the first UAV zone includes at least one sensor operable with the computing system to determine when the assigned UAV has been positioned on the UAV zone, and the computing system is operable to request a confirmation from the customer that the customer has readied the assigned UAV for takeoff (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the second UAV zone includes at least one sensor operable with the computing system to detect an approach and landing of the assigned UAV and to record a video of the approach and landing (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 16, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the assigned UAV includes at least one sensor operable with the computing system to detect an approach to and landing of the assigned UAV at the second UAV zone and to record a video of the approach and landing (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the assigned UAV is operable to engage at least one article and includes at least one sensor mountable to the article, and the sensor is operable with at least one of the computing system and the processor to sense at least one of: a) forces applied to the article, and b) acceleration of the article (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 18, and further, Srivastava also discloses, said computing system is operable with said executable instructions to perform at least one of: a) provide for the viewing of the forces and acceleration via the portal in at least one of: real-time, near real-time, and at custom time interval; b) record a time plot of the forces and acceleration and provide the time-plot for at least one of review and download via the portal; and c) identify a maximum force and a maximum acceleration in the forces and acceleration, respectively, and provide the maximum force and acceleration for at least one of review and download via the portal (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 19, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computing system is operable to determine at least one safe range of the forces and acceleration, and to provide the range for at least one of: review, download, and analysis via the portal (Srivastava: [Fig. 1A-5E]; [ABS]; [0048]; [0037]; [0066]).
REGARDING CLAIM 32, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 8, and further, Gil also discloses, the computer platform additionally includes at least one of a billing system, a ticketing system and ground control (Gil: [0336]).
REGARDING CLAIM 33, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 32, and further, Srivastava also discloses, including a plurality of different communication channels, optionally including Wi-Fi, cellular and satellite (Srivastava: [0025]).
REGARDING CLAIM 34, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computer system is operable with said instructions, to check that the route does not exceed the capabilities of the assigned UAV, optionally including accounting for at least one of the weight of the article and available battery life for the UAV, and where required determining and providing route sections not in the database (Srivastava: [0051-0052]).
REGARDING CLAIM 35, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 34, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computer system is operable with said instructions to adjust the route depending upon weather conditions, optionally including enhancing the effect of any tailwind and minimizing the effect of any headwind (Srivastava: [0058]).
REGARDING CLAIM 38, Srivastava discloses, at least one computing system (Srivastava: [0016] UAV platform 230) operable by a UAV delivery service provider (Srivastava: [0037]; [0066]), having a non-transient memory with executable instructions (Srivastava: [0029]), at least one computing system (Srivastava: [0016]) operable by a UAV delivery service provider (Srivastava: [0037]; [0066]), having a non-transient memory with executable instructions (Srivastava: [0029]); a first UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]); a second UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]), the first and the second UAV zones being operable by the UAV delivery service provider (Srivastava: [ABS]; [0037]; [0066]); a database storing details of a flight route network comprising the first and second UAV zones (Srivastava: [0023]), a plurality of nodes (Srivastava: [0057] one or more waypoints), a plurality of route sections connecting the UAV zones to form the flight route network (Srivastava: [0057]; [0065]), the route sections having been pre-approved by a regulatory body (Srivastava: [0008]; [0061]) and the database being connected to the flight management system (Srivastava: [0023]), and the mission planner (Srivastava: [0057]); wherein the computing system is operable with said instructions: a) to provide an article delivery portal (Srivastava: [0040], [0066]), to receive at the portal, from a customer of the UAV delivery service provider, at least one delivery request to deliver at least one article from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]; [0010]); b) to determine if the first UAV zone is available for the at least one delivery request (Srivastava: see at least [FIG. 1A-B], [FIG. 5A-E], and [0011] the UAV platform may determine that the mission is constrained by the number of available UAVs in the pool, the locations of the UAVs in the pool, operational states of the available UAVs, costs associated with operating the available UAVs, the timing of the mission, the type of mission, etc.; [0039]); c) when the first UAV zone is available, to determine if a UAV is available at the first UAV zone (Srivastava: [FIG. 5B-C], [0082] FIGS. 5A-5E are diagrams of an example 500 relating to example process 400 shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B. Assume that user device 210 (e.g., a tablet 210) is associated with a user (e.g., a firefighter) that is located at an origination location; [0043] determine availability of UAVs 220, in a pool of UAVs 220), and when a UAV is available at the first UAV zone, to assign the UAV to the delivery request and designate the UAV as an assigned UAV (Srivastava: [0049]; ¶'s [0082-0090] describe figure 5 and selecting available UAV's from a pool of available UAV's to perform specific tasks and dispatching accordingly); d) when the first UAV zone is not available (Srivastava: [0043]), f) to determine a flight path for the assigned UAV, from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone, at least part of the flight path being predetermined (Srivastava: [0012]; [0015]; [0052]); g) to communicate the UAV flight path to the assigned UAV (Srivastava: [FIG. 1B(see "mission plan instructions")]).
Srivastava does not explicitly disclose the contingent limitations, to determine if the first UAV zone will be available within a predetermined duration of time, and if so, determine if a UAV will be available at the first UAV zone within the predetermined duration of time and if so, to assign the UAV, when available, to the delivery request and designate the UAV as the assigned UAV; e) to determine if the second UAV zone is available for the at least one delivery request within a predetermined time period around an expected arrival time of the assigned UAV, and if the second UAV zone is available, reserve the second UAV zone.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Obaidi discloses, to determine if the first UAV zone will be available within a predetermined duration of time, and if so, determine if a UAV will be available at the first UAV zone within the predetermined duration of time and if so, to assign the UAV, when available, to the delivery request and designate the UAV as the assigned UAV; e) to determine if the second UAV zone is available for the at least one delivery request within a predetermined time period around an expected arrival time of the assigned UAV, and if the second UAV zone is available, reserve the second UAV zone (Obaidi: [0023]; [0025]), for the benefit of providing quick personalized pick-up and delivery within smaller geographic regions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by Srivastava to include reservations taught by Obaidi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide quick personalized pick-up and delivery within smaller geographic regions.
Srivastava, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, to monitor the flight of the assigned UAV from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone and the delivery of the article.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gil discloses, “[0432] a variety of types of messages can be provided to various electronic destination addresses in response completing or attempting pick-ups or deliveries. Such notifications/messages may include links or access to parcel information/data and/or the real time location of the parcel. The links or access to information/data sources may be used to provide real-time location information/data of the corresponding UAV computing entity 808. Such notifications/messages can be provided on a periodic or regular basis and/or in response to certain triggers/events; [0450] This type of information/data can be used to provide real time status updates for specific geographic areas”, for the benefit of convenience for parcel users (e.g., consignees) is also enhanced.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include updates taught by Gil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to convenience for parcel users (e.g., consignees) is also enhanced.
Srivastava, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the route sections comprise two or more corridors, including at least two corridors for travel in one direction and at least two corridors for travel in an opposite direction, and wherein, for each direction, a first corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds and a second corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a second range of speeds, and a lateral width.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jarrell discloses, the route sections comprise two or more corridors (Jarrell: (Col. 8, Ln. 58-59)), including at least two corridors for travel in one direction (Jarrell: (Col. 16, Ln. 3-18)) and at least two corridors for travel in an opposite direction (Jarrell: (Col. 16, Ln. 3-18)), and wherein, for each direction, a first corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds (Jarrell: (Col. 11, Ln. 28-30)) and a second corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a second range of speeds (Jarrell: (Col. 11, Ln. 28-30)), wherein, each route section has minimum and maximum altitudes (Jarrell: (Col. 2, Ln. 7-9)) and a lateral width (Jarrell: (Col. 14, Ln. 30-31)), for the benefit of mitigating concerns have been raised related to the potential for injury or property damage that could be caused by unmanned aerial vehicles, or that operation of unmanned aerial vehicles proximate one's private property or residence would be an unwelcome nuisance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include control corridors taught by Jarrell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigating concerns have been raised related to the potential for injury or property damage that could be caused by unmanned aerial vehicles, or that operation of unmanned aerial vehicles proximate one's private property or residence would be an unwelcome nuisance.
The examiner respectfully submits, Srivastava in view of Obaidi discloses, “if the second UAV zone is available, reserve the second UAV zone”.
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Gupta discloses, see [0046-0048] for reserving a time and date, see [0051] for reserving delivery location, for the benefit of generating reservation information describing a position and an environment of the recipient platform, and providing the information to the delivery entity for security measures, such as authentication and authorization measures.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include reserving an available platform taught by Gupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate reservation information describing a position and an environment of the recipient platform, and providing the information to the delivery entity for security measures, such as authentication and authorization measures.
Claim(s) 22-24, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20160216711 A1) in view of Obaidi (US 20170090484 A1), Gil (US 20190161190 A1), and Gupta (US 20170032315 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jarrell (US 9087451 B1).
REGARDING CLAIM 22, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 21, and further, Gil also discloses, each route section is defined by a center line and a cross section around the center line (Gil: [0317-0318]).
REGARDING CLAIM 23, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 22, and further, Gil also discloses, the cross-section is rectangular (Gil: [0317-0318]).
REGARDING CLAIM 27, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 21, and further, Jarrell also discloses, the corridors are spaced apart vertically and/or horizontally (Jarrell: [FIG. 2]).
REGARDING CLAIM 24, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 27, and further, Gil also discloses, the cross-section is circular or elliptical (Gil: [0317]; [0318]).
REGARDING CLAIM 30, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 21, and further, Jarrell also discloses, the altitudes are absolute altitudes relative to local terrain (Jarrell: (Col. 15, Ln. 66-67 – Col. 16, Ln. 1)).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20160216711 A1) in view of Obaidi (US 20170090484 A1), Gil (US 20190161190 A1), Gupta (US 20170032315 A1) and Jarrell (US 9087451 B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Pokorny (US 20220309932 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 25, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 21, and further, Srivastava as modified, does not explicitly disclose, for at least some route sections, a portion of each route section is straight and a portion of each route section is curved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pokorny discloses, for at least some route sections, a portion of each route section is straight and a portion of each route section is curved (Pokorny: [0022]), for the benefit of avoiding a collision or intersecting a position and time of a weather constraint.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include altering a route taught by Pokorny. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid a collision or intersecting a position and time of a weather constraint.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20160216711 A1) in view of Obaidi (US 20170090484 A1), Gil (US 20190161190 A1), Gupta (US 20170032315 A1) and Jarrell (US 9087451 B1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Klaus (US 10402646 B2).
REGARDING CLAIM 31, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 21, and further, Srivastava as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the altitudes are true altitudes relative to mean sea level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Klaus discloses, the altitudes are true altitudes relative to mean sea level (Klaus: (98) As used herein, the terms “forward” flight or “horizontal” flight refer to flight in a direction substantially parallel to the ground (i.e., sea level)), for the benefit of vertical direction change from one altitude to another altitude (e.g., upward or downward, from a first point on land, on sea or in the air to a second point in the air, or vice versa) substantially normal to the surface of the Earth, or hovers (e.g., maintains a substantially constant altitude), with an insubstantial change in horizontal or lateral position over the surface of the Earth.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include sea level vehicle elevation taught by Klaus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to change from one altitude to another altitude (e.g., upward or downward, from a first point on land, on sea or in the air to a second point in the air, or vice versa) substantially normal to the surface of the Earth, or hovers (e.g., maintains a substantially constant altitude), with an insubstantial change in horizontal or lateral position over the surface of the Earth.
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20160216711 A1) in view of Obaidi (US 20170090484 A1), Gil (US 20190161190 A1), and Gupta (US 20170032315 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Boyd (US 10121117 B1).
REGARDING CLAIM 36, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Srivastava as modified, does not explicitly disclose, the computing system is operable with said instructions: to have the assigned UAV approach and land at the first UAV zone, only when the first UAV zone is secure and clear of all personnel; with the assigned UAV stationary at the first UAV zone, to permit access to the first UAV zone, for loading of an article to the assigned UAV; after loading the article to the assigned UAV, to permit the assigned UAV to depart after all personnel have left the first UAV zone and the first UAV zone has been secured; to permit the assigned UAV to land at the second UAV zone, only when the second UAV zone is secure and clear of all personnel; and after the assigned UAV has landed at the second UAV zone, to permit access to the second UAV zone, to retrieve the article.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Boyd discloses, the computing system is operable with said instructions: to have the assigned UAV approach and land at the first UAV zone, only when the first UAV zone is secure and clear of all personnel; with the assigned UAV stationary at the first UAV zone, to permit access to the first UAV zone, for loading of an article to the assigned UAV; after loading the article to the assigned UAV, to permit the assigned UAV to depart after all personnel have left the first UAV zone and the first UAV zone has been secured; to permit the assigned UAV to land at the second UAV zone, only when the second UAV zone is secure and clear of all personnel; and after the assigned UAV has landed at the second UAV zone, to permit access to the second UAV zone, to retrieve the article (Boyd: (Col. 5, Ln.56-60)), for the benefit of aborting or finding alternate delivery locations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method disclosed by a modified Srivastava to include avoiding obstructions taught by Boyd. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to abort or find alternate delivery locations.
REGARDING CLAIM 37, Srivastava, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 36, and further, Srivastava also discloses, the computer system is operable with said instructions, at the first UAV zone, to permit access to personnel having permission from the customer, and at the second UAV zone and until the article is separated from the assigned UAV and removed from the second UAV zone, to permit only access to personnel having permission from the customer (Srivastava: [0010] an appropriate authority (e.g., a government agency)).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (US 20160216711 A1) in view of Jarrell (US 9087451 B1).
REGARDING CLAIM 39, Srivastava discloses, at least one computing system operable by a UAV delivery service provider, having a non-transient memory with executable instructions (Srivastava: [0016]; [0029]; [0037]; [0066]); a first UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]); a second UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]); a database storing details of a flight route network comprising the first and second UAV zones (Srivastava: [0023]), and a plurality of route sections connecting the UAV zones (Srivastava: [0057]; [0065]), wherein the computing system is operable with said instructions: to provide an article delivery portal (Srivastava: [0040]; [0066]), to receive at the portal, at least one delivery request to deliver at least one article from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone (Srivastava: [ABS]; [0010]); b) to determine a flight path for the assigned UAV, from the first UAV zone to the second UAV zone (Srivastava: [0011]; [FIG. 5A-E]; [0082]); and c) to communicate the UAV flight path to the assigned UAV (Srivastava: [FIG. 5B-C], [0082]; [0043]).
Srivastava does not explicitly disclose, the route sections comprise two or more corridors, including at least two corridors for travel in one direction and at least two corridors for travel in an opposite direction, and wherein, for each direction, a first corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds and a second corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a second range of speeds, and a lateral width.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jarrell discloses, the route sections comprise two or more corridors (Jarrell: (Col. 8, Ln. 58-59)), including at least two corridors for travel in one direction (Jarrell: (Col. 16, Ln. 3-18)) and at least two corridors for travel in an opposite direction (Jarrell: (Col. 16, Ln. 3-18)), and wherein, for each direction, a first corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds (Jarrell: (Col. 11, Ln. 28-30)) and a second corridor is designated for UAVs traveling at a second range of speeds (Jarrell: (Col. 11, Ln. 28-30)), wherein, each route section has minimum and maximum altitudes (Jarrell: (Col. 2, Ln. 7-9)) and a lateral width (Jarrell: (Col. 14, Ln. 30-31)), for the benefit of mitigating concerns have been raised related to the potential for injury or property damage that could be caused by unmanned aerial vehicles, or that operation of unmanned aerial vehicles proximate one's private property or residence would be an unwelcome nuisance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Srivastava to include control corridors taught by Jarrell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mitigating concerns have been raised related to the potential for injury or property damage that could be caused by unmanned aerial vehicles, or that operation of unmanned aerial vehicles proximate one's private property or residence would be an unwelcome nuisance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05-01-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully submits, the applicant failed to amend all of the limitations of cancelled claim 29 into the independent claims. In the official correspondence dated 09-19-2024 the office indicated allowable subject. Specifically, the limitations of claim 29, wherein claim 29 stated “… including two corridors for travel in one direction and two corridors for travel in an opposite direction, wherein, for each direction, there is one corridor for UAVs traveling at a first range of speeds, and a second corridor for UAVs traveling at a second and different range of speeds.” To the examiners best understanding, the amendment left out that the first and second speed ranges are different. Because the amended independent claims do not fully contain the limitations of cancelled claim 29, Jarrell (US 9087451 B1) reads on the amended limitations of the independent claims. Because the prior art of record discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights