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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 26, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Advisory Action filed November 25, 2025. Claims 1-32 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold (US 20160318601, already of record), in view of de la Cruz et al. (US 20180096609; hereinafter Cruz), further in view of Haider et al. (US 20210125507; hereinafter Haider, already of record), and further in view of McClure (US 20160244161).
Regarding Claim 1,
Arnold teaches
An apparatus for supporting operations of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on a flight in an airspace system, (Arnold: Abstract) the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; (Arnold: Paragraph [0131]) and
processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code (Arnold: Paragraph [0131]) to cause the apparatus to at least:
...wherein;
the flight of the UAV is divided into multiple phases, including a ground phase, (Arnold: Paragraph [0058], [0117]) an air-ground phase, (Arnold: Paragraph [0036]-[0047], [0059]-[0062], [0086]-[0096]) and an airborne phase; (Arnold: Paragraph [[0052], [0072]-[0073], [0079]-[0080]])
...
determine guidance modes of the UAV based on the instructions, the guidance modes including a ground mode for the ground phase, (Arnold: Paragraph [0058], [0117]; The system verifies that the UAV is in a “taxiing status” (i.e. a ground mode for a ground phase).) an air-ground transition mode for the air-ground transition phase, (Arnold: Paragraph [0036]-[0047], [0059]-[0062], [0086]-[0096]; AUTO/TAKEOFF mode 305) and an airborne flight mode for the airborne phase of the UAV, (Arnold: Paragraph [0052], [0072]-[0073], [0079]-[0080]; Auto-Max Soaring mode 308) the ground mode including route operations for taxiing the UAV on the ground, (Arnold: Paragraph [0058], [0117]; “...confirming taxiing status...”) the air-ground transition mode including takeoff and landing operations for transitioning the UAV between the ground phase and the airborne phase,... (Arnold: Paragraph [0036]-[0047], [0059]-[0062], [0086]-[0096]; AUTO/TAKEOFF mode 305 and AUTO/LANDING mode 309)
determine first and second transition modes, the first transition mode including first conditions for transitioning from the ground mode to the air-ground transition mode, (Arnold: Paragraph [0011], [0050], [0052]-[0053], [0058]-[0062]; The ground mode of the UAV contains multiple steps and processes for each step including an auto-takeoff mode and a taxi to runway mode. Once the UAV reaches the runway and has takeoff clearance it begins to roll and initiates liftoff when minimum airspeed reached which is the air-ground transition mode.) and the second transition mode including second conditions for transitioning from the air-ground transition mode to the airborne flight mode; (Arnold: Paragraph [0079]-[0082]; Once the UAV system reaches a certain speed and detects, through the ground sensor, that it has lifted off the ground it transitions it begins to climb to the flight altitude to the transition to the airborne flight mode which may be either the “max range” mode or the “soaring” mode.) and
engage the guidance modes in which the UAV is caused to perform the operations associated with the ground, air-ground transition, and airborne flight modes to carry out the flight, (Arnold: Paragraph [0011], [0027]; The UAV is equipped with a “mode switch” which allows the UAV to read and engage the flight mode that is currently selected by the switch.) including transitioning from the ground mode to the air-ground transition mode responsive to a determination that the first conditions of the first transition mode are fulfilled, (Arnold: Paragraph [0011], [0052], [0103], [0123]; The “Squat Switch” allows the UAV to know if it is still in contact with the ground before transitioning between modes.) and transitioning from the air-ground transition mode to the airborne flight mode responsive to a determination that the second conditions of the second transition mode are fulfilled. (Arnold: Paragraph [0079]-[0082]; Once the UAV system reaches a certain speed and detects, through the ground sensor, that it has lifted off the ground it transitions it begins to climb to the flight altitude to the transition to the airborne flight mode which may be either the “max range” mode or the “soaring” mode.)
Arnold does not teach
...
receive, from a control station, instructions that describe a cleared path the UAV is authorized by an air navigation service provider (ANSP) to travel through the airspace system, wherein;
...
the instructions include one or more clearances from the ANSP, the one or more clearances comprising a tactical clearance, a laterally strategic clearance, a vertically tactical clearance, or a combination thereof;
...
...and the airborne flight mode including lateral flight modes and vertical flight modes, that are both subject to rules defined by the ANSP for travel through the airspace system under instrument flight rules (IFR), and the rules for the lateral flight modes and the vertical flight modes being separate and independent from one another;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Cruz teaches
...
receive, from a control station, (Cruz: Paragraph [0005], [0018]; “Upon a successful second authorization check by the ground control system, the ground control system can provide the flight plan and authorization information to the particular UAV.”) instructions that describe a cleared path the UAV is authorized by an air navigation service provider (ANSP) to travel through the airspace system, (Cruz: Paragraph [0026], [0040]; The FAA is an example of an ANSP) wherein;
...
the instructions include one or more clearances from the ANSP, the one or more clearances comprising a tactical clearance, a laterally strategic clearance, a vertically tactical clearance, or a combination thereof; (Cruz: Paragraph [0024]; Phases of the flight plan can include descending to an altitude (vertical tactical maneuver) that is authorized by the FAA prior to the flight plan being sent to the UAV and executed.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the guidance, transition, and flight modes, of Arnold with the of Cruz for the benefit of
Arnold, in view of Cruz, does not teach
...
...and the airborne flight mode including lateral flight modes and vertical flight modes, that are both subject to rules defined by the ANSP for travel through the airspace system under instrument flight rules (IFR), and the rules for the lateral flight modes and the vertical flight modes being separate and independent from one another;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Haider teaches
...and the airborne flight mode including lateral flight modes and vertical flight modes,... (Haider: Paragraph [0047]-[0048], [0051] [0095]; The controller of the system is able to control the UAV to ascend, descend, and/or move lateral based on what is required of the flight plan and the flight highway.)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flight modes of Arnold and Cruz with the variable airborne flight modes of Haider for the benefit of controlling the flight of one or more UAVs along such flight highway, along multiple-lanes thereof, wherein the UAVs may travel at different speeds in different lanes and different layers along the UAV flight highway. (Haider: Abstract)
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, does not teach
...
...the airborne flight mode including lateral flight modes and vertical flight modes, that are both subject to rules defined by the ANSP for travel through the airspace system under instrument flight rules (IFR), and the rules for the lateral flight modes and the vertical flight modes being separate and independent from one another;
However in the same field of endeavor, McClure teaches
…
...the airborne flight mode including lateral flight modes and vertical flight modes, that are both subject to rules defined by the ANSP for travel through the airspace system under instrument flight rules (IFR), (McClure: Paragraph [0021]-[0023]; When in a controlled airspace which requires IFR, the UAV is subject to any and all altitude and positional rules of said airspace.) and the rules for the lateral flight modes and the vertical flight modes being separate and independent from one another; (McClure: Paragraph [0044]; “In one embodiment, an altitude override control may be imposed on the UAV. That is, the UAV may be preconfigured with a maximum altitude to which it is allowed to fly. Despite the capability of the UAV to fly at higher altitudes, upon reaching a certain, predetermined altitude, built-in control circuitry of the UAV provides control signals to the flight control components that otherwise override the user control inputs and limit the altitude to which the UAV may fly.” [0060]-[0061]; “If, however, step 304 resolves that the UAV is flying at a permissible altitude, then a determination is made as to the current airspace that the UAV is flying in 308. It is then determined 310 whether the UAV is currently flying in a proscribed airspace 310. If so, then user directional controls are overwritten, and the UAV is automatically flow in a direction away from the proscribed airspace 312.” FIG. 3; The rules for the maximum permissible altitude (i.e. vertical rules) and the direction/position of the UAV with respect to airspace allowances (i.e. lateral rules) are separate considerations which are addressed separately.)
…
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the guidance modes of Arnold, Cruz, and Haider with the rules defined by IFR of McClure for the benefit of providing UAVs having improved features, safety, and performance. (McClure: Paragraph [0008])
Regarding Claim 4,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the guidance modes are determined from built-in guidance modes including the airborne flight mode for the airborne phase of the flight. (Haider: Paragraph [0018]; The three airborne flight modes are a flight mode as the UAV flies towards the highway, a flight mode while it is in the highway, and a flight mode for when it exits the highway.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, and McClure, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the guidance modes further include defined transitions, the defined transitions including a first type of transition from a first guidance mode to a second guidance mode in which the second guidance mode is engaged as the UAV is in the first guidance mode to cause the transition responsive to a request when a specified condition is fulfilled. (Haider: Paragraph [0053]; The first guidance mode is the mode in where the UAV is guided from a starting location towards the flight highway. The specified condition to transition is fulfilled when the UAV reaches/enters the highway.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, and McClure, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the defined transitions further include a second type of transition in which the second guidance mode is engaged responsive to the request when the specified condition is fulfilled, and the second guidance mode remains armed until the specified condition is fulfilled, at which time the second guidance mode is automatically engaged. (Haider: Paragraph [0053]; The second transition mode is the mode in which the UAV is exiting the flight highway and transitions to a guided in-flight activity or to land, etc.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, and McClure, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the defined transitions further include a third type of transition from a first guidance mode to a second guidance mode in which the second guidance mode is automatically engaged to cause the transition when the specified condition is fulfilled. (Haider: Paragraph [0053]; The first guidance mode is the mode where the UAV is flying towards the flight highway and the second guidance mode is the mode where the UAV is flying in the flight highway. As the UAV enters the flight highway it transitions in between modes.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, and McClure, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the air-ground transition mode further includes a takeoff mode, and the defined transitions further include a transition of the third type from the takeoff mode to a combination of the lateral flight modes and the vertical flight modes. (Haider: Paragraph [0053]; The UAV begins at a starting location which is located on the ground or on a building or other launching area. The system then guides the UAV to take-off (air-ground transition phase) and guides it to the flight highway by ascending vertically and moving laterally towards the highway where it will execute its flight plan (airborne phase). At the end of the flight plan, the UAV may then carry out in-flight activities or be instructed to land (air-ground transition phase).)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, and McClure, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the vertical flight modes include an altitude hold mode, a flight-level change mode, and a vertical speed mode, and (Haider: Paragraph [0054], [0057], [0060])
wherein the defined transitions include transitions of the first type between the vertical flight modes, and transitions of the third type from the flight-level change mode and the vertical speed mode to the altitude hold mode. (Haider: Paragraph [0052]; When the UAV flies to the flight highway it is flying from a take-off location and is therefore ascending to reach the highway. Once it reaches the highway, which has a as set altitude level, it transitions from the first flight mode to a third one which includes an altitude hold mode and a vertical speed mode.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, and McClure, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is analogous to Claim 4 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is analogous to Claim 7 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is analogous to Claim 8 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim is analogous to Claim 11 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim is analogous to Claim 12 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 28, the claim is analogous to Claim 13 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 28.
Claims 2, 5, 14, 17, 20, 29, and 31-32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28 above, and yet even further in view of Singh (US 20200175882, already of record).
Regarding Claim 2,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lateral flight modes include a lateral navigation mode, a track mode, and a heading mode, the track mode including track select and track hold modes, (Haider: Paragraph [0057], [0060]; When a UAV enters the drone highway it automatically enters a track mode. The highway exists as a track for UAV’s to follow by flying in the highway the drone is flying on that track.) ... wherein the vertical flight modes include an altitude hold mode, a flight-level change mode, and a vertical speed mode. (Haider: Paragraph [0054], [0057], [0060]; The lanes of the flight highway are parallel, either vertically or horizontally, and the UAV is able to switch in between these lanes. When the lanes are arranged vertically they are set at different altitudes. To remain flying in a particular lane the UAV would have to be in an altitude hold mode and in order to change lanes the UAV would have to switch into a flight-level change mode. Each lane may also have set flight speeds where the UAV may have to accelerate or decelerate when changing lanes, therefore engaging the vertical speed mode.)
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, does not teach
…and the heading mode including heading select and heading hold modes, and…
However in the same field of endeavor, Singh teaches
…and the heading mode including heading select and heading hold modes, and... (Singh: Paragraph [0033]; When the drone is flying back to the home location, it chooses the shortest, straight route possible. In order to do this the drone orients itself to a heading which causes it to face the home location and begins flying in that direction while holding that heading.)…
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flight modes of Arnold, in view pf Cruz, further in view of Haider, and further in view of McClure, with the heading modes of Singh, for the benefit of efficient emergency path planning can be done in the event of a communication failure. (Singh: Paragraph [0001])
Regarding Claim 5,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, even further in view of McClure, and yet even further in view of Singh, teaches
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the airborne flight mode further includes a lost-link mode (Singh: Paragraph [0049]-[0051]) automatically engaged responsive to a lost-link event in which a datalink between the UAV and the control station is interrupted or lost. (Singh: Paragraph [0049]-[0051])
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, McClure, and Singh, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 14,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, even further in view of McClure, and yet even further in view of Singh, teaches
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the guidance modes further include a lost-link mode that is engaged responsive to a lost-link event in which a datalink between the UAV and the control station is interrupted or lost, and (Singh: Paragraph [0054])
wherein the defined transitions include a transition of the third type from a combination of lateral flight mode and vertical flight mode to the lost-link mode, (Singh: Paragraph [0039]; The UAV interrupts its mission when it detects that it has lost connection and enters the lost-link mode.) and a transition of the first type from the lost-link mode to the combination of lateral flight mode and vertical flight mode when the datalink is recovered. (Singh: Paragraph [0054]; The UAV is able to return to its original mission once the connection is reestablished.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, McClure, and Singh, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 5 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is analogous to Claim 14 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 31,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, even further in view of McClure, and yet even further in view of Singh, teaches
The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the lost-link mode further includes identifying a lost-link route to a diversion airport and information that indicates when to execute the lost-link route according to the lost-link mode. (Singh: Paragraph [0033]; The home location may act as a diversion airport when the UAV detects that is in a lost-link mode. The UAV executes the flight back to the home location based on losing communication with the home location and/or when the communication does not return with in a set period of time.)
The motivation to combine Arnold, Cruz, Haider, McClure, and Singh, is the same as stated for Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim is analogous to Claim 31 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 31.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28, above, further in view of Peasgood (US 20180024571, already of record), and further in view of Bianchi et al. (US 20160139603; hereinafter Bianchi, already of record).
Regarding Claim 3,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein ... the airborne mode automatically initializes when the UAV is established in the air. (Haider: Paragraph [0053]; When the UAV reaches the flight highway, it exits the air-ground transition mode and enters the airborne mode as it travels on the flight highway.)
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, does not teach
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ground mode automatically initializes during power-on of the UAV, the air-ground transition mode automatically initializes during taxi or line-up of the UAV, and...
However in the same field of endeavor, Peasgood teaches
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ground mode automatically initializes during power-on of the UAV,... (Peasgood: Paragraph [0044]-[0047]; Upon starting up, the UAV initializes ground mode by calibrating components and receiving commands that will trigger the transition to the air-ground transition mode.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the airborne and air-ground transition modes of Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, with the automatic initialization of the ground mode of Peasgood, for the benefit of improved calibration process for UAVs. (Peasgood: Paragraph [0003])
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, further in view of McClure, and further in view of Peasgood, does not teach
The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein...the air-ground transition mode automatically initializes during taxi or line-up of the UAV, and...
However in the same field of endeavor, Bianchi teaches
...the air-ground transition mode automatically initializes during taxi or line-up of the UAV, (Bianchi: Paragraph [0032], [0119]-[0120]) and...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the airborne and air-ground transition modes of Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, further in view of McClure, and further in view of Peasgood, with the automatic mode initialization of Bianchi, for the benefit of providing a comprehensive take-off and landing aid system and method for an aircraft, in particular for an Unmanned Air Vehicle and/or a Remotely Piloted Aircraft. (Bianchi: Paragraph [0010])
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28, above, and yet even further in view of Shloosh (US 20180061243, already of record).
Regarding Claim 6,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the built-in guidance modes further include the ground mode for the ground phase of the flight, and the air-ground transition mode for the air-ground transition phase of the flight, and (Haider: Paragraph [0053]; The UAV begins at a starting location which is located on the ground or on a building or other launching area. The system then guides the UAV to take-off (air-ground transition phase) and guides it to the flight highway by ascending vertically and moving laterally towards the highway where it will execute its flight plan (airborne phase). At the end of the flight plan, the UAV may then carry out in-flight activities or be instructed to land (air-ground transition phase).) wherein…the air-ground transition mode includes a takeoff mode and a landing mode. (Haider: Paragraph [0053])
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, does not teach
…the ground mode includes a ground operations mode, a taxi mode, and a line-up mode, and…
However in the same field of endeavor, Shloosh teaches
…the ground mode includes a ground operations mode, a taxi mode, and a line-up mode, and… (Shloosh: Paragraph [0396], [0458])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and transition modes of Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, with the ground operation modes of Shloosh for the benefit of automating Air Traffic Control operations at or near an airport. (Shloosh: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is analogous to Claim 6 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 6.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28, above, and yet even further in view of Sydnor (US 20170269594, already of record).
Regarding Claim 9,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the lateral flight modes include a lateral navigation mode, track modes, and heading modes, and (Haider: Paragraph [0057], [0060]; When a UAV enters the drone highway it automatically enters a track mode. The highway exists as a track for UAV’s to follow. By flying in the highway, the drone is flying on that track.) wherein the defined transitions further include transitions of the first type between the track modes,… (Haider: Paragraph [0073])
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, does not teach
...between the heading modes, between the track modes and the heading modes, and from the lateral navigation mode to the track modes and the heading modes, and the defined transitions further include transitions of the second type from the track modes and the heading modes to the lateral navigation mode.
However in the same field of endeavor, Sydnor teaches
...between the heading modes, between the track modes and the heading modes, and from the lateral navigation mode to the track modes and the heading modes, and the defined transitions include transitions of the second type from the track modes and the heading modes to the lateral navigation mode. (Sydnor: Paragraph [0092]-[0094], [0098], [0122]; The UAV controller mode selector is able to transition between any of the modes that are available based on the situation.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and flight modes of Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, with the ability to freely transition between flight modes of Sydnor for the benefit of making vehicle control easier. (Sydnor: Paragraph [0003])
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is analogous to Claim 9 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 9.
Claims 10, 15, 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28 above, yet even further in view of Singh (US 20200175882, already of record), and still yet even further in view of in view of Coulmeau (US 20070129855, already of record).
Regarding Claim 10,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 8,...
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, does not teach
...wherein the guidance modes further include a lost-link mode...the lost-link mode engaged responsive to a lost-link event in which a datalink between the UAV and the control station is interrupted or lost, and wherein the defined transitions include a transition of the first type from the lost-link mode to a combination of lateral flight mode and vertical flight mode when the datalink is recovered,...
However in the same field of endeavor, Singh teaches
...wherein the guidance modes further include a lost-link mode (Singh: Paragraph [0049]-[0051]; When the UAV detects a communication failure it enters lost-link mode.) ... the lost-link mode engaged responsive to a lost-link event in which a datalink between the UAV and the control station is interrupted or lost, (Singh: Paragraph [0049]-[0051]) and wherein the defined transitions include a transition of the first type from the lost-link mode to a combination of lateral flight mode and vertical flight mode when the datalink is recovered,... (Singh: Paragraph [0054])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the flight modes of Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, with the heading modes of Singh for the benefit of efficient emergency path planning can be done in the event of a communication failure. (Singh: Paragraph [0001])
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, even further in view of McClure, and yet even further in view of Singh, does not teach
...and an approach mode,...
...and a transition of the second type from the lost-link mode to the approach mode when the UAV reaches an initial approach fix while still in the lost-link mode.
However in the same field of endeavor, Coulmeau teaches
...and an approach mode,... (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0093]-[0095], [0099])
...and a transition of the second type from the lost-link mode to the approach mode when the UAV reaches an initial approach fix while still in the lost-link mode. (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0092]-[0096], [0099]; The UAV is equipped with an “On Approach” mode which triggers during a communication failure. The UAV attempts an initial approach and in the event of a missed approach, carries out a sequence of tasks in order to attempt the approach again.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and lost-link mode of Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, even further in view of McClure, and yet even further in view of Singh, with the approach mode of Coulmeau for the benefit of automatically or semi-automatically taking account of procedures to be applied in emergency situations in a flight management system. (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0004])
Regarding Claim 25, the claim is analogous to Claim 10 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 10.
Claims 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 19, 22-23, and 26-28, above, and yet even further in view of in view of Coulmeau (US 20070129855, already of record).
Regarding Claim 15,
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, teaches
The apparatus of claim 11,…
Arnold, in view of Cruz, further in view of Haider, and even further in view of McClure, does not teach
…wherein the guidance modes further include a lost-link mode, an approach mode and a landing mode, the lost-link mode engaged responsive to a lost-link event in which a datalink between the UAV and the control station is interrupted or lost, and
wherein the defined transitions include transitions of the third type from the approach mode and the landing mode to a combination of lateral flight mode and vertical flight mode responsive to a missed approach, and from the approach mode and the landing mode to the lost-link mode responsive to the missed approach during the lost-link event.
However in the same field of endeavor, Coulmeau teaches
…wherein the guidance modes further include a lost-link mode, an approach mode and a landing mode, the lost-link mode engaged responsive to a lost-link event in which a datalink between the UAV and the control station is interrupted or lost, and (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0093]-[0096], [0099])
wherein the defined transitions include transitions of the third type from the approach mode and the landing mode to a combination of lateral flight mode and vertical flight mode responsive to a missed approach, (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0093]-[0096], [0099]) and from the approach mode and the landing mode to the lost-link mode responsive to the missed approach during the lost-link event. (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0093]-[0096], [0099])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus Haider, in view of McClure, Haider, in view of McClure, further in view of Thiele, even further in view of Bianchi, with the lost-link dependent approach mode of Coulmeau for the benefit of automatically or semi-automatically taking account of procedures to be applied in emergency situations in a flight management system. (Coulmeau: Paragraph [0004])
Regarding Claim 30, the claim is analogous to Claim 15 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663