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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on January 9, 2026 amends claims 1, 12-13 and 15 and adds claim 17. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 1, 2021 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The newly presented claims, which necessitate a new grounds of rejection, are taught by the combination of the previously cited references, as shown in the rejections that follow. Examiner notes that the clarifying amendments to the independent claims do not further limit the claimed language to overcome a teaching by the combination of Torii and Bleechmore. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 using the previously cited references.
With regard to claim 16, the Applicant had indicated, based on the claim status identifier, that the claim is currently amended. However, the Applicant did not make an amendment to claim 16. Therefore, the Applicant should make the appropriate amendment in Applicant’s next response to address the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as stated below.
Applicant, at page 9 of the Remarks, argues that Torii does not disclose to “compare the on-board trajectory or setpoint … with the remote trajectory or setpoint” and to “validate the on-board trajectory or setpoint ... or reject the on-board trajectory or setpoint ... based on a result of the comparison,” as recited in amended independent claim 1 and that amended independent claim 12 is limited to trajectory and does not recite a setpoint. In response, the Examiner notes that the specification equates trajectory with setpoint. See the specification (US 2023/0017102, Riedinger et al.), at [0007], which discloses that in some cases, the trajectory may be reduced to one or more setpoints such as speed, heading, altitude, thrust, slope, etc. and such setpoint(s) may constitute trajectory elements. Therefore, the combination of Torii and Bleechmore teaches trajectory or setpoint as recited in either independent claims 1 or 12.
Applicant, at page 10 of the Remarks, argues that “Torii is focused on precision via wind data sharing rather than any ground-side validation of a flight plan-derived on-board trajectory or setpoint.” As was previously indicated by the Examiner referring to the specification, the trajectory may be reduced to one or more setpoints which correspond to trajectory elements. Therefore, the flight control methods taught by Torii which pertain to at least one of movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV 10, based on wind direction, for example, corresponds to either setpoint and/or trajectory (see Torii at [0063], for example). Furthermore, Examiner directs the Applicant to Bleechmore at [0077] which discloses, among other things, that the on-board flight controller typically receives information such as a flight plan prior to flight beginning and follows the plan in an automated fashion and that the ground station can also update the flight plan or destination or altitude or send new target headings or way points.
Applicant, at page 10 of the Remarks, characterizes Bleechmore by arguing that: Bleechmore compares a user-requested throttle setting (from a remote controller) with an engine control unit (ECU) determined minimum permissible throttle under current conditions and rejects requests below that minimum, to avoid stall. Bleechmore at [0084]. This paradigm is not a comparison of two trajectories or setpoints, nor is it any validation of an on-board, flight-plan-based trajectory or setpoint by reference to a separately calculated remote trajectory or setpoint. Bleechmore fails to disclose the use of a trajectory or setpoint to follow a flight plan, thus Bleechmore has no connection to the claimed remote validation-by comparison of trajectories or setpoints. Repurposing Bleechmore' s throttle-limit comparison to supply the claimed trajectory comparison and validation would be an impermissible hindsight reconstruction because it conflates engine-limit enforcement with trajectory integrity verification or setpoint integrity verification.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Bleechmore. Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument related to the Examiner repurposing Bleechmore by conflating engine-limit enforcement with trajectory integrity verification or setpoint integrity verification is a characterization of the rejection on the merits. The Examiner showed a teaching based on what is disclosed in the prior art, based on the combination of Torii and Bleechmore. Examiner showed that Bleechmore, in an analogous art, teaches a remote controller used for adjustment of a throttle setting, which corresponds to a trajectory or setpoint element, as recited in the independent claims. Bleechmore discloses a minimum speed control setting, such as a minimum permissible throttle control setting, for the UAV engine under the operating conditions at the time associated with a flight plan or associated with an update of a flight plan (see Bleechmore at [0077] and at [0084]). Therefore, the Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s remarks.
Applicant, at page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that amended independent claim 12 requires a specific two-stage validation architecture: a comparison unit performs a first validation based on the deviation between on-board and remote trajectories, and then an instruction acquisition unit validates or rejects the on-board trajectory according to user instructions, with the result transmitted to the aircraft. More specifically, amended independent claim 12 recites that the comparison unit is configured to "perform a first validation of the on-board trajectory ... based on a result of the comparison" and to "transmit the first validation to an instruction acquisition unit," and that the instruction acquisition unit is configured to "validate or reject the on-board trajectory validated by the comparison unit according to instructions from a user" and to "transmit the result of the validation to the at least one on-board device." The Office Action asserts Torii for general server-UAV control and microprocessor functionality, and on Bleechmore for "comparing two settings," but neither reference discloses or suggests this staged validation flow or the handoff of a "first validation" to a user instruction acquisition unit for final validation or rejection of an on-board trajectory. Torii's position/threshold processing is not a first validation of a trajectory against another trajectory. Bleechmore's ECU decision is a final engine-limit check without any subsequent user-validated confirmation of a trajectory.
While the Applicant attempts to distinguish amended claim 12 from amended claim 1, the Examiner notes that the amendment to claim 12 is similar to the amendment to claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner directs the Applicant to Examiner’s response to claim 1 above. Given the recitation of generic modules or units, Examiner believes that there is nothing that is staged regarding the steps recited in system of claim 12. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument that claim 12 presents ”staged validation flow” corresponds to a characterization of the claims. Absent any recitation of a staged validation flow in independent claim 12, the Examiner has shown a teaching based on the cited references, separately, or in combination, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is disclosed in the specification. Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 13 and 15 the words “and remote trajectory” should be changed to “and the remote trajectory”.
The foregoing changes are required to correct antecedent basis issues.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 16 recites “The method of claim 1, …”. There is an antecedent basis issue which needs correction because claim 1 recites a system instead of a method. It is unclear whether claim 16 should recite “The system of claim 1, …” or “The method of claim 8, …”. For the sake of examination purposes, the Examiner will assume that “the previously calculated on-board trajectory or setpoint” was meant to recite “The system of claim 1.
Appropriate amendments are required to address the above-identified issues. No new matter should be added for any amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al. (US 2020/0241571) in view of Bleechmore et al. (US 2020/0063669).
Regarding claim 1, Torii teaches an electronic system for controlling an unmanned aircraft, the system comprising: - a remote device for managing the flight of the unmanned aircraft, adapted to communicate remotely with the unmanned aircraft and comprising: (see Torii at [0134] in conjunction with Fig. 8 which discloses an overall configuration of the UAV control system and that the UAV control system 1 includes a plurality of UAVs 10 and a server 20. Examiner maps the UAV control system to the electronic system. Examiner maps the server to the recited remote device for managing the flight of an aircraft. Examiner maps a UAV of the UAVs to the unmanned aircraft.)
- a remote acquisition module for acquiring flight plan data, and - a remote calculation module for calculating a remote trajectory or setpoint according to the flight plan data acquired by the remote acquisition module; (see Torii at [0011] which discloses that in one aspect of the present invention, the wind information includes information about a wind direction, and the flight control means controls the flight of the first UAV based on the wind direction indicated by the wind information and a direction between a position indicated by the first position information and a position indicated by the second position information; see Torii at [0036] in conjunction with Fig. 2 which discloses that the data storage unit 100 stores data necessary for flight control of the UAV 10; see Torii at [0037] which discloses that the UAV 10 may fly automatically based on a predetermined flight route and that the data storage unit 100 may store data related to the flight route; see Torii at [0051] which discloses that the sending unit 103 is implemented mainly by the control unit 11, that the sending unit 103 sends wind information to external devices, and that the external devices include, for example, other UAVs and a server computer. Examiner maps data related to the flight route, such as wind information, to flight plan data. Torii at [0135] further discloses that the server 20 is a server computer and includes a control unit 21, a storage unit 22, and a communication unit 23 and that the hardware configurations of the control unit 21, the storage unit 22, and the communication unit 23 are the same as the hardware configurations of the control unit 11, the storage unit 12, and the communication unit 13, and thus descriptions thereof are omitted here. Torii at [0140] further discloses that the functions described above may be implemented in any of the computers in the UAV control system 1, and may be shared among the UAVs 10 and the server 20. Thus, Examiner notes that the functionalities of the storage unit and the control unit for the server may be the same as the functionalities of the components illustratively depicted for the UAV in Torii at Figs. 2-3. Examiner notes that the data storage unit 22 of the server 20 as depicted in Fig. 8 corresponds to the recited remote acquisition module, since the data storage unit stores or acquires data related to the flight route. Also, see Torii at [0063] which discloses that the flight control method is a method of controlling at least one of movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV 10, and that the movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV 10 are controllable by respective rotations of propellers of the UAV 10, and thus the flight control unit 104 controls the number of rotations and the direction of rotation of each propeller according to the flight control data; see Torii at [0064] which discloses that the flight control unit 104 controls flight of its UAV 10 based on the flight control method associated with the wind information and that the flight control unit 104 may change the flight control algorithm based on the wind information. Examiner notes that the control units (i.e., element 104 of Fig. 3 (UAV) as well as element 21 of Fig. 8 (server)) uses wind information (i.e., flight plan data) to control flight of the UAV. Examiner may map one of movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV to the recited trajectory or setpoint. Examiner maps a portion of the control unit 21 of the server 20 to the remote calculation module. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
and - at least one on-board device for managing the flight of the unmanned aircraft, carried on board the unmanned aircraft, the on-board device comprising: (see Torii at [0040] in conjunction with Fig. 3 which discloses that the first UAV is a UAV 10 to be controlled by a flight control unit 104. Examiner maps the flight control unit of the UAV to the at least one on-board device for managing the flight of the aircraft.)
- an on-board acquisition module for acquiring flight plan data, configured to acquire the flight plan data acquired by the remote acquisition module, and - an on-board calculation module for calculating an on-board trajectory or setpoint according to the flight plan data acquired by the on-board acquisition module; (see Torii at [0037] which discloses that the UAV 10 may fly automatically based on a predetermined flight route and that the data storage unit 100 may store data related to the flight route; Examiner maps the data storage unit of the UAV to the on-board module for acquiring flight plan data. Also see Torii at [0061] which discloses a flight control unit 104 that controls the flight of a UAV; see Torii at [0063] which discloses that the flight control method is a method of controlling at least one of movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV 10; see Torii at [0064] which discloses that the flight control unit 104 controls flight of its UAV 10 based on the flight control method associated with the wind information (i.e., mapped to flight plan data) and that the flight control unit 104 may change the flight control algorithm based on the wind information. Examiner noted that the control unit (element 104 of Fig. 3 (UAV) as well as element 21 of Fig. 8 (server)) uses wind information to control flight of the UAV. Examiner maps one of movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV to the recited trajectory or setpoint. Examiner maps the control unit 104 of the UAV to the on-board calculation module.)
wherein the remote device comprises a remote trajectory validation module configured to: - acquire from the at least one on-board device the on-board trajectory or setpoint calculated by the on-board calculation module according to the flight plan data and acquire the remote trajectory or setpoint calculated by the remote calculation module according to the flight plan data; and - transmit the result of the validation of the remote trajectory validation module to the at least one on-board device (see Torii at [0138] in conjunction with Fig. 8 which discloses that the flight control unit 104 may be implemented mainly by the control unit 21 of the server 20, that the flight control unit 104 obtains wind information from a certain UAV 10, and controls flight of another UAV 10 based on the obtained wind information, that the flight control unit 104 controls flight of a UAV 10 by sending the number of rotations of propellers to the UAV 10, for example, and that the UAV 10 changes the number of rotations of the propellers based on an instruction from the flight control unit 104 of the server 20. Examiner notes that the control unit 21 of the server 20 as depicted in Fig. 8, is analogous to the flight control unit 104 of a UAV 10, which corresponds to acquiring on-board and remote setpoints (i.e., velocity, direction, and attitude); see Torii at [0064] discloses that the flight control unit 104 controls flight of its UAV 10 based on the flight control method associated with the wind information and that the flight control unit 104 may change flight control algorithm based on the wind information, or change only a coefficient used in the flight control algorithm. Torii at [0135] further discloses that the server 20 is a server computer and includes a control unit 21, a storage unit 22, and a communication unit 23 and that the hardware configurations of the control unit 21, the storage unit 22, and the communication unit 23 are the same as the hardware configurations of the control unit 11, the storage unit 12, and the communication unit 13, and thus descriptions thereof are omitted here. Thus, Examiner notes that the functionalities of the storage unit and the control unit for the server are the same as that of the storage unit and the flight control unit of a UAV. In other words, the calculations performed at the remote server computer are the same as the calculations performed at the UAV. Examiner maps the flight control unit of a UAV to the at least one on-board device, such as the on-board calculation module. Examiner maps a portion of the control unit 21 of the server 20 to the remote trajectory validation module of the remote device. Torii at [0037] discloses that the UAV 10 compares position information of the UAV 10 detected by the GPS sensor 15A with the flight route; Torii at [0140] in conjunction with Fig. 8 discloses that the functions described above may be implemented in any of the computers in the UAV control system 1, and may be shared among the UAVs 10 and the server 20. Therefore, Examiner notes that an on-board trajectory may be acquired and/or validated at any one of the UAVs and/or the server. Therefore, acquisition of a calculated on-board trajectory or setpoint, such as a previously calculated on-board trajectory or setpoint may be obtained from the server or any one of the UAVs other than the UAV comprising the on-board calculation module that calculates the on-board trajectory.)
While Torii discloses a remote calculation module (see Torii at Fig. 8 element 21 (portion of control unit), an on-board calculation module (see Torii at Fig. 3 element 104 (flight control unit), on-board and remote trajectories and setpoints (see Torii at [0063] which discloses that the flight control method is a method of controlling at least one of movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV 10, and that the movement direction, movement velocity, and attitude of the UAV 10 are controllable by respective rotations of propellers of the UAV 10), and determines whether a trajectory or setpoint (i.e., direction, velocity, or attitude) should be changed or altered (i.e., by way of instructing the number of rotations of a UAV’s propellers) based on whether a wind threshold has been met), Torii does not expressly disclose - compare [the on-board trajectory or setpoint calculated by the on-board calculation module] with [the remote trajectory or setpoint calculated by the remote calculation module]; - validate [the on-board trajectory or setpoint]] or reject [the on-board trajectory or setpoint based on the remote trajectory or setpoint] based on a result of the comparison; which in a related art Bleechmore teaches (see Bleechmore at [0084] which discloses a flight request received by an on-board controller 122 and that the flight request comprises a throttle setting requested by the remote controller 121; While Torii teaches a remote calculation module (see Torii at Fig. 8 element 21 (portion of the control unit), the Examiner notes that Bleechmore also analogously teaches the remote calculation module since the Bleechmore’s remote controller 121 may be mapped to the remote calculation module. Bleechmore, at [0084], further discloses that the user issues a flight request by way of the remote controller 121 and that the flight request comprises a throttle setting request; Bleechmore, at [0084], further discloses that the ECU 14 determines a minimum permissible throttle setting corresponding to the current altitude or engine load. Examiner maps the ECU’s determination of the permissible throttle setting to the on-board trajectory or setpoint being calculated. While Torii teaches an on-board calculation module (see Torii at Fig 3, element 104), the Examiner notes that Bleechmore’s ECU may analogously be mapped to the on-board calculation module. The specification (Riedinger et al.), at [0007], discloses that in some cases, the trajectory may be reduced to one or more setpoints such as speed, heading, altitude, thrust, slope, etc. and such setpoint(s) may constitute trajectory elements. Thus. based on what is written in the specification, the Examiner can map throttle to thrust. Furthermore, the specification equates the term trajectory to setpoint when it states that the trajectory may be reduced to one or more setpoints. Bleechmore at [0084] further discloses that the ECU 14 compares the two settings (i.e., the throttle setting request and the ECU’s determination of the permissible throttle setting) and determines whether the load demand on the engine 12 requires a throttle setting less than the minimum permissible throttle setting. Examiner maps setting to either trajectory or setpoint. Examiner notes that comparing the two settings or trajectory elements and determining whether the load demand on the engine 12 requires a throttle setting less than the minimum permissible throttle setting corresponds to comparing and validating or rejecting the on-board throttle trajectory or setpoint based on the result of a comparison.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torii to compare the on-board trajectory or setpoint calculated by the on-board calculation module with the remote trajectory or setpoint calculated by the remote calculation module; validate the on-board trajectory or setpoint or reject the on-board trajectory or setpoint based on the remote trajectory or setpoint based on a result of the comparison, as taught by Bleechmore.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide a minimum permissible throttle setting for the UAV engine under the operating conditions at the time, as suggested by Bleechmore at [0084].
Regarding claim 3, the modified Torii teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the remote trajectory validation module comprises a comparison unit for comparing the on-board trajectory or setpoint and the remote trajectory or setpoint, the comparison unit being configured to verify the integrity of the on-board trajectory or setpoint by comparing a deviation between the on-board trajectory or setpoint and the remote trajectory or setpoint, and validating or rejecting the on-board trajectory or setpoint depending on the deviation of the on-board trajectory or setpoint from the remote trajectory or setpoint compared to a predefined threshold deviation value (as previously mentioned see Torii at [0057] which discloses that the sending unit 103 may not send wind information if a change in the wind information is less than a threshold value, and may send the wind information if a change in the wind information is equal to or more than the threshold value and that the change in the wind information is at least one of a change in wind speed and a change in wind direction and that the threshold value may be a fixed value or a variable value, in which the Examiner mapped a portion of the control unit of the server to the trajectory validation module and that the wind data is validated or rejected based on whether the wind information meets a threshold value; see Torii at [0031] which discloses that the control unit 11 includes, for example, at least one microprocessor; see Torii at [0135] which discloses that the hardware configurations of the control unit 21 of the server are the same as the hardware configurations of the control unit 11. Examiner maps change to deviation. Examiner maps one of the at least one microprocessor resident in the control unit of the server to the comparison unit. Alternatively, Bleechmore at [0084] discloses that an ECU 14 compares two settings and determines whether the load demand on the engine 12 requires a throttle setting less than the minimum permissible throttle setting. Examiner noted that determining whether the load demand on the engine 12 requires a throttle setting less than the minimum permissible throttle setting corresponds to validating or rejecting the on-board setpoint based on the result of the comparison.)
Regarding claim 4, the modified Torii teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the on-board device comprises a generation module configured to acquire the result of the validation of the remote trajectory validation module and to generate steering instructions, adapted to be interpreted by an autopilot, according to the result of the validation (see Torii at [0064] which discloses that the flight control unit 104 controls flight of its UAV 10 based on the flight control method associated with the wind information and that the flight control unit 104 may change flight control algorithm based on the wind information, or change only a coefficient used in the flight control algorithm; also see Torii at [0066] which discloses that the flight control algorithm includes an automatic flight algorithm for flying on a predetermined flight path and an attitude control algorithm for keeping the attitude of the UAV 10 in a predetermined range and that the automatic flight algorithm mainly controls the UAV 10's position, movement direction, and movement velocity, and the attitude control algorithm mainly controls the UAV 10's attitude. Also, see Torii at [0031] which discloses that the control unit 11 includes, for example, at least one microprocessor; see Torii at [0138], which discloses that the flight control unit 104 may be implemented mainly by the control unit 21 of the server 20, for example, and that the flight control method may be the same as the processing in the embodiment and variations described above, such as the flight control unit 104 controls flight of a UAV 10 by sending the number of rotations of propellers to the UAV 10, and that the UAV 10 changes the number of rotations of the propellers based on an instruction from the control unit of the server. Examiner maps an instruction from the control unit of the server that effectuates movement direction of the UAV caused by changes in the number of propeller rotations to the recited steering instructions. Examiner notes that an automatic flight algorithm that may be changed corresponds to an autopilot which may adapt to the result of the trajectory validation module. Examiner maps one of the at least one microprocessor to the generation module.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Torii teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the generation module is further configured to: - if the on-board trajectory or setpoint is validated by the remote trajectory validation module, generate steering instructions based on the validated on-board trajectory; and - if the on-board trajectory or setpoint is rejected by the remote trajectory validation module, generate control instructions depending on: - the last validated on-board trajectory or setpoint; or - an on-board contingency trajectory or setpoint; or - flight instructions transmitted directly from the remote flight management device (see Torii at [0057] which discloses that the sending unit 103 may not send wind information if a change in the wind information is less than a threshold value, and may send the wind information if a change in the wind information is equal to or more than the threshold value and that the change in the wind information is at least one of a change in wind speed and a change in wind direction and that the threshold value may be a fixed value or a variable value, in which the Examiner mapped the control unit of the server to the trajectory validation module and that the wind data is validated or rejected based on whether the wind information meets a threshold value; see Torii at [0064] which discloses that the flight control unit 104 controls flight of its UAV 10 based on the flight control method associated with the wind information and that the flight control unit 104 may change flight control algorithm based on the wind information, or change only a coefficient used in the flight control algorithm; also see Torii at [0066] which discloses that the flight control algorithm includes an automatic flight algorithm for flying on a predetermined flight path and an attitude control algorithm for keeping the attitude of the UAV 10 in a predetermined range and that the automatic flight algorithm mainly controls the UAV 10's position, movement direction, and movement velocity, and the attitude control algorithm mainly controls the UAV 10's attitude. Examiner notes that controlling flight of a UAV corresponds to generating steering instructions in order to do the controlling.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Torii teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein the system comprises at least three on-board devices for managing the flight of the unmanned aircraft, and wherein the system is configured to select a primary on-board device to generate the flight control instructions, the selection of the primary on-board device depending on the on-board trajectory or setpoint calculated by each of the on-board devices (see Torii at Fig. 2 which discloses a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, a communication unit 13, a capturing unit 14, and a sensor unit 15; Examiner notes that three of the foregoing units may correspond to the at least three on-board devices for managing the flight of an aircraft. See Torii at [0030] which discloses that the UAVs may have a hardware configuration that is different from the other UAVs; see Torii at [0064] which discloses that the flight control unit controls flight of its UAV 10 based on the flight control method associated with the wind information and that the flight control unit 104 may change flight control algorithm based on the wind information, or change only a coefficient used in the flight control algorithm. Examiner maps the flight control unit to the primary on-board device which generates the flight control instructions. Examiner notes that controlling flight by the flight control unit of a UAV corresponds to generating flight control instructions in order to do the controlling of the flight and that the flight control unit is selected in order to change the flight control algorithm based on whether the wind information meets a threshold or not.)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Torii teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least one complementary remote device for managing the flight of the unmanned aircraft, the complementary remote device comprising: - a complementary remote acquisition module, configured to acquire the flight plan data acquired by the remote acquisition module, and - a complementary remote calculation module for calculating a complementary remote trajectory or setpoint according to the flight plan data acquired by the complementary remote acquisition module, the flight plan data acquired by the on-board acquisition module being provided either by the remote acquisition module or by the complementary remote acquisition module (see Torii at [0140] which discloses that the functions described above may be implemented in any of the computers in the UAV control system 1, and may be shared among the UAVs 10 and the server 20. Examiner notes that any one of the UAVs may be mapped to the at least one complementary remote device for managing the flight of the unmanned aircraft. Examiner notes that the functions described in the server and/or UAVs may be implemented by the storage units or control units of either the server and/or UAVs. Thus, any one of the storage units of either the server and/or UAVs may be mapped to the recited complementary remote acquisition module. Likewise, any one of the control units of either the server and/or UAVs may be mapped to the recited complementary remote calculation module.)
Independent claim 8 recites a method that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 1. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps recited in the system of claim 8. Examiner notes that Torii at [0031] and at [0033] discloses that the control unit 11 executes processing in accordance with programs and data stored in the storage unit 12 and that UAV 10 may include a reader (e.g., memory card slot, optical disc drive) for reading a computer-readable information storage medium.)
Claim 10 recites a remote method that performs the steps recited in the system of claims 1 and 4. The cited portions of the prior art used in the rejections of claims 1 and 4 teach the corresponding limitations recited in the method of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as stated for claims 1 and 4 above.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions, which when executed by a processor, performs the steps recited in the system of claim 10. Examiner notes that Torii at [0031] and at [0033] discloses that the control unit 11 executes processing in accordance with programs and data stored in the storage unit 12 and that UAV 10 may include a reader (e.g., memory card slot, optical disc drive) for reading a computer-readable information storage medium.)
Independent claim 12 recites an electronic system for controlling an unmanned aircraft that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 1. The cited portions of the cited references used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps performed by the system of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as stated for claim 1 above. Furthermore, the modified Torii teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the remote trajectory validation module comprises a comparison unit (see Torii at [0031] which discloses that the control unit 11 includes, for example, at least one microprocessor; see Torii at [0135] which discloses that the hardware configurations of the control unit 21 of the server are the same as the hardware configurations of the control unit 11; see Torii at [0036] which discloses that the UAV 10 compares position information of the UAV 10 detected by the GPS sensor 15A with the flight route, and controls its flight so as to keep the difference between them less than a threshold value; see Torii at [0137] which discloses that the first position information obtaining unit 101 and the second position information obtaining unit 102 may be implemented mainly by the control unit 21 of the server 20. Also, see Torii at [0138], which discloses that the flight control unit 104 may be implemented mainly by the control unit 21 of the server 20, for example, and that the flight control method may be the same as the processing in the embodiment and variations described above, such as the flight control unit 104 controls flight of a UAV 10 by sending the number of rotations of propellers to the UAV 10, and that the UAV 10 changes the number of rotations of the propellers based on an instruction from the control unit of the server. Also, see Bleechmore at [0082] which discloses that in operating the UAV 100 remotely, the user 110 can issue operational commands/signals via the remote controller 121, including flight requests which demand certain engine operating conditions such as, for example, a particular engine speed or engine power. Examiner notes that position information is compared by the control unit of the server. Examiner maps the at least one microprocessor or a portion of the control unit of the server to the recited comparison unit. Examiner notes that changing the number of rotations of the propellers based on instructions from the flight control unit of the server, after a position information is compared, for example, corresponds to rejecting the on-board trajectory, while not changing the number of rotations of the propellers corresponds to at least validating the on-board trajectory. Also, see Torii at Fig. 2 element 13 (communication unit) which teaches the recited instruction acquisition unit. Examiner maps the instruction sent from the control unit of the server to transmit the first validation to the instruction acquisition unit. Examiner notes that the user’s issuance of operational command/signals corresponds to instructions from a user.)
Independent claim 17 recites a method for controlling an unmanned aircraft that performs the steps recited in the system of claim 1. The cited portions of the cited references used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the steps performed by the system of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as stated for claim 1 above.
Claims 2 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al. (US 2020/0241571) in view of Bleechmore et al. (US 2020/0063669) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0019189).
Regarding claim 2, while the modified Torii discloses validating or rejecting the on-board trajectory or setpoint (see Torii at [0057], [0064], and at [0072] and Bleechmore at [0082] and [0084], as was previously shown by the Examiner), the modified Torii does not expressly disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the remote trajectory validation module comprises a user instruction acquisition unit, the user instruction acquisition unit being configured to acquire instructions from a user [and to validate or reject the on-board trajectory or setpoint] according to the user instructions which in a related art, Chen teaches (see Chen at [0009] which discloses that an additional aspect of the disclosure is directed to a remote controller for controlling operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), said remote controller comprising: a user interface configured to receive user input from a user; see Chen at [0083] which discloses that another aspect of the disclosure is directed to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), said UAV comprising: one or more propulsion units configured to generate lift to effect flight of the UAV; one or more receivers configured to receive user input from a remote controller; and one or more processors configured to: 1) permit the UAV to fly completely based on the user input when the user input is received by the one or more receivers, and (2) permit the UAV to fly based on one or more autonomous flight instructions generated on-board the UAV or a combination of the user input and the one or more autonomous flight instructions, when one or more conditions are met. Chen at [0114] further discloses that a planned trajectory may be determined by the UAV itself (e.g., generated by processor(s) of the UAV), or determined by an external device (e.g., processor(s) of a server, etc.). Examiner maps the user interface to the user instruction acquisition unit.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torii to include wherein the validation module comprises a user instruction acquisition unit, the user instruction acquisition unit being configured to acquire instructions from the user, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to permit the UAV to fly completely based on the user input when the user input is received by the one or more receivers, as suggested by Chen at [0083].
Regarding claim 13, the modified Torii does not expressly disclose the system of claim 12, wherein each of the on-board trajectory and remote trajectory is in three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, which in a related art Chen teaches (see Chen at [0013] which discloses that in some embodiments, the planned trajectory is a three dimensional flight trajectory; see Chen at [0156] which disclose that the effective time of the flight trajectory is a predetermined period of time that the use sets to be associated with an autonomous flight; see Chen at [0156] which discloses that the shape of the flight trajectory can be three dimensional. Absent any definition in the specification regarding the term “temporal dimension”, the Examiner notes that the effective time of the flight trajectory corresponds to the recited temporal dimension. Examiner maps the three dimensional flight trajectory to both the on-board trajectory as well as the remote trajectory. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of what is disclosed in the specification.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torii to include wherein the trajectory is in three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to permit the UAV to fly waypoints that may include three dimensional coordinates for the UAV to fly through over an effective time of a flight trajectory, as suggested by Chen at [0155-0156].
Regarding claim 14, the modified Torii teaches the remote acquisition module (Examiner previously showed a teaching using Torii at Fig. 8, and noted that the data storage unit 22 of the server 20 as depicted in Fig. 8 corresponds to the recited remote acquisition module, since the data storage unit stores or acquires data related to the flight route. The modified Torii does not expressly disclose the system of claim 12, wherein the flight plan data [acquired by the remote acquisition module] comprises desired waypoints of the unmanned aircraft, which in a related art, Chen teaches (see Chen at [0160] which discloses that in some instances, an autonomous flight may be a flight to a predetermined location, an autonomous return of the UAV, an autonomous navigation along a planned trajectory or along one or more waypoints, autonomous flight to a point of interest.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torii to include wherein the flight plan data comprises desired waypoints of the unmanned aircraft, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to permit the UAV to fly waypoints that may include three dimensional coordinates for the UAV to fly through, as suggested by Chen at [0155].
Claims 15-16 recite a system that performs the steps recited in the system of claims 13-14. The cited portions of the cited references used in the rejections of claims 13-14 teach the steps performed by the systems of claim 15-16. Therefore, claims 15-16 are rejected under the same rationale as stated for claims 13-14 above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664