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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed October 2nd, 2025 with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments filed October 2nd, 2025 with respect to the Specification have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments filed October 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments filed October 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and6 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,224,302 B1 in view of Friedman WO2019/130280A2, hereinafter referred to as Young and Friedman, respectively.
As per Claims 1 and 6, Young discloses a method and system comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (see at least Col. 16, line 66);
at least one computing device associated with a ground control station (see at least Col. 9, lines 15-28, “ATC”),
the at least one computing device configured to:
determine a starting position for the UAV descent wherein determining the starting position comprises back-calculating flight plan waypoints based on a nominal descent rate of the UAV and the weather conditions, until a desired starting position is determined (see at least Col. 4, lines 24-42, Col. 9, lines 29-32 and Col., 11, lines 1-5, “The initial descent path may include a top of descent and a reference speed, the initial descent path in compliance with 1) an assigned required time of arrival (RTA) at a metering waypoint, 2) a four dimensional published arrival procedure, and 3) an optimized profile descent, controlling a flight control system and an autothrottle system onboard the aircraft via the FMC, receiving sensor data within a time control module operatively connected with the 4DFMS, the sensor data including position data, velocity data and altitude data associated with the aircraft, receiving weather information associated with the four dimensional published arrival procedure via the weather information module, determining a total time error (TTE) at the metering waypoint, the TTE based on the weather information, the assigned RTA at the metering waypoint, an estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the metering waypoint, a planned time of arrival (ETAW) at an active waypoint and an actual time of arrival (ATA) at the active waypoint.” Examiner notes that TOD is the computer point in a flight where the aircraft must begin its descent from its cruising altitude to a lower altitude.);
determine a flight pattern for landing the UAV based on the determined starting position for the UAV (see at least Col. 3, lines 7-32, “the FMC including a one processor configured for controlling a flight control system and an autothrottle system associated with control of the aircraft, the FMC further configured for generating an initial descent path for the aircraft, the initial descent path including a top of descent and a reference speed.”);
modify the determined flight pattern based on a change in the one or more local weather conditions and a current position of the UAV (Col. 10, lines 43-52, “during the first aircraft 210 descent between CREAN 220 and CINNY 222, an update 170 may be received to the weather information 166. Should the system 100 generate a trigger 152 based on this update 170, the system 100 may operate to adjust the reference flight profile and generate an updated command to the flight controls 120 and to the autoflight system 130 to ensure 95% compliance with both the assigned RTA at the metering waypoint 224 as well as in compliance with the published altitude and airspeed at the metering waypoint 224.”);
wherein the UAV is configured to receive a command signal from the at least one computing device on a constant basis during landing to follow the determined flight pattern, and wherein the UAV is configured to fly the modified flight pattern when the determined flight pattern is modified (Col. 9, lines 15-37, Col. 10, lines 43-52, Col. 12, lines 17-30, “Signal Flow…periodic replans”).
Young fails to explicitly disclose taking into account turn rate limitations. However, Friedman teaches the above limitation (see at least Page 5, “FO capabilities…..rate of turn”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Young and include flying object capabilities of Friedman with a reasonable expectation of success because it prevents the controller or UAV from being controlling in a manner that the FO is not capable of operating in.
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Friedman as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of McMann et al., Pub. No. US20150339930A1, hereinafter referred to as McMann.
As per Claims 2-3 and 7-8, Young fails to disclose at least one sensor wherein the at least one sensor is in communication with the at least one computing device and wherein the one or more local weather conditions comprise weather data from the at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor is a sonic detection and ranging (SODAR/LIDAR) sensor. However, McMann teaches the above limitation (see at least 0188, “Throughout this disclosure, ‘atmospheric data’ may refer to any environmental data related to the atmosphere, e.g., at some point of interest. By way of non-limiting example, the atmospheric data received and/or processed by the DATCM may include one or more of the following: temperature, moisture/water content, humidity, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, local EDR, wind shear, liquid water content, ozone concentration, pollution, and/or the like. Atmospheric data may comprise partial or full contents of forecasts (e.g., numerical weather forecast data), meteograms, atmospheric soundings, surface observations, radar pictures, meteorological charts (e.g., surface pressure charts), weather maps, numerical weather prediction maps, and/or the like. Atmospheric data may, in some embodiments, be obtained directly or indirectly from sensors (e.g., infrared radiometers, microwave radiometers, hygrometers, pitot-static systems, gyroscopes, thermometers, barometers, optical sensors, radar, lidar, sodar, ceilometers, spectrometers, weather balloons, water vapor sensors, and/or the like), as well as from pilot reports. Depending on the embodiment, instruments (e.g., sensors) for measuring the atmospheric data used by the DATCM may be positioned in/on the aircraft itself, may be located on earth (e.g., as part of a grounded weather station), and/or may be part of an extraneous system, such as a weather balloon, a satellite, or avionics on another aircraft/spacecraft, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Young and include SODAR and LIDAR as taught by McMann with a reasonable expectation of success because it yields the predictable result of allowing the determination of the flight plan for the UAV to be based on a more comprehensive set of weather data in order to increase the reliability and efficiency of the overall system.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Friedman as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Doeppner et al., Pub. No. US20100168939A1, hereinafter referred to as Doeppner.
As per Claims 4 and 9, Young discloses wherein the one or more local weather conditions comprise a wind speed and a wind speed gradient, a nominal descent rate and an altitude (see at least Col. 2, lines 1-5, Col. 3, lines 60-67, “wind velocity varies over altitudes…”, “wind vectors at a corresponding plurality of altitudes”, “rate of descent”, “altitudes”).
Young fails to disclose glide scope and turn rate. However, Doeppner teaches the limitation (see at least 0078-0079, “glide scope” and “rate of turn”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Young and include taking into account glide scopes and rate of turn as taught by Doeppner with a reasonable expectation of success because they yield the predictable result of improving the accuracy and reliability of navigating the UAV from its current destination to the target by including above mentioned two attributes of UAV.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Friedman as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Venkatraman et al., Pub. No. US20180061251A1, hereinafter referred to as Venkatraman.
As per Claims 5 and 10, Young fails to disclose wherein the current position of the UAV is based on global positioning system (GPS) receiver of the UAV in communication with the one or more pseudolites disposed proximate a land area. Young discloses receiving sensor data including position data, velocity data and altitude data associated with the aircraft (Col. 3, lines22-35).
Further, Venkatraman teaches the above limitation (see at least 0042, 0115, “pseudolites”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Young and include pseudolites as taught by Venkatraman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would yield predictable result of improving the accuracy and reliability of navigating the UAV from its current position to the target.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668