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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 February 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been newly amended. Claims 8 and 18 have been newly canceled, with claims 4 and 14 being previously canceled. Claims 23 and 24 have been newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-24 remain pending in the present application. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 , Applicant provides a general assertion that the previously applied references fail to teach each limitation of newly amended claim 1. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Hence, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim Objections Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 22 , Applicant claims “wherein the second data is received from a robot management sysstem that is a robot-specific subsystem….” The examiner notes that claim 22 may have inadvertently been altered, as the claim neither is listed as being newly amended, nor does the misspelling of “system” as “ sysstem ” appear in the previous set of claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 , Applicant claims: “wherein the second data indicates the second position and a second velocity of the robot and is received from a remote system that is configured to manage other components of the robot….” The examiner asserts that this limitation renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what Applicant intends for the metes and bounds of “other components of the robot” to be. Specifically, the examiner notes that it is unclear how the “remote system” can manage “other components” of the robot, when it is not specified what components are being managed by a system other than the remote system, leading to a lack of clarity with regards to what “other components” encompasses. For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting the “remote system” to simply “manage components” of the robot, rather than “manage other components.” Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence to their respective base claims. Additionally, claims 21 and 22 similarly contain the limitations of “other components,” and are similarly rejected. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 3, 13, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 21 , Applicant claims “wherein the first data is received from a sensor in communication with the robot, and wherein the second data is received from a robot management system that is a robot-specific subsystem configured to manage subsystems and other components of the robot.” The examiner notes that newly amended claim 1 recites “wherein the first data is received from a sensor of the robot,” which is more narrow than the “sensor in communication with the robot,” as the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a sensor of the robot” encompasses sensors that are disposed on the robot, while the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a sensor in communication with the robot” encompasses any sensor that could reasonably communicate with the robot, disposed on the robot, remote, or otherwise. Claims 3 and 13 contain limitations similar to those in claim 21 regarding the “first data,” and are similarly rejected. Further, the examiner notes that newly amended claim 1 recites “wherein the second data … is received from a remote system that is configured to manage other components of the robot….” The examiner notes that the claim language of claim 21 appears to distinguish the “robot management system” from the “remote system” of claim 1, as it claims “a robot management system,” rather than further limiting the already claimed “remote system”. Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 21, and is similarly rejected. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 19 , and 21 -2 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more . 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 21, and 23 are directed towards “an apparatus” (i.e., a machine). Claims 11-13, 15-17, 19-20, 22, and 24 are directed towards a method (i.e. a process) . Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 19-24 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite a mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as the representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites: An apparatus for detecting conflict along a route for a robot to travel, the apparatus comprising: A memory having computer-readable program code stored thereon; and Processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least: Receive first data that indicates a first position and a first velocity of one or more nearby moving objects, or from which the first position and the first velocity of the one or more nearby moving objects are determined, Wherein the first data is received from a sensor of the robot; For each nearby moving object of the one or more nearby moving objects: Filter the first data via a filter that passes the first data for generating a vector projection of the nearby moving object based on determining that the first position of the nearby moving object is within a given region of interest that includes the robot at a second position indicated by second data, Wherein filtering the first data is further based on passing the first data for generation of the vector projection for only a given number of the one or more nearby moving objects, and Wherein the second data indicates the second position and a second velocity of the robot and is received from a remote system that is configured to manage other components of the robot; Generate, based on the filtered first data, the vector projection from the first position and using the first velocity of the nearby moving object, the vector projection corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object; Generate a trajectory of the robot on the route for the robot to travel, and from the second data; Perform a comparison of the nearby moving object and the robot on, respectively, the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object and the trajectory of the robot, the comparison performed to detect a conflict when the nearby moving object is within a clear region that includes the robot and a time to closest point of approach between the nearby moving object and the robot is less than a time threshold value ; and When the conflict is detected, output an indication of the conflict for use in at least one of guidance, navigation, or control of the robot to avoid the conflict. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “ mental process ”, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers actions capable of being performed in the human mind. Specifically, the examiner asserts that “filter[ ing ] the first data …” amounts to a mere mental judgement as to which data to utilize, “ generat [ ing ] the vector projection…” and “ generat [ ing ] a trajectory…” amount to mere mental determinations of the vector projection and trajectory, respectively, and “perform[ ing ] a comparison…” amounts to merely making a mental judgement as to the differences between the trajectory of the robot and the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object . Acc ordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”): An apparatus for detecting conflict along a route for a robot to travel, the apparatus comprising: A memory having computer-readable program code stored thereon; and Processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least: Receive first data that indicates a first position and a first velocity of one or more nearby moving objects, or from which the first position and the first velocity of the one or more nearby moving objects are determined, Wherein the first data is received from a sensor of the robot; For each nearby moving object of the one or more nearby moving objects: Filter the first data via a filter that passes the first data for generating a vector projection of the nearby moving object based on determining that the first position of the nearby moving object is within a given region of interest that includes the robot at a second position indicated by second data, Wherein filtering the first data is further based on passing the first data for generation of the vector projection for only a given number of the one or more nearby moving objects, and Wherein the second data indicates the second position and a second velocity of the robot and is received from a remote system that is configured to manage other components of the robot; Generate, based on the filtered first data, the vector projection from the first position and using the first velocity of the nearby moving object, the vector projection corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object; Generate a trajectory of the robot on the route for the robot to travel, and from the second data; Perform a comparison of the nearby moving object and the robot on, respectively, the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object and the trajectory of the robot, the comparison performed to detect a conflict when the nearby moving object is within a clear region that includes the robot and a time to closest point of approach between the nearby moving object and the robot is less than a time threshold value ; and When the conflict is detected, output an indication of the conflict for use in at least one of guidance, navigation, or control of the robot to avoid the conflict. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the limitations of “a memory…” and “processing circuitry,” the examiner asserts that these limitations amount to mere apply-it level integrations of a memory and processor to perform the mental process indicated above. Regarding the limitations of “ receiv [ ing ] first data,” “wherein the first data is received by a sensor of the robot,” “[the second data] is received from a remote system,” and “output[ting] an indication of the conflict,” the examiner asserts that these limitations amount to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering/transmission. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above, with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “ receiv [ ing ] first data,” “wherein the first data is received by a sensor of the robot,” “[the second data] is received from a remote system,” and “output[ting] an indication of the conflict,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible. Independent claim 11 is similar in scope to independent claim 1, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 2 , dependent claim 2 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 2 merely recites a description of the “route for the robot to travel” and limits the previously indicated mental process of “ generat [ ing ] the trajectory of the robot” to using at least “a route command, flight plan, or mission route,” but does not cause the claim to no longer be performable in the human mind . Hence, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 12 is similar in scope to dependent claim 2, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 3 , dependent claim 3 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 3 merely recites additional well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the form of “ receiv [ ing ] the first data from a sensor” and an additional mental process in the form of “transform[ ing ] the first data… to a third data format…” which the examiner asserts is capable of being performed in the human mind , or with the assistance of pen and paper . Hence, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 13 is similar in scope to dependent claim 3, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 5 , dependent claim 5 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 5 merely recites further description of the “first data” as “ indicat [ ing ] a time and an accuracy of the first data,” and an additional mental process in the form of “apply[ ing ] the filtered first data to another filter…” which the examiner assert is capable of being performed in the human mind, or with the assistance of pen and paper . Hence, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 15 is similar in scope to dependent claim 5, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 6 , dependent claim 6 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 6 merely recites additional well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the form of “receiving data from multiple sources,” which amounts to mere data gathering, and additional mental processes in the form of “correlating the respective observations…” and “selecting an observation…,” both of which amount to mental processes in the form of determining similarities between observations, and choosing an observation, respectively . Hence, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 16 is similar in scope to dependent claim 6, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 7 , dependent claim 7 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 7 merely recites further description of the “first data,” as well as an additional mental process in the form of “select[ ing ] the observation that is most accurate,” which amounts to a mere mental judgement as to the highest indicated accuracy . Hence, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 17 is similar in scope to dependent claim 7, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 9 , dependent claim 9 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 9 merely recites an additional mental process in the form of “perform[ ing ] a stepwise comparison…” which the examiner asserts amounts to a mere mental judgement, capable of being performed in the human mind or with the assistance of pen and paper . Hence, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 19 is similar in scope to dependent claim 9, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 10 , dependent claim 10 does include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim recites “ caus [ ing ] the robot to execute the at least one maneuver,” which the examiner notes is a discrete control step incapable of being performed in the human mind . Hence, dependent claim 10 is patent eligible . Dependent claim 20 is similar in scope to dependent claim 10, and is similarly patent eligible . Regarding dependent claim 21 , dependent claim 21 does not include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 21 merely recites a description of where the first and second data are received from . Hence, dependent claim 21 is not patent eligible. Dependent claim 22 is similar in scope to dependent claim 21, and is similarly not patent eligible. Regarding dependent claim 23 , dependent claim 23 does include additional limitations that would cause the claim to be patent eligible. Specifically, dependent claim 23 recites “wherein the remote system is configured to accept navigation commands and control the robot to follow the navigation commands,” which the examiner asserts is incapable of being performed in the human mind . Hence, dependent claim 23 is patent eligible . Dependent claim 24 is similar in scope to dependent claim 23, and is similarly patent eligible . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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 1-3, 9 -13, and 1 9 -2 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euteneuer (US 20140249738 A1), hereafter Euteneuer, in view of Bry (US 9417325 B1), hereafter Bry . Regarding claim 1 , Euteneuer teaches an apparatus for detecting conflict along a route for a robot to travel, the apparatus comprising: A memory having computer-readable program code stored therein (0078, sense and avoid system 200 comprises a memory 506); and Processing circuitry configured to access the memory (0078, sense and avoid system comprises a processing system 502), and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least: Receive first data that indicates a first position and a first velocity of one or more nearby moving objects, or from which the first position and the first velocity of the one or more nearby moving objects are determined (0088, radar returns processed into surveillance information, velocity and flight path bearing of the intruder aircraft 206 determined); Wherein the first data is received from a sensor of the robot ( 0087, In an example embodiment, the UAS 204 is provisioned with an on-board UAS radar system 536. The UAS radar system 536 may be any suitable radar system, such as, but not limited to, a weather radar that is operable to detect weather that is located relatively far away from the UAS 204. The UAS radar system 536 includes the antenna 538 that is operable to emit radar pulses and to receive radar returns. A radar return is reflected energy from an object, such as the example intruder aircraft 206, upon which the emitted radar pulse is incident on. The antenna 538 is swept in a back-and-forth motion, in an up and down direction, and/or in other directions of interest, such that the UAS radar system 536 is able to detect objects, such as intruder aircraft and/or other objects of interest in proximity to the UAS 204. ) ; Wherein second data indicates a second position and a second velocity of the robot and is received from a remote system that is configured to manage other components of the robot ( 0091, In an example embodiment, the UAS 204 includes the GPS 540. The GPS 540 is configured to determine current location of the UAS 204. Over a period of time, the information provided by the GPS 540 may be used to determine the current flight path bearing and/or velocity of the UAS 204. Supplemental information may be provided by the IMU and altitude system 534. For example, a suitable altimeter in the IMU/altitude system 534 may provide current altitude information. Accelerometers and/or gyroscopes in the IMU/altitude system 534 may provide information to track changes in the current location and/or flight path bearing of the UAS 204. 0080, Further illustrated in FIG. 5 is a UAS aviation electronics system 526 that resides on the UAS 204 (FIG. 1). The non-limiting example UAS aviation electronics system 526 comprises a UAS processing system 528, a UAS flight controller system 530, a UAS transceiver system 532, an inertial measurement unit (IMU)/altitude system 534, an optional radar system 536 with an antenna 538 (interchangeably referred to as a surveillance system, tough any suitable surveillance system providing surveillance information may be used in the various embodiments), an optional global positioning system (GPS) 540, and a memory 542. The memory 542 comprises portions for storing an optional UAS sense and avoid module 544, a UAS flight controller module 546, an intruder aircraft information module 548, and an optional SSD database 550 (which stores proscribed Self Separation distances). The UAS processing system 528, the UAS flight controller system 530, the UAS transceiver system 532, the IMU/altitude system 534, the optional radar system 536, the antenna 538, the optional global positioning system (GPS) 540, and/or the memory 542 are communicatively coupled via the communication bus 552, thereby providing connectivity between the above-described components. ); For each nearby moving object of the one or more nearby moving objects: Generate, based on the first data, a vector projection of the nearby moving object from the first position and using the first velocity of the nearby moving object, the vector projection corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object (0088, projected flight path of the intruder aircraft 206 may be determined from the velocity and flight path bearing of the intruder aircraft, 0047, projected current flight paths of intruder aircraft are represented as vector diagrams); Generate a trajectory of the robot on the route for the robot to travel, and from second data that indicates a second position and a second velocity of the robot (0031, current flight path 202 of an unmanned aircraft system, 0091, information provided by the GPS 540 used to determine the current flight path bearing and velocity of the unmanned aerial system 204); Perform a comparison of the nearby moving object and the robot on respectively the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object and the trajectory of the robot, the comparison performed to detect a conflict when the nearby moving object is within a clear region that includes the robot, and a time to closest point of approach between the nearby moving object and the robot is less than a time threshold value; and when the conflict is detected (0038, at the second location L2, the intruder aircraft 206 has encroached on or intersected with the self-separation threshold 210 of UAS 204, thus, at the current time for the second location L2, the sense and avoid system 200 can determines the closest point of approach between the UAS 204 and the intruder aircraft 206, 0027, self-separation distance defined by the self-separation threshold volume is defined as a minimum distance and/or time that the UAS should maneuver from all other intruder aircraft at all times during its flight), Output an indication of the conflict for use in at least one of guidance, navigation, or control of the robot to avoid the conflict (0040, CPA point 220 associated with the intruder aircraft 206 is to the left of UAS 204 current flight path 202, sense and avoid system 200 will recommend that the UAS 204 implement a right hand turn to increase the CPA separation distance 222). Euteneuer fails to explicitly teach, however, filtering the first data via a filter that passes the first data for generating a vector projection of the nearby moving object based on determining that the first position of the nearby moving object is within a given region of interest that includes the robot at a second position indicated by second data ; Wherein filtering the first data is further based on passing the first data for generation of the vector projection for only a given number of the one or more nearby moving objects. Bry , however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach f iltering the first data via a filter that passes the first data for generating a vector projection of the nearby moving object based on determining that the first position of the nearby moving object is within a given region of interest that includes the robot at a second position indicated by second data ( Col. 34, Line 60 - Col 35, Line 11, The determined collision avoidance data is filtered based on the location data associated with the subscriber entity (1108). For example, the collision avoidance data could include locations, trajectories, and/or other data corresponding to airborne objects or other obstacles in the airspace and filtering the collision avoidance data could include removing locations, trajectories, and/or other data corresponding to airborne objects or other obstacles that are not within one or more regions proximate to respective indicated locations of the one or more aerial vehicles associated with the subscriber entity. The filtered data is transmitted to facilitate collision avoidance by the one or more aerial vehicles associated with the subscriber entity (1110). For example, the filtered data could be transmitted to a server associate with the subscriber entity. The server could then transmit the filtered data to the one or more aerial vehicles associated with the subscriber entity. Additionally or alternatively, the server could control the one or more aerial vehicles based on the transmitted filtered data. ) ; Wherein filtering the first data is further based on passing the first data for generation of the vector projection for only a given number of the one or more nearby moving objects ( Col. 34, Line 60 - Col 35, Line 11, The determined collision avoidance data is filtered based on the location data associated with the subscriber entity (1108). For example, the collision avoidance data could include locations, trajectories, and/or other data corresponding to airborne objects or other obstacles in the airspace and filtering the collision avoidance data could include removing locations, trajectories, and/or other data corresponding to airborne objects or other obstacles that are not within one or more regions proximate to respective indicated locations of the one or more aerial vehicles associated with the subscriber entity. The filtered data is transmitted to facilitate collision avoidance by the one or more aerial vehicles associated with the subscriber entity (1110). For example, the filtered data could be transmitted to a server associate with the subscriber entity. The server could then transmit the filtered data to the one or more aerial vehicles associated with the subscriber entity. Additionally or alternatively, the server could control the one or more aerial vehicles based on the transmitted filtered data. Examiner's note: the examiner believes that the claimed "passing the first data … for only a given number of the one or more nearby moving objects" is met by the filtering based on location of Bry , as to limit the passing of data of only those moving objects within a specific region around the robot would necessarily be limiting the passing of data to a given number of moving objects, namely the number of moving objects within a specific around the robot. ) . Euteneuer and Bry are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., flight management systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the filtering of the first data of Bry in order to provide a means of ensuring that data used for object tracking is relevant. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the robot is operating based off of the most relevant information possible. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Euteneuer further teaches wherein the route for the robot to travel is described by at least one of a route command, a flight plan, or a mission route, and the apparatus caused to generates the trajectory of the robot includes the apparatus caused to generate the trajectory of the robot using at least one of the route command, the flight plan, or the mission route (0031, current flight path 202 of an unmanned aircraft system, 0091, information provided by the GPS 540 used to determine the current flight path bearing and velocity of the unmanned aerial system 204). Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Euteneuer further teaches wherein the apparatus caused to receive the first data comprises the apparatus caused to at least: Receive the first data from a sensor operatively in communication with the robot and having a first data format, or data-linked from the nearby moving object and having a second data format (0087, UAS 204 provisioned with an on-board UAS radar system 536, which includes antenna 538 that is operable to emit radar pulses and to receive radar returns); and Transform the first data from the first data format or the second data format to a third data format from which the vector projection and thereby the predicted trajectory of the nearby moving object is generated (0088, received radar returns are processed into surveillance information generated by any suitable surveillance system, radar information may indicate the current location and altitude of the detected intruder aircraft 206, velocity, flight path, and projected flight path may be determined , Examiner’s note: the examiner is interpreting the received radar returns to read on the “first data format,” since pre-processed radar returns would be in an unstructured data format (i.e., a first format), and the processed surveillance information to read on the “third data format,” since the processed data would be in a structured data format (i.e., a third format) ). Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 9 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the apparatus caused to perform the comparison includes the apparatus caused to perform a stepwise comparison that includes a plurality of timesteps (0058, closest point of arrival recomputed for each time interval, and an updated flight path vector with a new updated closest point of arrival is presented, closest point of arrival also recalculated when the self-aircraft makes an evasive maneuver), and the clear region is dynamic in size in that the clear region is different in size for a later one of the plurality of timesteps relative to an earlier one of the plurality of timesteps (0079, the amount of self-separation distance is based on adopted flight rules and regulations governing flight of aircraft in the airspace, the proscribed self-separation distances may be variable based on the current velocity of the UAS 204 and additionally may be based on the velocity of the intruder aircraft, Examiner's note: a change in the velocity of either of the aircrafts would cause the self-separation distance to change, and would necessarily be at a different point in time ). Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 10 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Euteneuer further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program to cause the apparatus to further at least: Determine at least one maneuver to avoid the conflict (0028, UAS implements a lateral maneuver in accordance with right of way rules); and Cause the robot to execute the at least one maneuver (0028, UAS implements a lateral maneuver in accordance with right of way rules). Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10, and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 21 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Euteneuer further teaches wherein the first data is received from a sensor in communication with the robot ( 0087, In an example embodiment, the UAS 204 is provisioned with an on-board UAS radar system 536. ), and Wherein the second data is received from a robot management system that is a robot-specific subsystem configured to manage subsystems and other components of the robot ( 0080, The non-limiting example UAS aviation electronics system 526 comprises a UAS processing system 528, a UAS flight controller system 530, a UAS transceiver system 532, an inertial measurement unit (IMU)/altitude system 534, an optional radar system 536 with an antenna 538 (interchangeably referred to as a surveillance system, tough any suitable surveillance system providing surveillance information may be used in the various embodiments), an optional global positioning system (GPS) 540, and a memory 542. ). Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 21, and is similarly rejected. Regarding claim 23 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote system is configured to accept navigation commands and control the robot to follow navigation commands ( 0080, UAS aviation electronics system 526 comprises a UAS processing system 528, a UAS flight controller system 530, a UAS transceiver system 532, an inertial measurement unit (IMU)/altitude system 534, an optional radar system 536 with an antenna 538 (interchangeably referred to as a surveillance system, tough any suitable surveillance system providing surveillance information may be used in the various embodiments), an optional global positioning system (GPS) 540, and a memory 542. 0081, In an example embodiment where the sense and avoid system 200 resides at the operation facility, the UAS 204 is remotely controlled by the remote UAS operator at the operation facility. Accordingly, the transceiver system 504 and the UAS transceiver system 532 are configured to communicate with each other via the wireless signal 554. In the various embodiments, transceivers 504, 532 are communication devices or systems configured to receive and transmit radio frequency (RF) signals. ) . Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 23, and is similarly rejected. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euteneuer in view of Bry , and further in view of Ramesh (US 20190174514 A1), hereafter Ramesh, and Maruyama (US 20190384299 A1), hereafter Maruyama. Regarding claim 5 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Euteneuer further teaches wherein the first data is used to generate the vector projection ( 0088, projected flight path of the intruder aircraft 206 may be determined from the velocity and flight path bearing of the intruder aircraft, 0047, projected current flight paths of intruder aircraft are represented as vector diagrams ).) Additionally, Bry teaches wherein the first data is filtered ( Col. 34, Line 60 - Col 35, Line 11, The determined collision avoidance data is filtered based on the location data associated with the subscriber entity (1108). ). The combination of Euteneuer and Bry fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the first data further indicates a time and an accuracy of the first data, and the processing circuitry is configured to execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to further at least: Apply the first data to another filter that passes the first data when the time is within a time threshold of current time, and the accuracy is within an accuracy threshold. Ramesh, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first data indicates a time of the first data ( 0081, constraints include specifying that collected data should only be used if it is still a certain amount of time since collection below a threshold amount of time. ); and Applying the first data to another filter that passes the first data when the time is within a time threshold of current time ( 0081, constraints include specifying that collected data should only be used if it is still a certain amount of time since collection below a threshold amount of time. ). Euteneuer , Bry , and Ramesh are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., autonomous vehicle control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the time based filtering of Ramesh in order to provide a means of ensuring the data used for the obstacle detection is as relevant as possible. The motivation to combine is to provide a means of filtering old or otherwise no-longer-relevant sensor data. The combination of Euteneuer, Bry , and Ramesh fails to teach, however, wherein the first data indicates an accuracy of the first data; and Wherein the accuracy is within an accuracy threshold. Maruyama, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach wherein the first data indicates an accuracy of the first data ( 0082, movement plan of the execution target is selected from among the movement plan candidates whose detection accuracy Sa of the external information is highest ); and Wherein the accuracy is within an accuracy threshold ( 0082, movement plan of the execution target is selected from among the movement plan candidates whose detection accuracy Sa of the external information is highest ) . Euteneuer , Bry , Ramesh, and Maruyama are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., vehicle control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the detection accuracy determination of Maruyama in order to provide a means of ensuring the gathered data is accurate. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the aircraft is predicting the flight path as accurately as possible. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is similarly rejected. Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Euteneuer in view of Bry , and further in view of Klang (US 9384667 B2), hereafter Klang . Regarding claim 6 , the combination of Euteneuer and Bry teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and Euteneuer further teaches wherein the first position and the first velocity are observations of position and velocity (0088, received radar returns are processed into surveillance information generated by any suitable surveillance system, radar information may indicate the current location and altitude of the detected intruder aircraft 206, velocity, flight path, and projected flight path may be determined), and the apparatus caused to receive the first data comprises: Receiving data from multiple sources including respective observations of position and velocity of the one or more nearby moving objects (0088, received radar returns are processed into surveillance information generated by any suitable surveillance system, radar information may indicate the current location and altitude of the detected intruder aircraft 206, velocity, flight path, and projected flight path may be determined, 0089, additionally, other radar systems such as ground-based radar systems or radar systems on other aircraft may provide flight path bearing, altitude, and/or velocity information of the intruder aircraft 206); and Select ing an observation of position and velocity from the respective observations as the respectively first position and the first velocity of the nearby moving object (0088, received radar returns are processed into surveillance information generated by any suitable surveillance system, radar information may indicate the current location and altitude of the detected intruder aircraft 206, velocity, flight path, and projected flight path may be determined, 0089, additionally, other radar systems such as ground-based radar systems or radar systems on other aircraft may provide flight path bearing, altitude, and/or velocity information of the intruder aircraft 206). The combination of Euteneuer and Bry fails to teach, however, correlating the respective observations of position and velocity; and Wherein the selected observation of position and velocity is based on the respective observations having at least a threshold degree of correlation that indicates the respective observations are for the nearby moving object . Klang , however, in analogous field of endeavor, does teach correlating the respective observations of position and velocity (Col.5, Lines 5-30, own aircraft 8 may transmit a request to ground station 12 for positional information of one or more aircraft, ground station 12 processes the received positional information received from the one or more entities prior to uplinking the information to ownship aircraft 8, ground station 12 may combine the positional information from multiple aircraft); and Wherein the selected observation of position and velocity is based on the respective observations having at least a threshold degree of correlation that indicates the respective observations are for the nearby moving object (Col.5, Lines 5-30, own aircraft 8 may transmit a request to ground station 12 for positional information of one or more aircraft, ground station 12 processes the received positional information received from the one or more entities prior to uplinking the information to ownship aircraft 8, ground station 12 may combine the positional information from multiple aircraft) . Euteneuer, Bry , and Klang are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., vehicle controls. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the information combining of Klang in order to provide a means of ensuring gathered data is accurate. The motivation to combine is to ensure that the flight trajectory of the other a