DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to amendment filed 2/4/2026.
Claims 1-34 have been canceled.
Claims 35-49 are new claims.
Claims 35-49 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Due to the amendment filed 2/4/2026, the objections of claims 1, 9, 19, and 20 have been withdrawn. New claim objections are presented below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Due to the amendment filed 2/4/2026, the rejection of claims 1-34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Due to the amendment filed 2/4/2026, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Due to the amendment filed 2/4/2026, the rejection of claims 1-14, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant has not provided any arguments specifically directed towards the rejections of the claims. A new secondary reference is applied in combination with Pereira to teach the new claims of the amendment filed 2/4/2026, as discussed in detail below.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claims 35 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 uses non-standard symbols, e.g., asterisks (*), dashes (-), and custom prime notations (c’, d’, e’). The use of these non-standard symbols impacts clarity and claim tracking during prosecution. The Applicant is advised to use standard legal sub-lettering or numbering schemes, e.g., (i), (ii), (iii), or (1), (2), (3).
Claim 35 recites depending on the updated data, generating and memorizing and updated graph (emphasis added) in step (c’). The limitation of “and” should instead recite “an.”
Claim 35 uses the word “and” to express a combination of elements in some of the lists, while failing to use a conjunction in other lists. Although lists that do not use a conjunction are interpreted as using the conjunction “and,” it is recommended to include the word “and” in these lists to maintain grammatical clarity throughout the claim. Specifically, the limitations nested under the limitation of receiving at the device do not include a conjunction, while the limitations nested under the limitation of aboard the device include the conjunction “and.”
Claim 35 recites the limitation of aboard the device, followed by nested steps (a) through (f). This limitation is floating outside of the structural steps and implies that the steps are performed passively rather than executed by the “device.” For proper claim structure, it is recommended to amend this limitation to instead read “executing, by at least one processor aboard the device, operations comprising:” for example.
Claim 35 recites the limitation of said received route priority information in the fifteenth line of claim 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, this limitation should instead recite “said received route priority data” in order to maintain consistent claim language between elements.
Claim 45 recites the limitation of A method to claim 35. This should instead recite “The method according to claim 35” similar to the other dependent claims, so as to achieve proper claim formatting.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 35-49 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.
Claim 35 recites the limitations of the nodes, the branches, and the distances in step (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, nodes, branches, and distances cannot be considered inherent features of a “graph,” given that the claimed graph is not limited to a network graph.
Claim 35 recites the limitation of the updated data in step (c’). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the scope of the “updated data” cannot be reasonably interpreted in light of the preceding elements of “updated model, route, priority or constraint data.”
Claim 35 recites the limitation of subdividing the model into individual elements only covering all volumes where flight is authorized in step (a). The use of the term “only” is restrictive while the term “all” is inclusive, and therefore, this limitation cannot be clearly interpreted. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the model must cover 100% of the authorized airspace and nothing else, or that modeling is only permitted within the volumes and not required to cover all volumes.
Claim 37 recites the limitation of said constraint data comprises a constraint vector affecting all branches, in particular a constraint vector based on wind strength and direction. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, it cannot be clearly determined if the “constraint vector” that is affecting all branches and the “constraint vector” that is based on wind strength and direction are the same or separate and distinct, due to the lack of antecedent basis. Under the assumption that the “constraint vector” limitations are intended to be the same, the phrase “affecting all branches” implies a uniform application of the constraint vector; however, the phrase “in particular a constraint vector based on wind strength and direction” implies application to a specific subset. It cannot be clearly determined if the “constraint vector” is intended to affect only some of the branches or affect all branches while some branches are affected more.
Claim 39 recites the limitation of step a) comprises subdividing the three-dimensional model into horizontal slices (Txy), the projection of the volumes onto a horizontal plane being the same throughout the thickness of each slice, and implementing a subdivision into individual elements in each horizontal plane, while claim 35, from which claim 39 depends, recites the limitation of data representing a three-dimensional model of volumes (PEXi) in which flight is authorized or prohibited and the limitation of a) subdividing the model into individual elements only covering all volumes where flight is authorized (PVk) (emphasis added). The limitation of claim 39 contains the following issues:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of the projection in the claim. Specifically, no preceding steps involving a projection of volumes have been claimed.
“Volumes” has been established as a feature of the “three-dimensional model” in claim 35; however, claim 39 recites “the projection” as being “of the volumes.” It cannot be clearly interpreted whether the “volumes” in claim 39 refer to the volumes of the “three-dimensional model” in claim 35 or the new sub-volumes created by the subdivision step.
A projection of volumes onto a horizontal (2D) plane is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as being flat; therefore, the limitation that defines “the projection of the volumes onto a horizontal plane being the same throughout the thickness of each slice” cannot be reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Step (a) of claim 35 is directed to “subdividing the model,” and claim 39 introduces an additional subdividing step in the limitation of implementing a subdivision into individual elements only covering all volumes where flight is authorized (PVk). One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine if the subdivision step of claim 39 is intended to occur after or be part of the step of “subdividing the model” of claim 35.
Claim 41 recites the limitation of step (d) comprises establishing branches of the graph between nodes located in adjacent horizontal planes by a distance minimization approach, while claim 35, from which claim 41 depends, recites c) generating and memorizing a three-dimensional graph, the nodes (Pk, Ik) of which are formed by at least one portion of said centers, and the branches of which are weighted by the distances between the nodes and by a weighing scheme associated with said received route priority information and d) determining and memorizing a path between the starting point and the destination point by a best path computation in said graph. The “branches of the graph” cannot be reasonably established in step (d), given that step (d) is defined in claim 35 as “determining…a path…in said graph.” As recited in step (c) of claim 35, the graph is generated with branches. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of running a best-path computation in step (d) if the branches do not already exist. Further, it cannot be reasonably determined if the “branches” of step (c) in claim 35 are intended to be the same or separate and distinct from the “branches” in claim 41, due to the antecedent basis issues discussed in the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Claim 42 recites the limitation of the graph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it cannot be reasonably determined if the “three-dimensional graph” of step (c) or the “updated graph” of step (c’) is being referenced. Additionally, claim 42 recites the limitation of steps c') and d') are performed only on part of the graph. While step (c’) recites “generating and memorizing an updated graph,” steps (c’) and (d’) do not involve any operations performed on a graph; therefore, further limiting these steps to be performed “only on part of the graph” cannot be reasonably interpreted.
Claim 47 recites the limitation of the step of dynamically determining a new path. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, there is no preceding step of “dynamically determining a new path” in the claims, and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determining what this limitation of claim 47 is referencing.
Claim 47 recites the limitation of the statuses (free, occupied) of said nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably interpret the limitation of “(free, occupied).” Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitations “free” and “occupied” are required limitations or merely optional examples.
Claims 36, 38, 40, 43-46, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 35 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 35-37, 41-44, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira (US 2014/0207365 A1), hereinafter Pereira, in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0265705 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Claim 35
Pereira discloses the claimed computer-implemented method for steering an unmanned aerial device in a three-dimensional constrained environment (see abstract, regarding the methods for determining a flight for a data-collecting aircraft, defined as unmanned in ¶0010, where controller 22 of data-collecting aircraft 10 uses autopilot for flying along a determined flight path, as described in ¶0020; ¶0035, regarding that the flight paths are three dimensional), comprising the following steps:
receiving at the device (see ¶0019, regarding controller 22 includes all of the computer program having an executable instruction set for determining a flight path for data-collecting aircraft 10):
data representing a three-dimensional model of volumes (PEXi) in which flight is authorized or prohibited (see ¶0022, regarding receiving a predetermined data-collecting area from a user or otherwise, e.g. area of interest 52 of terrain 50 depicted in Figure 2, where terrain 50 is defined as a 3D map over which data-collecting aircraft 10 may be flown in ¶0021),
route data including a starting point and destination point (see ¶0028, regarding that entry point 70 and exit point 72 are defined by a user before the determination of flight path 68),
constraint data (see ¶0033, regarding that a user provides flight preferences as a type of constraint for determining the flight path).
aboard the device (see ¶0019, regarding controller 22 includes all of the computer program having an executable instruction set for determining a flight path for data-collecting aircraft 10),
a) subdividing the model into individual elements only covering all volumes where flight is authorized (PVk) (see ¶0023-0025, with respect to Figure 3, regarding the area of interest 52 is subdivided into convex polygons 62 based on the field of view 32 of the data sensor 30 of the data-collecting aircraft 10 and environmental factors, such that zones 60 are subdivided so that thunderstorms and obstacles may be avoided);
b) determining a center (Pk) for each individual element (see ¶0027, with respect to Figure 4, regarding waypoints 64 are defined at the geometric center of each zone 60);
c) generating and memorizing a three-dimensional graph, the nodes (Pk, Ik) of which are formed by at least one portion of said centers (see ¶0027, regarding that secondary mesh 66 is created, where waypoints 64 represent “nodes” and are connected by dotted lines that represent “edges,” as depicted in Figure 4),
d) determining and memorizing a path between the starting point and the destination point by a best path computation in said graph (see ¶0028-0029, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that flight path 68 is determined from entry point 70 and exit point 72 by applying a shortest path algorithm to the set of waypoints 64);
e) steering the device using said memorized path (see ¶0020, regarding that controller 22 of data-collecting aircraft 10 uses autopilot to fly the determined flight path), and
f) upon reception by the device of updated model, route, priority or constraint data (see ¶0034, regarding that controller 22 may update a remainder of the current flight path 68 and any future flight paths 68 or runs in real time and/or the user may update the constraints, defined as determining suitable location for flight path waypoints in ¶0033):
c') depending on the updated data, generating and memorizing and updated graph (see ¶0027, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that secondary mesh 66 is created by waypoints 64, where user constraints on the waypoints may be updated, as described in ¶0034);
d') determining and memorizing an updated path (see ¶0033, regarding that the flight path is determined based on the user constraints, where user constraints are updated, as described in ¶0034), and
e') steering the device using said updated memorized path (see ¶ 0020, regarding that controller 22 of data-collecting aircraft 10 uses autopilot to fly the determined flight path, where the flight path and user constraints may be updated, as described in ¶0034).
While Pereira further discloses that the flight path is determined using a known shortest path algorithm (see ¶0029) and user defined flight preferences, e.g., preferring not to fly within a certain range of a mountain (see ¶0033), Pereira does not explicitly disclose that the “device” further receives route priority data, such that the branches of which are weighted by the distances between the nodes and by a weighing scheme associated with said received route priority information. However, the weighted branches of the graph do not influence any other steps in the claim; therefore, it would be reasonable to incorporate the known technique of weighing branches of a graph based on distances between the nodes and received route priority data, in light of Zhang.
Specifically, Zhang teaches a UAV (similar to the device of Pereira) that receives route priority data (see ¶0084, regarding that user input is provided to the UAV for dynamically determining when to enter or leave a mode, where the modes are used for achieving different objectives, as described in ¶0083-0084; ¶0092, regarding costs are assigned to a segment when closer to an unfavorable 2D coordinate, e.g., red category). Zhang further teaches that a grid of points within an airspace (similar to the three-dimensional graph of Pereira) includes points (similar to the nodes of Pereira) that are connected by branches of which are weighted by the distances between the points (see ¶0091, regarding that the UAV builds a cost function c(s, s’) by assigning numerical cost to a segment between any two points s and s’ based on the distance between endpoints of the segment; ¶0096, regarding that cost includes both horizontal and vertical components of distance) and by a weighing scheme associated with said received route priority information (see ¶0094, regarding that the cost assigned to each segment is adjusted to be related to a combination of the physical distance between the two points and the physical distance from the segment to the 2D coordinates in the red category, defined as representative of a risk of encountering obstacles that is low priority in ¶0092; ¶0083-0048, regarding that the flight path is determined based on different navigation modes including a safe mode where the flight path is limited to safe points and an exploring mode where the flight path is not so limited and can be flexible to achieve specific objectives).
Since the systems of Pereira and Zhang are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a flight path for an unmanned aerial device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of receiving at the device of Pereira to further include route priority data, such that the branches of which are weighted by the distances between the nodes and by a weighing scheme associated with said received route priority information, in the same manner that Zhang assigns a cost to each segment based on a physical distance between each point of a segment that is further adjusted based on a distance of the segment to a red category in light of the objectives associated with the selected mode, with the predictable result of determining flight paths that are sufficiently adaptive to changes of circumstances or tailored to properties of flying regions (¶0003 of Zhang).
Claim 36
Zhang further teaches that said route priority data is based on a priority selected from a group comprising an absolute distance priority, a travel time priority, an energy consumption priority, and a risk priority (see ¶0083, regarding that objectives in an “exploring” mode include flying a shortest distance). Only one of the limitations is required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Zhang is applied to the limitation of an absolute distance priority.
Claim 37
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Pereira has been applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pereira further discloses that said constraint data comprises a constraint vector affecting all branches, in particular a constraint vector based on wind strength and direction (see ¶0033, regarding that the constraints include the user flight preferences in addition to environmental factors including weather, as described in ¶0031).
Claim 41
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Pereira has been applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pereira further discloses that step (d) comprises establishing branches of the graph between nodes located in adjacent horizontal planes by a distance minimization approach (see ¶0029, regarding that shortest path algorithms are applied to determine flight path 68, where the visual representation of Figure 2 is a 3D map, as described in ¶0021).
Claim 42
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Pereira has been applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pereira further discloses that steps c') and d') are performed only on part of the graph (see ¶0027, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that secondary mesh 66 is created by waypoints 64, where user constraints on the waypoints may be updated, as described in ¶0034; ¶0033, regarding that the flight path is determined based on the user constraints).
Claim 43
Pereira further discloses that said data representing a three-dimensional model of volumes (PEXi) in which flight is authorized or prohibited comprise at least two among: flight space boundaries, prohibited altitude levels, fixed obstacle positions, moving zones of prohibited flight, a risk map, recharging zone positions (see ¶0022, regarding receiving a predetermined data-collecting area from a user that selects the bounds of the area of interest 52 of terrain 50 depicted in Figure 2, where terrain 50 is defined as a 3D map over which data-collecting aircraft 10 may be flown in ¶0021, and man-made objects 54, severe weather 56, and mountainous terrain 58 may also be obtained from the user, as described in ¶0022). Only two of the limitations are required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Pereira is applied to the limitations of “flight space boundaries,” “fixed obstacle positions,” and/or a “risk map.”
Claim 44
Pereira further discloses that the best path computation is performed according to an agility constraint of the device (see ¶0029, regarding the flight path 68 includes applying a shortest path algorithm to the set of waypoints 64; ¶0024, regarding that the area of the polygons 62 depends on the surveillance capabilities of the aircraft 10).
Claim 48
Pereira further discloses measuring a dynamic characteristic of the device during the flight (see ¶0034, regarding that controller 22 obtains real-time information from the data collection, defined as data regarding the environment during flight of data-collecting aircraft 10 in ¶0016-0017), executing steps c') to e') upon a change in said dynamic characteristic (see ¶0034, regarding that controller 22 updates the current flight path 68 with real-time information obtained from the data collection).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Zhang, and in further view of Taillibert et al. (translation of EP 1 835 370 A2), hereinafter Taillibert.
Claim 38
While the “constraint data” in Pereira may reasonably include risk data (see ¶0033, regarding that the constraints include the user flight preferences in addition to environmental factors including severe weather and mountainous terrain, as described in ¶0031), Pereira does not further disclose that said constraint data comprise maximum authorized speed data. However, it would be obvious to incorporate a maximum speed constraint in the constraints of Pereira, in light of Taillibert.
Specifically, Taillibert further teaches a similar method of constructing a graph that is subdivided into individual elements that include nodes connected by segments (or branches) (see ¶0016-0017, with respect to Figures 7 and 8, regarding a graph is materialized by a set of nodes 81 modeling each cell connected by line segments 84, where the graph is used to generate flight paths for a drone, as described in ¶0001), where each cell is assigned a potential according to the Euclidean distance separating it from surrounding cells (see ¶0023), which may additionally depend on maximum actual speed, i.e. a maximum authorized speed constraint (see ¶0035).
Since the systems of Pereira and Taillibert are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a path for an aerial vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the constraint data of Pereira to further include a maximum authorized speed constraint, in light of Taillibert, with the predictable result of further taking into account a minimum travel time required to go from one cell to another that influences the determination of an optimal trajectory (¶0035 of Taillibert).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Zhang, and in further view of Cleaver et al. (US 2019/0325756 A1), hereinafter Cleaver.
Claim 39
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Cleaver is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pereira does not further disclose that step a) comprises subdividing the three-dimensional model into horizontal slices (Txy), the projection of the volumes onto a horizontal plane being the same throughout the thickness of each slice, and implementing a subdivision into individual elements in each horizontal plane.
However, Cleaver teaches a similar method of constructing an intensity map (similar to the three-dimensional model taught by Pereira) (e.g., Figure 4a) by subdividing the intensity map into horizontal slices, the projection of voxels (similar to the volumes of Pereira) onto a horizontal plane being the same throughout the thickness of each slice (see ¶0051, with respect to Figure 3d, depicting voxels associated with an intensity map), and implementing a subdivision into individual elements in each horizontal plane (see ¶0072, with respect to Figures 4b and 4c, depicting subdivisions of “each” horizontal plane with respect to minimum safe altitude 41 and terrain data 23).
Since the systems of Pereira and Cleaver are directed to the same purpose, i.e. subdividing a 3D airspace for selecting a flight path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pereira, such that step a) comprises subdividing the three-dimensional model into horizontal slices (Txy), the projection of the volumes onto a horizontal plane being the same throughout the thickness of each slice, and implementing a subdivision into individual elements in each horizontal plane, in light of Cleaver, with the predictable result of using voxels (or volumes) to block a flight path from being directed under minimum safe altitude (¶0072 of Cleaver).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Zhang and Cleaver, and in further view of Pflimlin et al. (US 2014/0207367 A1), hereinafter Pflimlin.
Claim 40
While Pereira further discloses that the subdivision step is performed by “triangulation,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term (see ¶0023, regarding the zones 60 are defined by geometric shapes, such as polygons 62), Pereira does not explicitly disclose that the subdivision is performed by a Delaunay triangulation. However, Delaunay triangulation is known to be used for UAV path planning, in light of Pflimlin.
Specifically, Pflimlin teaches a similar method of determining a flight route for an unmanned aerial vehicle in 3D space (see abstract; ¶0004), using a Delaunay triangulation (see ¶0075).
Since the systems of Pereira and Pflimlin are directed to the same purpose, i.e. generating a route for an unmanned aerial vehicle in 3D space, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subdivision of Pereira to be performed by a Delaunay triangulation, in light of Pflimlin, with the predictable result of using a known algorithm used in defining beacon points (or way points) of a flight path (¶0075 of Pflimlin).
Claims 45-47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Zhang, and in further view of Klinger et al. (US 2017/0229025 A1), hereinafter Klinger.
Claim 45
Pereira does not further disclose that step e) or e') further comprises:
providing at least one trajectory relaxation factor,
determining an allowable device trajectory deviation as a function of the relaxation factor, and
applying a trajectory correction instruction to the device only when an actual measured trajectory deviation exceeds the allowable trajectory deviation.
However, Klinger teaches a similar unmanned aerial vehicle that follows a particular path (see abstract). Klinger further teaches applying at least one trajectory relaxation factor (see ¶0080-0081, regarding that the sensor unit 206 senses changes in environmental conditions), determining an allowable trajectory deviation as a function of the relaxation factor (see ¶0081-0082, regarding that a new threshold value for the unmanned vehicle 102 is determined based on the detected changes in the environment), and applying a trajectory correction instruction only when an actual measured trajectory deviation exceeds the allowable trajectory deviation (see ¶0073-0076, regarding the unmanned vehicle 102 is controlled to follow a new planned path in response to the deviation value being greater than the threshold value, indicating that the deviation is extensive).
Since the systems of Pereira and Klinger are directed to the same purpose, i.e. path planning for an unmanned aerial vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pereira, so as to further perform applying at least one trajectory relaxation factor, determining an allowable trajectory deviation as a function of the relaxation factor, and applying a trajectory correction instruction only when an actual measured trajectory deviation exceeds the allowable trajectory deviation, in light of Klinger, with the predictable result of executing a new planned path in case of extensive or major deviations (¶0015 of Klinger).
Claim 46
Klinger further teaches that the relaxation factor is determined from at least one among: current accuracy of a GPS unit installed on the device, wind information, response of the device to steering commands, device size, device type (see ¶0081, regarding the environmental condition including a change in wind speed). Only one of the limitations are required to be taught by prior art; therefore, Klinger is applied to the limitation of “wind information.”
Claim 47
Due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Pereira has been applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Pereira further discloses that the graph comprises nodes designating landing stations or zones (see Figure 4, depicting the nodes as pertaining to terrain 50). The nodes in Figure 4 of Pereira may reasonably include “landing zones.” No landing operations performed by the aerial device are claimed.
Pereira further discloses that the step of dynamically determining a new path takes into account the statuses (free, occupied) of said nodes designating landing stations or zones (see Figure 4, depicting the nodes as pertaining to terrain 50; ¶0034, regarding that the aircraft 10 may update a remainder of the current flight path 68 according to real-time information obtained). The real-time information obtained at the nodes in Figure 4 may reasonably teach “statuses.”
Claim 49
Pereira does not further disclose that said dynamic characteristic comprises at least one characteristic among on-board available energy and a behavioral anomaly of the device. However, it would be obvious to incorporate available energy and anomalies into the real-time information obtained in Pereira for updating the current flight path.
Specifically, Klinger teaches a similar unmanned aerial vehicle that follows a particular path (see abstract). Klinger further teaches re-routing the aerial vehicle when it is determined to be non-conforming, due to hardware and/or software faults (see ¶0091-0095), where the vehicle includes components such as a power source (see ¶0041), and the path is planned according to power consumption (see ¶0043); therefore, Pereira, as modified by Klinger, further teaches that said dynamic characteristic comprises at least one characteristic from on-board available energy and a behavioral anomaly.
Since the systems of Pereira and Klinger are directed to the same purpose, i.e. path planning for an unmanned aerial vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Pereira, such that said dynamic characteristic comprises at least one characteristic from on-board available energy and a behavioral anomaly, in light of Klinger, with the predictable result of re-routing the unmanned vehicle when unable to travel reliably along its planned path (¶0091 of Klinger).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Heck et al. (US 2018/0276485 A1) teaches determining a safe route between two locations in a geographic region based on a geographic risk map (see abstract) for a drone (see ¶0013) in accordance with a shortest estimated travel time (see ¶0072), and Dean et al. (US 2019/0146508 A1) teaches autonomously controlling an aerial vehicle along a travel route (see abstract; ¶0012) based on risk factors that include distance and travel time (see ¶0071).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights