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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 17th, 2025. Claims 19-29, 31, and 34-40 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed on June 17th, 2025, examiner maintains the previous 35 USC § 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that selecting one of 8 directions to evade an obstacle is not taught by the prior art, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner argues that Priest discloses a UAV capable of moving in six degrees of freedom (see at least [0211]; “The evasive maneuver instructions utilize six degrees of freedom in movement of the UAV,”) since the UAV is able to operate in six degrees of freedom in order to evade an obstacle, the UAV can move in a plurality of directions, these directions can comprise at least eight directions (up, right, left, down, up-right, up-left, down-right, down-left). Therefore, examiner asserts that although Nishimura only discloses a vehicle not capable of six degrees of freedom, it would be obvious to apply the evasion area of Nishimura to one of the 8 directions of the UAV described in Priest.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that the avoidance area cannot be defined in advance because it can change at any time based on the movement of the object in front of the vehicle. Examiner respectfully disagrees, if the obstacle is stationary the area would not be needing to change and can therefore be set in advance. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejection.
All of the remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19-22, 25-29, 31, 34, 35, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200354170 (hereinafter, “Priest,” previously of record) in view of Us-20170210382 (hereinafter, “Nishimura,” newly of record) and US-20210125507 (hereinafter, “Haider”).
Regarding claim 19 Priest discloses a central control server apparatus (see at least Fig. 14; and [0130-0131]; “Fig. 14 is a block diagram of functional components of a consolidated UAV air traffic control monitoring system 300A. The monitoring system 300A is similar to the UAV air traffic control system 300 described herein…the monitoring system 300A includes one or more consolidated servers 200A…the consolidated servers 200A can perform any of the air traffic control functions that the servers 200 can perform” the consolidated servers are equivalent to that of Applicant’s central control server) comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate with an aerial vehicle and a local control server provided in an aerial vehicle control system (see at least [0130]; “the one or more servers 200 are communicatively coupled to the networks 302, 304 in a similar manner as in the UAV air traffic control system 300 as well as the UAVs 50 communication with the servers 200. Additionally, the monitoring system 300A includes one or more consolidated servers 200A, which are communicatively coupled to the servers 200”);
a storage medium (see at least [0140]; “an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) air traffic control and monitoring system includes a network interface and one or more processors communicatively coupled to one another; and memory storing instructions”); and
a processor (see at least [0140]; “an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) air traffic control and monitoring system includes a network interface and one or more processors communicatively coupled to one another; and memory storing instructions”), configured to (see at least [0132]; “the consolidated servers 200A can perform any of the air traffic control functions that the servers 200 can perform” the consolidated servers are equivalent to that of Applicant’s central control server):
approve the aerial vehicle to enter an aerial vehicle operation zone (see at least [0119]; “During preflight, the UAV 50 is configured to communicate with the air traffic control system 300 for approvals (e.g., flight plan, destination, the flying lane 700, etc.) and notification thereof, for verification (e.g., weather delivery authorization, etc.) and the like. The key aspect of the communication during the preflight is for the air traffic control system 300 to become aware of the flying lane 700, to ensure it is open, and to approve the UAV 50 for takeoff,” approving the UAV for takeoff is equivalent to approving the aerial vehicle to enter an aerial vehicle operation zone);
control an operation in the aerial vehicle operation zone (see at least [0103]; “The servers 200 are configured to perform air traffic control functionality of the UAV air traffic control system 300. Specifically, the servers 200 are configured to perform separation assurance, navigation, traffic management, landing, and general control of the UAVs 50…the general control can also include automated flight of the UAVs 50 through the UAV air traffic control system 300, such as for autonomous UAVs”); and
control entry of the aerial vehicle into a take-off and landing facility (see at least [0122]; “As the destination is approached, the air traffic control system 300 can authorize/instruct the UAV 50 to begin the descent,” the authorization/instruction of an aerial vehicle to begin decent to a destination is equivalent to controlling entry of the aerial vehicle into a take-off and landing facility).
wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone comprises a supplementary operation zone set by expanding the aerial vehicle operation zone based on a location of an obstacle (Examiner Note: Applicant defines a supplementary operation zone as the following, [0081]; “Referring to FIG. 1C, in an embodiment of the present disclosure, an aerial vehicle operation zone may include a supplementary operation zone capable of expanding an operation zone either vertically or horizontally. For example, there may be an obstacle at a certain point or in a section of an aerial vehicle operation zone, thus a supplementary operation zone may be set to drive by evading the obstacle. As an example, a supplementary operation zone may be configured by expanding an operation zone in vertical direction. As another example, one of 8 directions from an operation path of an aerial vehicle may be set as a supplementary operation zone”) (see at least [0125]; “During the flight, either the UAV detects an obstacle 710 or the air traffic control system 300 is notified from another source of the obstacle 710 and alerts the UAV 50. Again, the UAVs 50 are flying at lower altitudes, and the obstacle 710 can be virtually anything that is temporary such as a crane, a vehicle, etc. or that is permanent such as a building, tree, etc. The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety,” the rerouted portion of the UAV path is based on where a fixed obstacle such as a building or a tree is located),
wherein the supplementary operation zone is adaptively configured based on a type of obstacle (see at least [0125]; “During the flight, either the UAV detects an obstacle 710 or the air traffic control system 300 is notified from another source of the obstacle 710 and alerts the UAV 50. Again, the UAVs 50 are flying at lower altitudes, and the obstacle 710 can be virtually anything that is temporary such as a crane, a vehicle, etc. or that is permanent such as a building, tree, etc. The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety,” the zone is configured based on the type of obstacle being permanent or temporary),
wherein the supplementary operation zone is set by expanding the aerial vehicle operation zone either vertically or horizontally when the obstacle is a fixed obstacle (see at least fig. 12, the zone is expanded vertically in view of the static obstacle 710”),
…selecting one of 8 directions as an optimal evasion zone (see at least [0211]; “The
evasive maneuver instructions utilize six degrees of freedom in movement of the UAV,” since the UAV is able to operate in six degrees of freedom in order to evade an obstacle, the UAV can move in a plurality of directions, these directions can comprise at least eight directions (up, right, left, down, up-right, up-left, down-right, down-left)
Priest does not disclose wherein the supplementary operation zone is set by selecting one…directions as an optimal evasion zone when the obstacle is a movable obstacle.
wherein the supplementary operation zone is predefined before the aerial vehicle is approved to enter the aerial vehicle operation zone
Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the supplementary operation zone is set by selecting one…directions as an optimal evasion zone when the obstacle is a movable obstacle (see at least [0066]; “Further, in the present assist system, when determining the avoidance route that enables the own vehicle 10 to avoid the forward obstacle A.sub.F, namely, the stationary object or the moving object, that is present in the driving lane of the own vehicle 10, the avoidance route is searched for within the driving lane only on one of the right side and the left side of the own vehicle 10. Thus, the processing load of the DSS-ECU 40 is considerably reduced in the present assist system, as compared with an arrangement in which the avoidance route is searched for over the entirety of the steerable range,” the plurality of directions corresponds to the right and left side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest with the plurality of evasive directions of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of effectively avoiding collision with a forward obstacle (see at least Nishimura; [0005]).
Haider, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the supplementary operation zone is predefined before the aerial vehicle is approved to enter the aerial vehicle operation zone (see at least [0080]; “the flight highway may be configured to include a “side of the highway shoulder” area, being an area on the side of a flight highway lane, whereby a UAV that needs to leave the flight highway for any reason (e.g., a malfunction, or any other reason) may be moved from a flight highway lane to the shoulder,” similar to a ground-vehicle road the highways include pre-defined shoulders for emergency use, which would correspond to Applicant’s supplementary operation zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura with the type specific lanes of Haider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving efficient travel of the UAVs along the flight highway (see at least Haider [0058]).
Regarding claim 20 Priest discloses a local control server apparatus (see at least Fig. 14; and [0130-0131]; “Fig. 14 is a block diagram of functional components of a consolidated UAV air traffic control monitoring system 300A. The monitoring system 300A is similar to the UAV air traffic control system 300 described herein…the monitoring system 300A includes one or more consolidated servers 200A…the consolidated servers 200A can perform any of the air traffic control functions that the servers 200 can perform” the individual servers 200 are equivalent to that of Applicant’s local control server) comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate with an aerial vehicle and a central control server provided in an aerial vehicle control system (see at least [0130]; “the one or more servers 200 are communicatively coupled to the networks 302, 304 in a similar manner as in the UAV air traffic control system 300 as well as the UAVs 50 communication with the servers 200. Additionally, the monitoring system 300A includes one or more consolidated servers 200A, which are communicatively coupled to the servers 200”);
a storage medium (see at least Fig. 4; data store 205 and memory 210); and
a processor (see at least fig. 4; processor 202), wherein the processor is configured to:
control take-off and landing of the aerial vehicle (see at least [0103]; “The servers 200 are configured to perform air traffic control functionality of the UAV air traffic control system 300. Specifically, the servers 200 are configured to perform separation assurance, navigation, traffic management, landing, and general control of the UAVs 50…the general control can also include automated flight of the UAVs 50 through the UAV air traffic control system 300, such as for autonomous UAVs,” servers are configured to autonomously control UAVs during take-off, flight, and landing);
control the aerial vehicle of entry into and exit from an aerial vehicle operation zone (see at least [0103]; “The servers 200 are configured to perform air traffic control functionality of the UAV air traffic control system 300. Specifically, the servers 200 are configured to perform separation assurance, navigation, traffic management, landing, and general control of the UAVs 50…the general control can also include automated flight of the UAVs 50 through the UAV air traffic control system 300, such as for autonomous UAVs,” servers are configured to autonomously control UAVs during all phases of flight this would include entrance and exit into an aerial vehicle operation zone);
control entry of the aerial vehicle into a take-off and landing facility (see at least [0122]; “As the destination is approached, the air traffic control system 300 can authorize/instruct the UAV 50 to begin the descent,” the instruction and control of an aerial vehicle to begin decent to a destination is equivalent to controlling entry of the aerial vehicle into a take-off and landing facility); and
manage the aerial vehicle in the take-off and landing facility (see at least [0116]; “the air traffic control system 300 can be configured to provide landing authorization and management in addition to the aforementioned air traffic control functions and package delivery authorization and management…the air traffic control system 300 can control and approve the landing,” approving take-off and landing of an aerial vehicle corresponds to management of the aerial vehicle within the take-off and landing facility).
wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone comprises a supplementary operation zone set by expanding the aerial vehicle operation zone horizontally or vertically based on a location of a fixed or a movable obstacle (Examiner Note: Applicant defines a supplementary operation zone as the following, [0081]; “Referring to FIG. 1C, in an embodiment of the present disclosure, an aerial vehicle operation zone may include a supplementary operation zone capable of expanding an operation zone either vertically or horizontally. For example, there may be an obstacle at a certain point or in a section of an aerial vehicle operation zone, thus a supplementary operation zone may be set to drive by evading the obstacle. As an example, a supplementary operation zone may be configured by expanding an operation zone in vertical direction. As another example, one of 8 directions from an operation path of an aerial vehicle may be set as a supplementary operation zone”) (see at least [0125]; “During the flight, either the UAV detects an obstacle 710 or the air traffic control system 300 is notified from another source of the obstacle 710 and alerts the UAV 50. Again, the UAVs 50 are flying at lower altitudes, and the obstacle 710 can be virtually anything that is temporary such as a crane, a vehicle, etc. or that is permanent such as a building, tree, etc. The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety,” the rerouted portion of the UAV path is based on where a fixed obstacle such as a building or a tree is located, it would be obvious that the rerouted portion would correspond to the lane extending upward, downward, to the right, or to the left)
…selecting one of 8 directions as an optimal evasion zone (see at least [0211]; “The
evasive maneuver instructions utilize six degrees of freedom in movement of the UAV,” since the UAV is able to operate in six degrees of freedom in order to evade an obstacle, the UAV can move in a plurality of directions, these directions can comprise at least eight directions (up, right, left, down, up-right, up-left, down-right, down-left).
Priest does not disclose wherein the supplementary operation zone is set by selecting one…directions as an optimal evasion zone when the obstacle is a movable obstacle.
wherein the supplementary operation zone is predefined before the aerial vehicle is approved to enter the aerial vehicle operation zone
Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the supplementary operation zone is set by selecting one…directions as an optimal evasion zone when the obstacle is a movable obstacle (see at least [0066]; “Further, in the present assist system, when determining the avoidance route that enables the own vehicle 10 to avoid the forward obstacle A.sub.F, namely, the stationary object or the moving object, that is present in the driving lane of the own vehicle 10, the avoidance route is searched for within the driving lane only on one of the right side and the left side of the own vehicle 10. Thus, the processing load of the DSS-ECU 40 is considerably reduced in the present assist system, as compared with an arrangement in which the avoidance route is searched for over the entirety of the steerable range,” the plurality of directions corresponds to the right and left side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest with the plurality of evasive directions of Nishimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of effectively avoiding collision with a forward obstacle (see at least Nishimura; [0005]).
Haider, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the supplementary operation zone is predefined before the aerial vehicle is approved to enter the aerial vehicle operation zone (see at least [0080]; “the flight highway may be configured to include a “side of the highway shoulder” area, being an area on the side of a flight highway lane, whereby a UAV that needs to leave the flight highway for any reason (e.g., a malfunction, or any other reason) may be moved from a flight highway lane to the shoulder,” similar to a ground-vehicle road the highways include pre-defined shoulders for emergency use, which would correspond to Applicant’s supplementary operation zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura with the type specific lanes of Haider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving efficient travel of the UAVs along the flight highway (see at least Haider [0058]).
Regarding claim 21 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is set based on a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated (see at least [0259]; “The flight plan can include instructing the UAV 50 to follow a road, street, or a highway at a particular altitude for a specific distance and then move to new coordinates once the distance is achieved. The UAV 50 maintaining flight along the road can be achieved by following a specific set of coordinates identifying the path over the road, street or highway and can also be achieved by using cameras to identify the road and to maintain flight above the road until the distance is achieved or until a set of coordinates, signifying the distance has been achieved, is reached…the flying lanes themselves can be defined and standardized in such a way as to be over a road, street, or highway” the flight plan, which comprises an aerial vehicle operation zone may be set based on the road).
Regarding claim 22 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is set at a predetermined height above a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated (see at least [0259]; “The flight plan can include instructing the UAV 50 to follow a road, street, or a highway at a particular altitude for a specific distance and then move to new coordinates once the distance is achieved”).
Regarding claim 25 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone includes a first operation zone and a second operation zone (see at least [220]; “The plurality of flying lanes can include lanes for entry and exit allowing the one or more UAVs to take off or land, lanes for the intermediate flight which are positioned adjacent to the lanes for entry and exit, and lanes for high speed at a higher altitude than the lanes for intermediate flight,” the intermediate flight lane corresponds to Applicant’s second operation zone, and the high-speed lane corresponds to Applicant’s first operation zone).
Regarding claim 26 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 25. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the first operation zone is managed as a course above the second operation zone (see at least [0220]; “The plurality of flying lanes can include lanes for entry and exit allowing the one or more UAVs to take off or land, lanes for the intermediate flight which are positioned adjacent to the lanes for entry and exit, and lanes for high speed at a higher altitude than the lanes for intermediate flight,” the intermediate flight lane corresponds to Applicant’s second operation zone, and the high-speed lane corresponds to Applicant’s first operation zone).
Regarding claim 27 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 25. Priest does not disclose wherein a first aerial vehicle moving in the first operation zone and a second aerial vehicle moving in the second operation zone are set according to a type of the first aerial vehicle and the second aerial vehicle.
Haider, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a first aerial vehicle moving in the first operation zone and a second aerial vehicle moving in the second operation zone are set according to a type of the first aerial vehicle and the second aerial vehicle (see at least [0056]; “The flight highway may incorporate multiple flight highway lanes at one or more layers. Each layer on the flight highway incorporates one or more lanes positioned at a specific distance from the ground level. One or more layers may be designated for travel of a particular type of UAV,” depending on the type of UAV it is assigned to a certain layer, which corresponds to Applicant’s operation zones).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura with the type specific lanes of Haider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving efficient travel of the UAVs along the flight highway (see at least Haider [0058]).
Regarding claim 28 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 25. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the first operation zone is set as a relatively higher zone than the second operation zone (see at least [0220]; “The plurality of flying lanes can include lanes for entry and exit allowing the one or more UAVs to take off or land, lanes for the intermediate flight which are positioned adjacent to the lanes for entry and exit, and lanes for high speed at a higher altitude than the lanes for intermediate flight,” the intermediate flight lane corresponds to Applicant’s second operation zone, and the high-speed lane corresponds to Applicant’s first operation zone).
Regarding claim 29 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the processor is further configured to…checking a speed of the aerial vehicle… (see at least Priest [0102]; “Using triangulation or other location identification techniques (GPS, GLONASS, etc.), the location, altitude speed, and direction or each UAV 50 can be continuously monitored and reports back to the servers 200”).
Priest does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to control the operation of the aerial vehicle by…setting, based on the checked speed, the aerial vehicle operation zone in which the aerial vehicle is to be operated.
Haider, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to control the operation of the aerial vehicle by…setting, based on the checked speed, the aerial vehicle operation zone in which the aerial vehicle is to be operated (see at least [0058]; “the owner of a UAV may request that a UAV be allowed to travel at a faster speed, such as if an emergency occurs or some other reason occurs mid-flight, and this may require the UAV to be moved to a lane and/or layer that moves at a faster speed,” and [0119]; “Specific lanes in the flight highway, at a single layer or multiple layers, or lanes or portions of lanes, of the flight highway, may be for particular types of travel of UAVs, such as travel in a particular direction, travel at a particular speed, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura with the speed specific lanes of Haider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving efficient travel of the UAVs along the flight highway (see at least Haider [0058]).
Regarding claim 31 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein a location of the supplementary operation zone, a size of the supplementary operation zone, or a shape of the supplementary operation zone is adaptively set based on a type of obstacle (see at least [0125]; “During the flight, either the UAV detects an obstacle 710 or the air traffic control system 300 is notified from another source of the obstacle 710 and alerts the UAV 50. Again, the UAVs 50 are flying at lower altitudes, and the obstacle 710 can be virtually anything that is temporary such as a crane, a vehicle, etc. or that is permanent such as a building, tree, etc. The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety,” the rerouted portion of the lane is based at least in part on the type of obstacle).
Regarding claim 34 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is set based on a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated (see at least [0259]; “The flight plan can include instructing the UAV 50 to follow a road, street, or a highway at a particular altitude for a specific distance and then move to new coordinates once the distance is achieved. The UAV 50 maintaining flight along the road can be achieved by following a specific set of coordinates identifying the path over the road, street or highway and can also be achieved by using cameras to identify the road and to maintain flight above the road until the distance is achieved or until a set of coordinates, signifying the distance has been achieved, is reached…the flying lanes themselves can be defined and standardized in such a way as to be over a road, street, or highway” the flight plan, which comprises an aerial vehicle operation zone may be set based on the road).
Regarding claim 35 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is set at a predetermined height above a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated (see at least [0259]; “The flight plan can include instructing the UAV 50 to follow a road, street, or a highway at a particular altitude for a specific distance and then move to new coordinates once the distance is achieved”).
Regarding claim 38 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone includes a first operation zone and a second operation zone (see at least [220]; “The plurality of flying lanes can include lanes for entry and exit allowing the one or more UAVs to take off or land, lanes for the intermediate flight which are positioned adjacent to the lanes for entry and exit, and lanes for high speed at a higher altitude than the lanes for intermediate flight,” the intermediate flight lane corresponds to Applicant’s second operation zone, and the high-speed lane corresponds to Applicant’s first operation zone).
Regarding claim 39 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 25. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the first operation zone is set as a relatively higher zone than the second operation zone (see at least [0220]; “The plurality of flying lanes can include lanes for entry and exit allowing the one or more UAVs to take off or land, lanes for the intermediate flight which are positioned adjacent to the lanes for entry and exit, and lanes for high speed at a higher altitude than the lanes for intermediate flight,” the intermediate flight lane corresponds to Applicant’s second operation zone, and the high-speed lane corresponds to Applicant’s first operation zone).
Regarding claim 40 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 38. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the first operation zone is managed as a course above the second operation zone (see at least [0220]; “The plurality of flying lanes can include lanes for entry and exit allowing the one or more UAVs to take off or land, lanes for the intermediate flight which are positioned adjacent to the lanes for entry and exit, and lanes for high speed at a higher altitude than the lanes for intermediate flight,” the intermediate flight lane corresponds to Applicant’s second operation zone, and the high-speed lane corresponds to Applicant’s first operation zone).
Claim(s) 23, 24, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider, as applied to claims 19 and 20 above, and further in view of US-20200258400 (hereinafter, “Yuan”).
Regarding claim 23 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is set at a predetermined height (see at least [0259]; “The flight plan can include instructing the UAV 50 to follow a road, street, or a highway at a particular altitude for a specific distance and then move to new coordinates once the distance is achieved”).
Priest does not disclose wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is…above a neighboring zone of a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated.
Yuan, in the same field of endeavor teaches a ground-aware UAV flight planning system wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is…above a neighboring zone of a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated (see at least [0087]; “In some embodiments, the flight planner 315 maintains a buffer zone between the UAV's flight path 331 and roads. The flight planner 315 may generate flight paths 331 where a buffer zone is maintained between the flight path 331 and the road. In an embodiment, the cost function may output weights to keep the UAV from traveling too close to a road. It may be desired for a UAV to keep a certain distance from a road, such as 2 feet or 5 feet in terms of distance in the X-Y plane (not considering altitude). In an embodiment, a road buffer distance may be stored as a threshold value and may define the desired buffer distance for a UAV to keep from a road,” the area past the buffer zone would be considered the applicant’s neighboring zone of a road zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura and Haider with the buffer zone of Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of if the UAV encounters problems and falls to the ground, it would not interfere with the vehicles on the road (see at least Yuan [0058]).
Regarding claim 24 Priest in view of Nishimura, Haider and Yuan renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 23. Additionally, Yuan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the neighboring zone of the road zone is set as a zone that is a preset distance from the road zone (see at least [0087]; “In some embodiments, the flight planner 315 maintains a buffer zone between the UAV's flight path 331 and roads. The flight planner 315 may generate flight paths 331 where a buffer zone is maintained between the flight path 331 and the road. In an embodiment, the cost function may output weights to keep the UAV from traveling too close to a road. It may be desired for a UAV to keep a certain distance from a road, such as 2 feet or 5 feet in terms of distance in the X-Y plane (not considering altitude). In an embodiment, a road buffer distance may be stored as a threshold value and may define the desired buffer distance for a UAV to keep from a road,” the buffer zone corresponds to the applicants preset distance zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura and Haider with the buffer zone of Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of if the UAV encounters problems and falls to the ground, it would not interfere with the vehicles on the road (see at least Yuan [0058]).
Regarding claim 36 Priest in view of Nishimura and Haider renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 20. Additionally, Priest discloses wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is set at a predetermined height (see at least [0259]; “The flight plan can include instructing the UAV 50 to follow a road, street, or a highway at a particular altitude for a specific distance and then move to new coordinates once the distance is achieved”).
Priest does not disclose wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is…above a neighboring zone of a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated.
Yuan, in the same field of endeavor teaches a ground-aware UAV flight planning system wherein the aerial vehicle operation zone is…above a neighboring zone of a road zone in which a ground-based vehicle is operated (see at least [0087]; “In some embodiments, the flight planner 315 maintains a buffer zone between the UAV's flight path 331 and roads. The flight planner 315 may generate flight paths 331 where a buffer zone is maintained between the flight path 331 and the road. In an embodiment, the cost function may output weights to keep the UAV from traveling too close to a road. It may be desired for a UAV to keep a certain distance from a road, such as 2 feet or 5 feet in terms of distance in the X-Y plane (not considering altitude). In an embodiment, a road buffer distance may be stored as a threshold value and may define the desired buffer distance for a UAV to keep from a road,” the area past the buffer zone would be considered the applicant’s neighboring zone of a road zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura and Haider with the buffer zone of Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of if the UAV encounters problems and falls to the ground, it would not interfere with the vehicles on the road (see at least Yuan [0058]).
Regarding claim 37 Priest in view of Nishimura, Haider and Yuan renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 36. Additionally, Yuan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the neighboring zone of the road zone is set as a zone that is a preset distance from the road zone (see at least [0087]; “In some embodiments, the flight planner 315 maintains a buffer zone between the UAV's flight path 331 and roads. The flight planner 315 may generate flight paths 331 where a buffer zone is maintained between the flight path 331 and the road. In an embodiment, the cost function may output weights to keep the UAV from traveling too close to a road. It may be desired for a UAV to keep a certain distance from a road, such as 2 feet or 5 feet in terms of distance in the X-Y plane (not considering altitude). In an embodiment, a road buffer distance may be stored as a threshold value and may define the desired buffer distance for a UAV to keep from a road,” the buffer zone corresponds to the applicants preset distance zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the aerial vehicle system of Priest as modified by Nishimura and Haider with the buffer zone of Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of if the UAV encounters problems and falls to the ground, it would not interfere with the vehicles on the road (see at least Yuan [0058]).
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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666