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 . Claims 7-10 were previously pending. Claim 7 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 7-10 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/8/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “when there is an interference space where the first flight route and the second flight route intersect each other between a first flight route of a first mobile body and a second flight route of a second mobile body” but should instead recite --when there is an interference space where [[the]] a first flight route and [[the]] a second flight route intersect each other between [[a]] the first flight route of a first mobile body and [[a]] the second flight route of a second mobile body--.
Claim 7 recites “a next flight route” in two instances, but the second instance should recite –[[a]] the next flight route--.
Claim 10 recites “the first sensor” but should instead recite --[[the]] a first sensor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mobile body control device” and “ground monitoring apparatus” in claims 7-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “mobile body control device” and “ground monitoring apparatus” all use a generic placeholder “device” or “apparatus” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Mobile body control device: [0024] “The mobile body control device 20 is a device that controls the flight of a mobile body. The mobile body control device 20 is basically provided on board the mobile body. The mobile body control device 20 may also be installed on the ground and operate remotely, or the mobile body control device 20 installed in one mobile body may control other mobile bodies that are present nearby, for example. The mobile body control device 20 may have a redundant (duplex) configuration to ensure safety and availability. In other words, a backup system is built by providing the same device such as a computer for monitoring and control, redundantly to the mobile body control device 20, or by providing the same device in another mobile body control device 20, for example.”
Ground monitoring apparatus: [0016] “The ground monitoring device 10 is a device that is installed on the ground, and that monitors and controls takeoff and landing of a plurality of mobile bodies. The ground monitoring device 10 may be implemented by a server, for example. One ground monitoring device 10 may monitor all the mobile bodies, or may monitor only the mobile bodies flying within a predetermined area. The predetermined area herein is, for example, an area required for monitoring and controlling the takeoff and landing of the mobile bodies with respect to the target skyport.”
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eyhorn (US 2020/0242949 A1) in view of Priest (US 2018/0086483 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Eyhorn discloses a mobile body control system (see at least Figs. 1, 3A, [0108] – system 100) comprising: a ground monitoring apparatus that monitors and controls takeoff and landing of a plurality of mobile bodies capable of vertical takeoff and landing (see at least Figs. 1, 2A, [0114, 0125] – the computing systems 102 host a drone control platform… the drone control platform 200 can control drone flights which include takeoff position and landing position); and a mobile body control device that is capable of communicating with the ground monitoring apparatus and is provided on board each mobile body (see at least Figs. 1, 3A, [0110-0111] – drones 104, 106 communicate with the computing systems 102… drones 104, 106 include flight controllers), wherein the mobile body control device controls a flight of each respective mobile body provided with the corresponding mobile body control device (see at least [0111] – drones 104, 106 include flight controllers to control the drone’s propulsion systems and control surfaces to execute flight plans), the ground monitoring apparatus allocates a respective flight route for each mobile body by which the respective mobile body makes a takeoff or landing (see at least Figs. 2A-2B, [0125] – the computing systems 102 host a drone control platform… the drone control platform 200 can control drone flights which include takeoff position, landing position, and one or more waypoints), and when there is an interference space where the first flight route and the second flight route intersect each other between a first flight route of a first mobile body and a second flight route of a second mobile body, the ground monitoring apparatus first permits a first reservation of the first flight route of the first mobile body with higher priority and notifies holding of the first reservation of the first flight route to the mobile body control device of the first mobile body, and at this time, the ground monitoring apparatus does not permit a second reservation of the second flight route of the second mobile body with lower priority (see at least Fig. 3A, [0155, 0201-0203] – a drone 106 may not be permitted to enter a drone approach corridor 300, 302, 303 until the drone requests an approach (e.g., ascent, descent) in the particular drone approach corridor 300, 302, 303, and the request is granted by the platform… For example, determining whether the drone approach corridor is available for the requesting drone to enter can include determining that another drone is not present in or scheduled to use the drone approach corridor. For example, the drone control platform may have previously granted permission for a first drone to enter the drone approach corridor and may receive a request to enter the same corridor from a second drone before receiving a notification that the first drone has exited the corridor. In such situations, the drone control platform can deny or delay granting access permission to the requesting drone. – specification paragraph [0020] says priority can be on a first-come-first-served basis), and after the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, the ground monitoring apparatus permits the second reservation of the second flight route to the second mobile body, and notifies holding of the second reservation to the mobile body control device of the second mobile body (see at least Fig. 3A, [0155-0158, 0201-0203] - For example, determining whether the drone approach corridor is available for the requesting drone to enter can include determining that another drone is not present in or scheduled to use the drone approach corridor. For example, the drone control platform may have previously granted permission for a first drone to enter the drone approach corridor and may receive a request to enter the same corridor from a second drone before receiving a notification that the first drone has exited the corridor. In such situations, the drone control platform can deny or delay granting access permission to the requesting drone.), and with respect to whether or not the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, the ground monitoring apparatus determines that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route (see at least Fig. 3A, [0201-0203, 0205] – If the response denies entry (708), the requesting drone does not have permission to enter the drone approach corridor. In some implementations, the response to the requesting drone's entry request can identify a holding pattern for the requesting drone to fly while awaiting permission to enter the drone approach.), (see at least Fig. 3A, [0201-0203, 0205-0206] – receiving a notification that the first drone has exited the corridor), wherein the first mobile body having moved out of the interference space remains in the first flight route, and wherein the ground monitoring apparatus, responsive to receiving the notification, releases the first reservation of the first flight route such that the first reservation becomes available for a next flight route that shares the interference space with the first flight route (see at least Fig. 3A, [0155-0158, 0201-0203, 0205-0206] - For example, determining whether the drone approach corridor is available for the requesting drone to enter can include determining that another drone is not present in or scheduled to use the drone approach corridor. For example, the drone control platform may have previously granted permission for a first drone to enter the drone approach corridor and may receive a request to enter the same corridor from a second drone before receiving a notification that the first drone has exited the corridor. In such situations, the drone control platform can deny or delay granting access permission to the requesting drone... If the response denies entry (708), the requesting drone does not have permission to enter the drone approach corridor. In some implementations, the response to the requesting drone's entry request can identify a holding pattern for the requesting drone to fly while awaiting permission to enter the drone approach.), wherein the ground monitoring apparatus, responsive to receiving information from the mobile body control device indicating that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space, releases the first reservation of the first flight route such that the first reservation becomes available for a next flight route that shares the interference space with the first flight route (see at least Fig. 3A, [0155-0158, 0201-0203, 0205-0206] - For example, determining whether the drone approach corridor is available for the requesting drone to enter can include determining that another drone is not present in or scheduled to use the drone approach corridor. For example, the drone control platform may have previously granted permission for a first drone to enter the drone approach corridor and may receive a request to enter the same corridor from a second drone before receiving a notification that the first drone has exited the corridor. In such situations, the drone control platform can deny or delay granting access permission to the requesting drone... If the response denies entry (708), the requesting drone does not have permission to enter the drone approach corridor. In some implementations, the response to the requesting drone's entry request can identify a holding pattern for the requesting drone to fly while awaiting permission to enter the drone approach.).
Eyhorn does not appear to explicitly disclose the ground monitoring apparatus determines that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, by the mobile body control device of the first mobile body detecting that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space using a sensor provided in the first mobile body.
Priest, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the ground monitoring apparatus determines that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space of the first flight route, by the mobile body control device of the first mobile body detecting that the first mobile body has moved out of the interference space using a sensor provided in the first mobile body (see at least [0089, 0094, 0096-0097, 0101-0102] – UAV air traffic control system 300 communicates with a plurality of UAVs, maintaining data associated with flight of each of the UAVs, maintained data including location information received and updated periodically… During takeoff, the UAV 50 is configured to communicate with the air traffic control system 300 for providing feedback from the UAV 50 to the air traffic control system 300. Here, the air traffic control system 300 can store and process the feedback to keep up to date with the current situation in airspace under control, for planning other flying lanes 700, etc. The feedback can include speed, altitude, heading, etc. as well as other pertinent data such as location (e.g., GPS, etc.), temperature, humidity, the wind, and any detected obstructions during takeoff.).
Eyhorn does disclose that the drone control platform can receive flight data from the drone, such as location data (e.g., GPS data) ([[0119]]) and that the drone can send appropriate notifications about the status of the corridor to the drone control platform ([0135]). Therefore, Eyhorn uses a sensor to determine current location of the drone, and also provides a notification to the drone control platform about the status of the corridor, but does not appear to explicitly link these by using the sensor for determining that the mobile body has moved out of the interference space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Priest into the invention of Eyhorn with a reasonable expectation of success. By receiving communications from the UAVs for continuous monitoring of relevant details of the UAVs such as location, altitude, speed, direction, function, etc., the servers providing the air traffic control can maintain the status of the plurality of UAVs in flight in order to ensure that a flying lane is open to prevent collisions (Priest – [0077, 0085]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to bridge this gap and send notification in response to sensor data indicating that the drone has left the interference space. Therefore, implementing this modification would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Eyhorn discloses wherein the ground monitoring apparatus determines whether the first flight route is available for the first reservation based on a request to hold the first reservation of the first flight route, the request being issued by the mobile body control device of a respective mobile body (see at least Fig. 3A, [0155, 0201-0203] – a drone 106 may not be permitted to enter a drone approach corridor 300, 302, 303 until the drone requests an approach (e.g., ascent, descent) in the particular drone approach corridor 300, 302, 303, and the request is granted by the platform… For example, determining whether the drone approach corridor is available for the requesting drone to enter can include determining that another drone is not present in or scheduled to use the drone approach corridor.).
Regarding claim 9, Eyhorn discloses wherein the ground monitoring apparatus controls the flights of the plurality of mobile bodies in a flight area in which there are a plurality of skyports where the plurality of mobile bodies make the takeoff or the landing (see at least Fig. 3A, [0125, 0146] – the drone control platform 200 can control drone flights which include takeoff position, landing position, and one or more waypoints… FIG. 3A depicts example drone approach corridors 300, 302, 303, 303 in accordance with implementations of the present disclosure. The drone approach corridors 300, 302, 303, 303 are provided as volumes of airspace extending from an area 304 above a target location (e.g., a ground-level location 306 or a rooftop location 308) to the target location 306, 308. In some examples, the area above the target locations 306, 308 may be a flight corridor (e.g., a drone highway).).
Regarding claim 10, Eyhorn discloses wherein each of the mobile body control devices has a function of detecting an obstacle around the respective mobile body, using a second sensor different from the first sensor (see at least [0087, 0089] - enable drones to descend to and ascend from geographic locations with reduced or no reliance on onboard sensors to detect and avoid obstacles – reduced reliance means there is still at least one onboard sensor to detect obstacles).
Priest, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein each of the mobile body control devices has a function of detecting an obstacle around the respective mobile body, using a second sensor different from the first sensor (see at least [0055] – The systems and methods can further direct UAVs to investigate, capture data, and provide such data for analysis to detect and identify obstructions for addition in the database. The systems and methods can make use of the vast data collection equipment on UAVs, such as cameras, radar, etc. to properly identify and classify obstructions.).
The motivation to combine Eyhorn and Priest is the same as in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim the prior art rejections of claims 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Tam (US 2020/0202729 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights