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 the applicant’s arguments
The applicant contends that the Rules of the Air is clear and definite.
The office does not agree. The Rules of the Air may change and is variable depending on the year and considerations. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a variable scope of the claim. The applicant should delete this and remove this limitation and cite to what rules they want in the claim.
The applicant also states in regard to the 103 rejection that no reference in the prior art provides “if the aerial vehicle is assigned to resolution advisory level and then providing a message to the remote operator including a first proposed viable avoidance trajectory”.
Townsend provides a “advisory” and has a sense and avoid system. In paragraph 50-59, it has “..the ASA system 200 may be configured to pass warning alerts and status to any ground operator or supervisor through an existing datalink (e.g., to a remote device 138 over network 136) on the UAV aircraft 100”. This is equivalent to the claimed “advisory level” in claim 1.
Townsend can also provide an avoidance trajectory for the first or the second vehicle from the server. When a threat (e.g., a potential collision threat or other obstacle) is detected, the ASA system 200 can issue trajectory commands to the onboard flight control system 120 of the aircraft 100, which may cause (instruct) the aircraft 100 to execute an avoidance trajectory (or flight path). The avoidance trajectory may be calculated in real-time based at least in part on sensor data from the sensors 110, ISR payload 140, etc. The ASA system 200 can also pass warning alerts and status information to any ground operator or supervisor via, for example, a remote device 138 at a ground control station (GCS) 230 through an existing datalink on the aircraft 100, such as network 136. More specifically, the obstacle detection circuit 202 may send obstacle alerts to the GCS 230, while the avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204 may send avoidance maneuver information to the GCS 230.
In paragraph 56, the plurality of obstacle sensors 226 may comprise, for example, cooperative obstacle sensors 226a to detect cooperative obstacle (e.g., another aircraft having a cooperative transmitter or transceiver) and/or non-cooperative obstacle sensors 226b to detect non-cooperative obstacle. The cooperative obstacle sensors 226a may be used to detect obstacles (e.g., other air traffic) using, for example, a radio-frequency transceiver configured to communicated using one or more of various protocols, including ADS-B, TCAS, TAS, etc. The non-cooperative obstacle sensors 226b may detect obstacles (e.g., other air traffic) using, for example, radar-based systems, electro-optical systems (e.g., LIDAR), infrared systems, acoustic systems, vision-based systems, etc. In some cases, the obstacle sensors 226 may assign a threat level (priority level) to one or more (or all) of possible obstacle threats, in other cases they may not; instead only providing location information for the other obstacles. For example, location information may include GPS coordinates or angle and distance. Obstacle information from the obstacle sensors 226 may also include velocity of the target obstacle and/or information on the type or identity of the obstacles (e.g., aircraft, tail number, bird, size, etc.). The type of sensors 110 used as the obstacle sensors 226 may depend on the type and size of aircraft 100 being considered and the operating environment of that aircraft 100.
The applicant states that this is not a “first proposed avoidance trajectory”.
However, this is believed to be present in that the server can provide an avoidance trajectory to each aircraft to avoid or to only one aircraft. Townsend expressly discloses “...The avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204 evaluates the obstacle threats reported by the obstacle detection circuit 202 and plans avoidance maneuver(s) to avoid conflicts or collisions. Figure 2c illustrates subtasks of an avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204. The avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit's 204 subtasks may include monitoring aircraft location and state 214, querying databases 216, calculating a trajectory 218, calculating an avoidance maneuver 220, and issuing commands 222 to the flight control system 120.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in FIG. 1c, the network and server communcates to move the aircraft shown and a second other aircraft 100. Therefore, the obstacle avoidance device moves and provides a proposed trajectory to resovle the conflict to both aircraft.
The applicant also has filed an IDS with a reference that is relevant and a new rejection is made herein based on the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 are rejected as being vague and indefinite as the ICAO Rules of the Air is variable and is indefinite. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite because: The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the height of the paper feeding unit in relation to a user of a specific height who is performing operations on the printer.... Claim 1 fails to specify, however, a positional relationship of the user and the printer to each other. Trademarks can immediately evoke specific product features, but incorporating trademarks in patent claims risk rendering the claims indefinite. The presence of a trademark or trade name in a patent claim is not, per se, improper under U.S. patent law (specifically 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph). But USPTO guidelines explain that using trademarks and trade names as limitations to identify or describe a particular material or product is improper; see M.P.E.P. 2173.05(u). Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655.
There are few court decisions providing examples of permissible uses of trademarks in claims. In a 2007 district court case, PolyVision Corp. v. Smart Technol. Inc. (501 F. Supp.2d 1042 (W.D. Mich. 2007)), the court held that using the trademark Windows™ did not render the claims indefinite. The court referred to guidance from the Federal Circuit that “claims are generally construed so as to sustain their validity,” and determined that the claims at issue could be construed as limited to Microsoft Windows Version 3.0, the most recent version of Windows™ software and the only example described in the specification. Still, the patentee was warned that Windows™ “includes a number of programs that were not known or released until after [the patent application was filed] . . . [and patentee] may not claim the benefit of those programs.” See also Galderma S.A. v. Medy-Tox, Inc. (PGR2019-00062), the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) commented on a patentee’s motion to amend the claims to include the trademark BOTOX®. Galderma filed a petition challenging the validity of Medy-Tox’s patent US 10,143,728, in part arguing insufficient written description support for the claimed “animal-free botulinum composition” exhibiting a “longer lasting effect.” During the trial proceeding, Medy-Tox filed a motion that sought to cancel the claims in favor of substitute claims adding BOTOX® to the independent claim. The PTAB issued a rare sua sponte order giving notice that using a trademark to identify a particular material or product provided potential grounds for finding the claims indefinite. The PTAB ultimately denied Medy-Tox’s motion to amend on grounds that the proposed substitute claims did not satisfy written description and enablement requirements. Here, the Rules may change and this may render the claims vague and indefinite.
The applicant also argues that no reference in the prior art provides two tracks that are independent from one another. The office does not agree and states that this is well known in the art.
The office cites to paragraph 150 to 165 where the first track is performed using the equations in paragraph 160 with a constant acceleration and the second track is performed independently using the equations in paragraph 165-169 using a terrestrial reference and an initial speed of the aircraft and see abstract where a warning is provided when the distance is less than a threshold for the two tracks.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of the primary reference to TOWNSEND with the teachings of LAVERNGNE to provide for two independent tracks and an alarm can be provided to warn the crew of a risk of collision. The two independent tracks can be determined by three sets of polynomial equations of estimates of states of the aircraft. This can provide an actual track and an avoidance track that is based on an uncertainty of the position. See paragraph 1-21 and claim 1-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by German Patent Pub. No,: DE102009045755A1 to Lenz cited by the applicant in an IDS.
In regard to claim 1, and 16, Lenz discloses “...1. (Currently amended) A method to navigate an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising the steps of: (see abstract and claims 1-12)
a) controlling a flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle by a remote operator; (see According to one exemplary embodiment, LFZ and LFZ guides can be a normal aircraft and its pilot, but also a UAV and its remote operator. )
b) obtaining a recognized air picture of an observation space surrounding the unmanned aerial vehicle, including tracking information with respect to aerial vehicles within the observation space; (see claims 1-12 where each aircraft can have a track and velocity and time slices of the tracking of the aircraft)
c) assigning one of a plurality of threat levels to each of the aerial vehicles, the threat levels comprising a resolution advisory level and an automatic avoidance level: (See claims 1-12 and By calculating conflicts based on possible directional changes and their corresponding trajectories, the present approach goes far beyond previous conflict avoidance systems. Not only does it allow the pilot to be aware of current conflicts that occur while maintaining the current flight state (ie heading and speed), but also points to possible conflicts that would occur in the event of course changes. This gives the pilot a more complete picture of the airspace and the maneuvering options actually available to him and thus can adapt his choice of flight maneuvers accordingly and recognize any conflicts in advance and avoid the associated change in direction. Overall, this increases security and improves conflict prevention capabilities.
According to a further embodiment, the issuing of information comprises: graphically representing the possible direction changes in which conflicts would occur with one of the other aircraft, preferably in conjunction with the graphical representation of temporal information about the time to the occurrence of a conflict.
The graphical representation of the aircraft driver is a particularly simple and intuitive detection of the information regarding possible conflicts possible. Other ways of representation, such as sound or audiovisual are also conceivable. Preferably, temporal information about the time until the occurrence of a conflict is also displayed graphically.
According to a further embodiment, the graphical representation comprises:
Representation of a circular arc, z. On the compass display of a Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) whose angle corresponds to that angle, within which are those possible changes of direction of one's own aircraft in which a conflict with another aircraft would occur.)
d) continuously automatically determining viable avoidance trajectories for the unmanned aerial vehicle; (claims 1-12)
e) if at least one of the aerial vehicles is assigned the resolution advisory level,
providing a message to the remote operator including a first proposed viable avoidance trajectory; (see claims 1-12 and It should also be noted that in the illustration according to 9 in the event that a conflict occurs for a particular change in direction, for example, in the interval 30 s to 60 s not only at the interval corresponding to this interval from the center of a circular arc segment is displayed with a corresponding change in direction, but rather also at the even further distant distances, which actually correspond to more lying in the future time intervals. This makes the "warning impression" all the stronger, the closer a conflict lies in the future, since its graphic display is "filled up" by the arc segments behind it, even if the conflict actually occurs earlier with the corresponding change of direction.
In addition to the described procedure, the determination of the conflicts and their representation can also take place in that, for predefined time intervals, those trajectories are determined for which in the respective time interval. Conflict occurs. This determination then results in a number of conflicting trajectories (directional information) for each time interval, which can then be represented as contiguous circular arc segments. In the representation, a representation then likewise results according to FIG 9 ,
10 shows a representation of the same situation as 9 , but with a north-facing ad (north-up). )
f) if at least one of the aerial vehicles is assigned the automatic avoidance level, providing control signals to an on-board flight controller of the unmanned aerial vehicle instructing the vehicle to follow a flight path corresponding to a second proposed viable avoidance trajectory; (see claims 1-12)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“...and wherein the first proposed viable avoidance trajectory and the second proposed viable avoidance trajectory are determined independently from each other”. (see claims 1-12 and abstract and the avoidance is made independent of each other and the determination of the trajectories is carried out according to an embodiment by a numerical integration of the estimated state of motion of the Lfz (own Lfz and foreign Lfz), taking into account the dynamics of the curve flight in the respective phases of their own maneuver. In this case, the state of movement (that is to say the position and optionally the direction and speed) of the own vehicle is already known (eg by corresponding sensors), but also the state of movement of the foreign vehicle can be determined from sensor data according to one exemplary embodiment. Alternatively, the foreign Lfz independently inform their own Lfz about their respective state of motion.
As in 3 recognizable the calculation of the trajectories in certain direction change intervals leads to a group of trajectories for the own Lfz. These are then checked for collisions with the trajectories of the foreign Lfz, it being assumed in accordance with an embodiment that they do not change their state of motion.
As in 3 recognizable, there is a conflict in the case of at least one trajectory. In the event that in the example of 3 a straight flight without change of direction, however, no conflict occurs.
Nevertheless, it is first described how, in the case of the occurrence of such a conflict, according to one exemplary embodiment, no change of direction (that is to say in the case of an acute conflict) is handled in the case.
If an acute conflict exists, ie if a conflict occurs, if no measures (change of direction) are taken, the question arises how much time remains to prevent the conflict. This available time period is also referred to here as the time budget. The last possible time to prevent a conflict generally lies clearly before the conflict itself. In order to determine the time budget, according to one exemplary embodiment, the assumption is made that a maximum maneuver, that is to say a defined course change at a fixed maximum angle, is avoided. The time budget results from the maximum delay time Td, which, given for the maneuver, results in a conflict-free trajectory. For the numerical determination of the time budget, a set of maximum maneuvers with variation of the parameter Td is calculated and the maximum Td, max for the latest evasive maneuver is determined. This is schematically in 4 shown.
1.) Kursänderung
2.) Rollwinkel
3.) Rollgeschwindigkeit
The maximum avoidance maneuver is, according to one embodiment, the maneuver with which an acute traffic conflict can be resolved at the latest time. When reacting in the form of a lateral maneuver, it can be uniquely determined by the following 3 parameters:
1.) Course change
2) roll angle
3.) Rolling speed
In the example off 4 If no conflict occurs in the first four evasive maneuvers to the right, a conflict does not occur until the fifth evasive maneuver to the right. For the evasive maneuvers to the left, however, only the first two are without conflict, already in the third occurs a conflict with the track of the foreign Lfz. Thus Td, max results as in 4 represented by the latest occurring conflict, the latest possible evasive maneuver is thus the fourth evasive maneuver to the right.).
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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP3640921A1 to Townsend et al. that was filed in 2018 (hereinafter “TOWNSEND”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190088146A1 to Lavergne that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “LAVERGNE”) and who is assigned to AIRBUS(tm)
PNG
media_image3.png
720
960
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Townsend discloses “...1. (Currently amended) A method to navigate an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising the steps of: (see FIG. 2a where the drone has an obstacle detection circuit 202 and an avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204 to a flight control system based on the cooperation 226 and the environment and terrain and airspace 224)
a) controlling a flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle by a remote operator; (see FIG. 2a where the drone can receive an operator and supervisor command to element GCS 230 and has an obstacle detection circuit 202 and an avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204 to a flight control system based on the cooperation 226 and the environment and terrain and airspace 224)
PNG
media_image4.png
778
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
b) obtaining a recognized air picture of an observation space surrounding the unmanned aerial vehicle, including tracking information with respect to aerial vehicles within the observation space; (see paragraph 43-48 and FIG. 3 where the device can generate obstacle information and monitor the aircraft location and then provide a default trajectory to avoid in blocks 302-324)
c) assigning one of a plurality of threat levels to each of the aerial vehicles, the threat levels comprising a resolution advisory level and an automatic avoidance level: (See paragraph 2, 4, 51-55 where a threat level can include possible obstacle threats and then others that can resolve with cooperation and then others that are automatically avoided in FIG. 3)
d) continuously automatically determining viable avoidance trajectories for the unmanned aerial vehicle; (see paragraph 2-7 and claims 1-9)
e) if at least one of the aerial vehicles is assigned the resolution advisory level,
providing a message to the remote operator including a first proposed viable avoidance trajectory; (see paragraph 51-59 and 60-68)
f) if at least one of the aerial vehicles is assigned the automatic avoidance level, providing control signals to an on-board flight controller of the unmanned aerial vehicle instructing the vehicle to follow a flight path corresponding to a second proposed viable avoidance trajectory; (see paragraph 72-77)”.
The primary reference is silent as to but LAVERGNE teaches “...and wherein the first proposed viable avoidance trajectory and the second proposed viable avoidance trajectory are determined independently from each other”. (see paragraph 150-165 where the first track is performed using the equations in paragraph 160 with a constant acceleration and the second track is performed independently using the equations in paragraph 165-169 using a terrestrial reference gram and an initial speed of the aircraft and see abstract where a warning is provided when the distance is less than a threshold for the two tracks).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of the primary reference to TOWNSEND with the teachings of LAVERNGNE to provide for two independent tracks and an alarm can be provided to warn the crew of a risk of collision. The two independent tracks can be determined by three sets of polynomial equations of estimates of states of the aircraft. This can provide an actual track and an avoidance track that is based on an uncertainty of the position. See paragraph 1-21 and claim 1-15.
2. (Canceled) |
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP3640921A1 to Townsend et al. that was filed in 2018 (hereinafter “TOWNSEND”) and in view of Lavergne.
PNG
media_image3.png
720
960
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Townsend discloses “...3. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the first proposed viable avoidance trajectory and the second proposed viable avoidance trajectory are continuously determined in parallel”. (See paragraph 77, 50-53).
Townsend discloses “...4. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein for determining the viable avoidance trajectories a set of candidate avoidance trajectories generated according to a predetermined pattern are assessed with respect to collision avoidance and additional properties. (See paragraph 77, 50-53).
Townsend discloses “... 5. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 4, wherein the set of candidate trajectories comprises trajectories starting at a current position and with a determined velocity including up to two changes of direction in a predetermined temporal offset and up to one change in altitude”. (see paragraph 41, and 39 and FIG. 3)
Townsend discloses “...6. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 4 wherein the additional properties include an avoidance of terrain. (see paragraph 53-57)
Townsend discloses “...7. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 6 wherein in a first step the candidate avoidance trajectories are assessed with respect to the avoidance of terrain, excluding candidate trajectories that are inferior with respect to the avoidance of terrain, and that in a subsequent second step remaining candidate trajectories are assessed with respect to collision avoidance with other aerial vehicles. (see claims 1-9)”.
Townsend discloses “... 8. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 6 wherein in the second step a compliance value is evaluated for each of the remaining candidate trajectories, the compliance value including a term depending from a minimum distance of the UAV navigated according to the respective candidate trajectory from the aerial vehicles in the observation space. (see paragraph 51-58 and 60-63 and 66)”.
Townsend discloses “... 9. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 4 wherein the additional properties include a first similarity of a respective of the candidate avoidance trajectories with a trajectory of the UAV commanded by the remote operator or a higher level logic, wherein candidate trajectories having a high first similarity are favored over candidate trajectories having a lower first similarity. (see paragraph 45, 77, 51-58 and 60-63 and 66)”.
Townsend discloses “...10. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 8 wherein the compliance value includes an additional term depending from the first similarity. (see paragraph 45, 77, 51-58 and 60-63 and 66)”.
Townsend discloses “... 11. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 4, wherein the additional properties include a second similarity of a respective of the candidate avoidance trajectories with a trajectory of the UAV according to present control signals provided to the flight controller, wherein candidate trajectories having
a high second similarity are favored over candidate trajectories having a lower second similarity”. (see paragraph 45, 77, 51-58 and 60-63 and 66)”.
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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP3640921A1 to Townsend et al. that was filed in 2018 (hereinafter “TOWNSEND”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190088146A1 to Lavergne that was filed in 2017.
Townsend is silent but Lavergne teaches “... 12. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 11, wherein in the second step a compliance value is evaluated for each of the remaining candidate trajectories , the compliance value having a term depending from a minimum distance of the UAV navigated according to the respective candidate trajectory from the UAV in the observation space and where the compliance value includes an additional term depending from the second similarity”. (See claims 1-14 and paragraph 81-121)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of TOWNSEND with the teachings of LAVERGNE with a reasonable expectation of success since LAVERGENE teaches that a first track and a second track of an object can be determined and compared to the aircraft based on the collision risk. If the object is too close a collision warning can be provided. The aircraft can then be provided with a different path from 16 to 26 for a collision avoidance and to preserve the safety of the aircraft and crew. See FIG. 2-3 and the abstract.
Townsend is silent but Lavergne teaches “... | 13. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the aerial vehicles in the observation space are classified according to a relative geometry of a respective track of the aerial vehicle and a flight path of the UAV. (see paragraph 81-129)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of TOWNSEND with the teachings of LAVERGNE with a reasonable expectation of success since LAVERGENE teaches that a first track and a second track of an object can be determined and compared to the aircraft based on the collision risk. If the object is too close a collision warning can be provided. The aircraft can then be provided with a different path from 16 to 26 for a collision avoidance and to preserve the safety of the aircraft and crew. See FIG. 2-3 and the abstract.
Townsend is silent but Lavergne teaches “...| 14. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 13, wherein for determining the viable avoidance trajectory a set of candidate avoidance trajectories are generated according ot a predetermined pattern is assessed with respect a collision avoidance and additional properties and wherein the additional properties include a compliance of a respective candidate trajectory with the international civil aviation organization ICAO Rules of the Air and Annex 2 to the convention on international civil aviation. (see paragraph 81-129)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of TOWNSEND with the teachings of LAVERGNE with a reasonable expectation of success since LAVERGENE teaches that a first track and a second track of an object can be determined and compared to the aircraft based on the collision risk. If the object is too close a collision warning can be provided. The aircraft can then be provided with a different path from 16 to 26 for a collision avoidance and to preserve the safety of the aircraft and crew. See FIG. 2-3 and the abstract.
Townsend is silent but Lavergne teaches “... 15. (Currently amended) The method of claim 14, wherein for the determination of the first proposed viable avoidance trajectory the additional properties include the compliance of a respective candidate trajectory with the ICAO Rules of the Air and in that for the determination of the second proposed viable avoidance trajectory the additional properties do not include the compliance of a respective candidate trajectory with the ICAO Rules of the Air.” (see paragraph 81-129 and claims 1-14 and the abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of TOWNSEND with the teachings of LAVERGNE with a reasonable expectation of success since LAVERGENE teaches that a first track and a second track of an object can be determined and compared to the aircraft based on the collision risk. If the object is too close a collision warning can be provided. The aircraft can then be provided with a different path from 16 to 26 for a collision avoidance and to preserve the safety of the aircraft and crew. See FIG. 2-3 and the abstract.
PNG
media_image3.png
720
960
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Townsend discloses “... 16. (Currently amended) An unmanned air vehicle {UAV}, comprising a communication interface adapted to receive reference values from a remote operator and to provide control signals based on the reference values; (see FIG. 2a where the drone can receive an operator and supervisor command to element GCS 230 and has an obstacle detection circuit 202 and an avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204 to a flight control system based on the cooperation 226 and the environment and terrain and airspace 224) b) a flight controller for controlling the flight path of the UAV, wherein the flight controller is adapted to receive the control signals and to control the flight path based on the received control signals: 5 (see FIG. 2a where the drone has an obstacle detection circuit 202 and an avoidance maneuver trajectory circuit 204 to a flight control system based on the cooperation 226 and the environment and terrain and airspace 224)
PNG
media_image5.png
794
1188
media_image5.png
Greyscale
c) environment sensors providing signals relating to an observation space surrounding the UAV; (see 7 sensors 142a, 142b and 412c and transceiver 132 and sensors 110 in FIG. 1 including microphone and lidar and camera)
PNG
media_image4.png
778
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
d) a first processor adapted to receive and process the signals provided by the environment sensors to obtain a recognized air picture of the observation space, including tracking information with respect to aerial vehicles within the observation space; (see paragraph 43-48 and FIG. 3 where the device can generate obstacle information and monitor the aircraft location and then provide a default trajectory to avoid in blocks 302-324)
e) a second processor adapted to assign one of a plurality of threat levels to each of the aerial vehicles, the threat levels comprising a resolution advisory level and an automatic avoidance level; and (see paragraph 43-48 and FIG. 3 where the device can generate obstacle information and monitor the aircraft location and then provide a default trajectory to avoid in blocks 302-324)
f) a third processor adapted to continuously automatically determine viable avoidance | trajectories for the UAV; and wherein the third processor is controlled to: - provide a message to the remote operator including a first proposed viable avoidance trajectory (See paragraph 2, 4, 51-55 where a threat level can include possible obstacle threats and then others that can resolve with cooperation and then others that are automatically avoided in FIG. 3)
if at least one of the aerial vehicles is assigned the resolution advisory level; and - provide control signals to the flight controller instructing the vehicle to follow a flight path corresponding to a second proposed viable avoidance trajectory, (see paragraph 51-59 and 60-68) if at least one of the aerial | vehicles is assigned the automatic avoidance level: and wherein the third processor is adapted to determine the first proposed viable avoidance trajectory and the second proposed viable avoidance trajectory independently from each other”. (see paragraph 41, and 39 and FIG. 3) (see paragraph 72-77)”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666