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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12 are currently pending and are addressed below. Claims 4 and 7 have been cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 17 June 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
It is respectfully submitted that the § 101 rejection is not applicable to the amended claim and claims depending therefrom for at least the following reasons.
First, the Office Action also alleges that independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (e.g., "mental process"). See pages 7-9 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant submits that amended claim 1 do not recite matter that falls within at least one concept enumerated in the groupings of abstract ideas in the 2019 Guidance. For instance, the claim does not recite any a) mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Moreover, the claim does not recite b) a mental process such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Furthermore, the claim does not recite c) a mental process because elements of the claimed computer-implemented system (or steps of the claimed computer-implemented method) are not practically performed in the human mind.
For example, claim 1 as amended recites the features of "acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data; ... identify, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal ... acquire data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position; ... in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly" (emphasis added). These claim features cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite a mental process.
Therefore, because amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A set forth in Section III of the Revised 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019 ("the 2019 Guidance"). Amended claim 10 is patent eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A for similar reasons.
Second, the Office Action also alleges that the limitations of claim 1 do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. See pages 9-12 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. Courts found that a claim can be integrated into a practical application if limitations of the claims improve (1) the functioning of a computer or (2) other technology or technological field (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981)).
Even if amended claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, the recited features of "acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data; ... identify, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal ... acquire data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position; ... in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly" (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it improves other technology (e.g., safety of flight vehicles).
With this claimed configuration, the claims as amended improve safety of a flight vehicles by (1) acquiring, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, (2) identifying a weather status at each position, (3) identifying, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves, and transmitting the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal, (4) acquiring data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position, and (5) in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold, changing each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
For example, the specification states, at paragraphs [0056], [0059] and [0075], effects of improving convenience and flexibility of users of flying vehicles, as follows: [0056] (Weather Status) The flight stability and safety of a flight
vehicle are affected by the weather in the flight area. Therefore, the condition storage unit 121 may store the performance condition in further association with each of a plurality of weather statuses. Examples of the plurality of weather statuses include wind speed, wind direction, amount of rainfall, amount of snowfall, and temperature. Specifically, the condition storage unit 121 may store the required level for each performance condition item in association with each of the plurality of weather statuses, for each position included in the performance
condition data shown in FIG. 3.
[0059] If it is determined that the applying flight vehicle D cannot be permitted to fly, the movement permission unit 132 may notify the user terminal 2 of the result of determining whether or not the applying flight vehicle D is allowed to fly by changing the flight time to the time at which the weather status is to improve. In order to perform this, first, based on the weather status data corresponding to before or after the time at which the applying flight vehicle D is scheduled to fly, the movement permission unit 132 identifies the time at which the weather is to improve and the weather status after the improvement. The movement permission unit 132 makes reference to the performance condition required for the identified weather status, and thereby determines whether or not the flight of the applying flight vehicle D can be permitted.
[0075] The condition decision unit 134 decides the performance condition associated with the plurality of positions, based on the number of flight vehicles indicated by the data acquired by the data acquisition unit 133. The greater the number of flight vehicles within the predetermined distance from a certain position, the stricter the performance condition required at this position is made. For example, if the number of flight vehicles within the predetermined distance from a certain position is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the condition decision unit 134 tightens up by one step the level of required wind resistance performance, which affects the stability of flight, relative to the case where the number of flight vehicles is less than the threshold value. With the
condition decision unit 134 deciding the performance condition in this manner, the movement permission unit 132 can permit only the applying flight vehicle D that is suitable for the surrounding conditions of the position at which the applying flight vehicle D is flying, and therefore flight safety is improved. (Emphasis added)
Accordingly, the claims integrate features into a practical application that dramatically improves the safety of the flying vehicles.
Therefore, because the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A set forth in Section III of the 2019 Guidance. Amended claim 10 is patent eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A for similar reasons.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. §101.
The Examiners Response:
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding the claimed invention, the amended claims as of right now merely have a device/method that is obtains information of a flight region and identifies an approved flight path for a specific UAV with specific capabilities. The claims can be performed in the human mind as they merely involve taking information of the airspace and UAV capabilities to determine an approved flight path. The claims have data-gathering limitations to obtain weather information on flight regions, with the collected information used to identify regions that met the performance requirements of the UAV and in case they do not, rescheduling the flight to a time when performance conditions are met. In addition, a permission is granted to a UAV to fly and can be interpreted as intended use as it is unclear from the claim language what type of control would occur from the permitting step.
Furthermore, the improvement of improving the safety of the flying vehicles is never explicitly mentioned in the currently amended claims, with the claims still being directed to an abstract idea, see Ex. 1001, 8:50–9:40, 11:51–12:5, Fig. 7; see also Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1338 (“This construction fails to indicate how the claims are directed to a scalable network architecture that itself leads to an improvement in the functioning of the system.”). Finally, while the specification is mentioned in the arguments for the claimed improvement, the subject matter of the claims is used for the 101 analysis and not the embodiments of the specification, see ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(“[A]ny reliance on the specification in the § 101 analysis must always yield to the claim language. . . . [T]he specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.”). As such, even in combination, these additional elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-12 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 17 June 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “receiving accepting..” in Line 3 should be changed to –receiving…--- to be consistent with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system/device and claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An operation management device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions and store, in association with a plurality of positions, a plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, from an information terminal via a network, application data for requesting permission for an applying mobile object to move, and movement range data indicating an area in which the applying mobile object is desired to move;
acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data;
transmit, to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly, when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses;
identify, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions;
acquire data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position;
determine whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold;
and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identify…” and “dertermine…” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, stored, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An operation management device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions and store, in association with a plurality of positions, a plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, from an information terminal via a network, application data for requesting permission for an applying mobile object to move, and movement range data indicating an area in which the applying mobile object is desired to move;
acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data;
transmit, to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly, when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses;
identify, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions;
acquire data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position;
determine whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold;
and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information use in the identifying and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the transmitting steps are well-understood routine activities (transmitting over a network). Lastly, claims 1 further recite “An operation management device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions and store, in association with a plurality of positions, a plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose UAV management environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processor” to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of obtaining information are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the information is collected from online sources or users, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional steps such as “permitting”, “stores”, “acquires”, “accept”, “transmits” and “identify”. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
In addition, regarding the use of “and/or” in this claims, this phrasing will be interpreted as “or” and the examined limitation above will satisfy the needed requirement.
Claims 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20190122567 A1) in view of Kantor (US 20160300495 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘176 (US 20210225176 A1) in view of Eyhorn (US 20180357909 A1) in further view of Johnson (US 20170278409 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Evans teaches An operation management device comprising (see at least [¶021-023]):
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see at least [¶023]):
receive, from an information terminal via a network, application data for requesting permission for an applying mobile object to move, and movement range data indicating an area in which the applying mobile object is desired to move (A flight request from a user terminal over a network for a UAV to be able to fly/move, includes the destination of the UAV and the flight path it is attempting to travel through. see at least [¶038]);
Evans does not explicitly teach at least one memory configured to store instructions and store, in association with a plurality of positions, a plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions; acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data; when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses.
However, Kantor does teach at least one memory configured to store instructions and store, in association with a plurality of positions, a plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions (A memory can store, for a plurality of positions in a flight plan, a plurality of performance/capability conditions required for a UAV to move and a plurality of weather statuses/conditions at the plurality of positions in the flight plan. see at least [¶09, 025 & 054-058]);
acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data (Acquire, from an external server/data store, weather status data of a movement region, and identify a weather status for positions in the movement region. see at least [¶09, 011, 022, 025 & 054-058]);
when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses (A performance/capability condition of the UAV that is looking to get a submitted flight path approved is checked to see if the UAV is able to make the flight. For each of the positions in the flight plan, it is checked id the performance/capabilities satisfy the weather conditions, with performance/capabilities being different for different weather conditions. see at least [¶09, 011, 022, 025 & 054-058]).
Kantor would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of authorizing a UAV to fly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans to use the technique of having at least one memory configured to store instructions and store, in association with a plurality of positions, a plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions; acquire, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data; when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather status as taught by Kantor. Doing so would lead to UAVs safely traversing flight paths (see at least [¶015]).
Evans and Kantor do not explicitly teach transmit, to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
However, Kusumi ‘176 does teach transmit, to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly (Transmit to a user terminal, a notification that shows a user of movement permitted flight paths for a corresponding user application data. The movement areas include a plurality of positions with different values for each position and the approved flight plans that are given to the user have positions that all meet the performance values of the UAV the user will be using for the desired flight. The recommended flight plan has positions that satisfy the performance conditions of the UAV (and would be allowed to fly) and the information is displayed over a map image for the user to view and approve/select the flight plan. see at least [¶029-030, 034-035, 052, 063-065, 073-075, 082, 092-097 & FIG 6-7]);
Kusumi ‘176 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of airspace management for drones. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans and Kantor to use the technique of transmitting to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly as taught by Kusumi ‘176. Doing so would lead to improving the ability of a user to select an approved flight path for a specific UAV (see at least [¶094-095]).
Evans, Kantor and Kusumi ‘176 do not explicitly teach identify, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions.
However, Eyhorn does teach identify, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions (Identify/check for the plurality of positions in the flight path, based on obtained weather data, when a performance/rating does not meet the drone performance capability, and changing the flight time to find an improved weather status that allows the drone to fly safely. The updated flight time and permission to fly is transmitted to a user device. see at least [¶0121-0122, 0124, 0127 & 0192]).
Eyhorn would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of approving and modifying flight plans of UAVs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor and Kusumi ‘176 to use the technique of identifying, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions as taught by Eyhorn. Doing so would lead to improved planning of a drone flight based on weather conditions (see at least [¶0127]).
Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176 and Eyhorn do not explicitly teach acquire data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position; determine whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold; and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
However, Johnson does teach acquire data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position (Acquiring information indicating the number of UAVs flying at a determined distance form an airspace block/position. see at least [¶035, 048-050 & 052]);
determine whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold (Determine that the number of UAVs is greater that a threshold/maximum. see at least [¶035, 048-050 & 052]);
and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly (In response to determining that the number of UAVs flying is greater that a threshold/maximum, changing the performance conditions associated with the airspace block to be more strict before allowing a UAV that is requesting permission to fly. see at least [¶035, 048-050 & 052]).
Johnson would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of drone airspace reservation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176 and Eyhorn to use the technique to of acquiring data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position; determine whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold; and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly as taught by Johnson. Doing so would lead to improved management of flight request for accepting or rejecting requests (see at least [¶052-053]).
Regarding Claim 10, Evans teaches An operation management method executed by a computer, the method comprising (see at least [¶021]):
receiving accepting, from an information terminal via a network, application data for requesting permission for an applying mobile object to move, and movement range data indicating an area in which the applying mobile object is desired to move (A flight request from a user terminal over a network for a UAV to be able to fly/move, includes the destination of the UAV and the flight path it is attempting to travel through. see at least [¶038]);
Evans does not explicitly teach acquiring, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data; when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses, stored in a storage in association with a plurality of positions, as the plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions.
However, Kantor does teach acquiring, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data (Acquire, from an external server/data store, weather status data of a movement region, and identify a weather status for positions in the movement region. see at least [¶09, 011, 022, 025 & 054-058]);
when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses (A performance/capability condition of the UAV that is looking to get a submitted flight path approved is checked to see if the UAV is able to make the flight. For each of the positions in the flight plan, it is checked id the performance/capabilities satisfy the weather conditions, with performance/capabilities being different for different weather conditions. see at least [¶09, 011, 022, 025 & 054-058]),
stored in a storage in association with a plurality of positions, as the plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions (A memory can store, for a plurality of positions in a flight plan, a plurality of performance/capability conditions required for a UAV to move and a plurality of weather statuses/conditions at the plurality of positions in the flight plan. see at least [¶09, 025 & 054-058]);
Kantor would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of authorizing a UAV to fly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans to use the technique of acquiring, from an external server, weather status data of the movement range data, and identify a weather status at each position in the movement range data based on the acquired weather status data; when a first performance included in the application data or a second performance associated with mobile object identification information for identifying the applying mobile object included in the application data satisfies, for each of the plurality of positions included in a desired movement area indicated by the movement range data received from the information terminal, a performance condition corresponding to the identified weather status among the plurality of performance conditions stored for a position, the plurality of performance conditions having different values for each of the plurality of weather statuses, stored in a storage in association with a plurality of positions, as the plurality of performance conditions required for a mobile object that moves in association with a plurality of weather statuses at each of the plurality of positions as taught by Kantor. Doing so would lead to UAVs safely traversing flight paths (see at least [¶015]).
Evans and Kantor do not explicitly teach transmitting, to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
However, Kusumi ‘176 does teach transmitting, to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly (Transmit to a user terminal, a notification that shows a user of movement permitted flight paths for a corresponding user application data. The movement areas include a plurality of positions with different values for each position and the approved flight plans that are given to the user have positions that all meet the performance values of the UAV the user will be using for the desired flight. The recommended flight plan has positions that satisfy the performance conditions of the UAV (and would be allowed to fly) and the information is displayed over a map image for the user to view and approve/select the flight plan. see at least [¶029-030, 034-035, 052, 063-065, 073-075, 082, 092-097 & FIG 6-7]);
Kusumi ‘176 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of airspace management for drones. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans and Kantor to use the technique of transmitting to the information terminal, movement permitted notification data relating to permitting a movement corresponding to the application data to cause the applying mobile object to fly as taught by Kusumi ‘176. Doing so would lead to improving the ability of a user to select an approved flight path for a specific UAV (see at least [¶094-095]).
Evans, Kantor and Kusumi ‘176 do not explicitly teach identifying, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions.
However, Eyhorn does teach identifying, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions (Identify/check for the plurality of positions in the flight path, based on obtained weather data, when a performance/rating does not meet the drone performance capability, and changing the flight time to find an improved weather status that allows the drone to fly safely. The updated flight time and permission to fly is transmitted to a user device. see at least [¶0121-0122, 0124, 0127 & 0192]).
Eyhorn would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of approving and modifying flight plans of UAVs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor and Kusumi ‘176 to use the technique of identifying, for each of the plurality of positions, based on the acquired weather status data, when the first performance or the second performance does not satisfy the performance condition, a changed time when the weather status before and after a flight time included in the application data improves and an improved weather status, and transmit the changed time and the movement permitted notification data to the information terminal in a case where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the performance condition corresponding to the improved weather status among the plurality of performance conditions as taught by Eyhorn. Doing so would lead to improved planning of a drone flight based on weather conditions (see at least [¶0127]).
Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176 and Eyhorn do not explicitly teach acquiring data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position; determining whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold; and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly.
However, Johnson does teach acquiring data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position (Acquiring information indicating the number of UAVs flying at a determined distance form an airspace block/position. see at least [¶035, 048-050 & 052]);
determining whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold (Determine that the number of UAVs is greater that a threshold/maximum. see at least [¶035, 048-050 & 052]);
and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly (In response to determining that the number of UAVs flying is greater that a threshold/maximum, changing the performance conditions associated with the airspace block to be more strict before allowing a UAV that is requesting permission to fly. see at least [¶035, 048-050 & 052]).
Johnson would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of drone airspace reservation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176 and Eyhorn to use the technique to of acquiring data indicating a number of mobile objects that are moving at positions within a predetermined distance from a certain position; determine whether the number of mobile objects is greater than a threshold; and in response to determining that the number of mobile objects is greater than the threshold, change each of the plurality of performance conditions associated with the certain position to a stricter performance condition before permitting the movement to cause the applying mobile object to fly as taught by Johnson. Doing so would lead to improved management of flight request for accepting or rejecting requests (see at least [¶052-053]).
Regarding Claim 11, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teaches to transmit the movement permitted notification data relating to permitting the movement corresponding to the application data, when the first performance or the second performance for the plurality of types satisfies each of the plurality of performance conditions having different values for the plurality of types for each of the plurality of positions (Transmit to a user terminal, a notification that shows a user of movement permitted flight paths for a corresponding user application data. The movement areas include a plurality of positions with different values for each position and the approved flight plans that are given to the user have positions that all meet the performance values of the UAV the user will be using for the desired flight. see at least [¶029-030, 034-035, 052, 063-065, 073-075, 082, 092-097 & FIG 6-7]).
Kusumi ‘176 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of airspace management for drones. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of transmitting the movement permitted notification data relating to permitting the movement corresponding to the application data, when the first performance or the second performance for the plurality of types satisfies each of the plurality of performance conditions having different values for the plurality of types for each of the plurality of positions as taught by Kusumi ‘176. Doing so would lead to improving the ability of a user to select an approved flight path for a specific UAV (see at least [¶094-095]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20190122567 A1) in view of Kantor (US 20160300495 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘176 (US 20210225176 A1) in view of Eyhorn (US 20180357909 A1) in further view of Johnson (US 20170278409 A1) in view of Foster (US 20180364713 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach store a required weather condition indicating a weather condition under which the mobile object is permitted to move at each of the plurality of positions, and execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when weather statuses at the plurality of positions included in the desired movement area included in the application data further satisfy required weather conditions that are stored
However, Foster does teach store a required weather condition indicating a weather condition under which the mobile object is permitted to move at each of the plurality of positions (A required weather condition for a drone to be able to move through a desired route are stored. see at least [¶021-023]),
and execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when weather statuses at the plurality of positions included in the desired movement area included in the application data further satisfy required weather conditions that are storedplurality of positions (Approving a flight route that is submitted for the UAV, if the UAV is able to travel through the route with the current weather conditions. see at least [¶021-023]).
Foster would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of approving drone flight routes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of storing a required weather condition indicating a weather condition under which the mobile object is permitted to move at each of the plurality of positions, and execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when weather statuses at the plurality of positions included in the desired movement area included in the application data further satisfy required weather conditions that are stored in association with the plurality of positions as taught by Foster. Doing so would lead to a safer flying experience for a drone (see at least [¶022]).
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20190122567 A1) in view of Kantor (US 20160300495 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘176 (US 20210225176 A1) in view of Eyhorn (US 20180357909 A1) in further view of Johnson (US 20170278409 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘579 JP2021096579A (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when the performance of the applying mobile object satisfies each of the plurality of the performance conditions that are stored in association with the plurality of positions included in the desired movement area.
However, Kusumi ‘579 does teach to execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when the performance of the applying mobile object satisfies each of the plurality of the performance conditions that are stored in association with the plurality of positions included in the desired movement area (Permitting a movement of a UAV in an airspaces with multiple areas, involves determining that the UAV would match the strictest/highest level of difficulty/performance conditions for all the areas included in the desired airspace. see at least [¶033-037]).
Kusumi ‘579 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of allocating airspace to a drone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of executing the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when the performance of the applying mobile object satisfies each of the plurality of the performance conditions that are stored in association with the plurality of positions included in the desired movement area as taught by Kusumi ‘579. Doing so would lead to improved flight safety of applying drones (see at least [¶037]).
Regarding Claim 5, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach store the plurality of performance conditions
However, Kusumi ‘579 does teach wherein store the plurality of performance conditions
andincluded in the application data is satisfied (Permitting a movement of a UAV in the desired movement range/airspace if the UAV is able to satisfy the difficulty/performance conditions involving a time of day. see at least [¶033-037]).
Kusumi ‘579 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of allocating airspace to a drone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of storing the plurality of performance conditions in further association with a date or a time of day; and execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when the performance condition that is stored in association with desired movement date and time included in the application data is satisfied as taught by Kusumi ‘579. Doing so would lead to improved flight safety of applying drones (see at least [¶037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach store the plurality of performance conditions
However, Kusumi ‘579 does teach store the plurality of performance conditions
andincluded in the application data is satisfied (Permitting a movement of a UAV in the desired movement range/airspace if the UAV is able to satisfy the difficulty/performance conditions involving a purpose or operation type of UAV. see at least [¶033-037]).
Kusumi ‘579 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of allocating airspace to a drone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of storing the plurality of performance conditions in further association with a purpose or an operation type of the mobile object; and execute the processing of permitting the movement corresponding to the application data when the performance condition that is stored in association with the purpose or the operation type included in the application data is satisfied as taught by Kusumi ‘579. Doing so would lead to improved flight safety of applying drones (see at least [¶037]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20190122567 A1) in view of Kantor (US 20160300495 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘176 (US 20210225176 A1) in view of Eyhorn (US 20180357909 A1) in further view of Johnson (US 20170278409 A1) in view of Arngren (US 20190147747 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach transmit, before accepting the application data,
However, Arngren does teach transmit, before accepting the application data,with at least some positions of the plurality of positions included in the movement range data in which the applying mobile object is to be moved (Before the UAV is allowed to fly, the client application is able to transmit to the user application relevant flight restrictions/conditions for the geographic region the user is in. see at least [¶041, 050-051 & 069]).
Arngren would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of drone control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of transmitting, before accepting the application data, the plurality of performance conditions to the information terminal that transmits the application data in association with at least some positions of the plurality of positions included in the movement range data in which the applying mobile object is to be moved as taught by Arngren. Doing so would lead to improved control of a drone in areas with possible restrictions (see at least [¶06]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20190122567 A1) in view of Kantor (US 20160300495 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘176 (US 20210225176 A1) in view of Eyhorn (US 20180357909 A1) in further view of Johnson (US 20170278409 A1) in view of Belt (US 20210263537 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach accept, before accepting the application data,
However, Belt does teach accept, before accepting the application data,information terminal in association with the plurality of positions included in the movement range data (A user is able to submit a desired flight path/range and the flight manager can transmit performance conditions/envelopes to the user so they can further adjust the flight path/range. see at least [¶0104-0106 & 0112]).
Belt would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of UAV flight manager. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of accepting, before accepting the application data, the movement range data from the information terminal and transmit the plurality of performance conditions to the information terminal in association with the plurality of positions included in the movement range data as taught by Belt. Doing so would lead to improved planning of a flight path that does not violate the operational envelope of the UAV (see at least [¶0106]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 20190122567 A1) in view of Kantor (US 20160300495 A1) in view of Kusumi ‘176 (US 20210225176 A1) in view of Eyhorn (US 20180357909 A1) in further view of Johnson (US 20170278409 A1) in further view of Yamada WO2019098017A1 (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 12, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson do not explicitly teach to identify the recommended position where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the plurality of performance conditions by changing the at least one position and where a total flight distance based on the changed positions falls within a distance multiplied by a predetermined percentage of a total flight distance based on the plurality of positions before the changing.
Shall be noted that Kusumi ‘176 teaches identifying recommended positions nearby an initial flight plan that would meet the performance conditions of the UAV, (see at least [“[¶075 & FIG 6-7] The determination unit 122 determines whether or not it is possible to generate such a path that the airspace levels of all the airspaces included in the path connecting the departure position S and the arrival position G have values smaller than that of the authority level. For example, the path A is the shortest path that connects the departure position S and the arrival position G. In this case, when the authority level is 120, the path A passes through the airspaces having the airspace level of 200, and hence the unmanned aerial vehicle 300 is not allowed to fly on the path A. Meanwhile, the airspace levels of all airspaces included in the path B being a detour are all 50, which is lower than the authority level. Therefore, the unmanned aerial vehicle 300 is allowed to fly on the path B….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Yamada.
Yamada does teach identify the recommended position where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the plurality of performance conditions by changing the at least one position and where a total flight distance based on the changed positions falls within a distance multiplied by a predetermined percentage of a total flight distance based on the plurality of positions before the changing (Identifying a recommended position where the performance conditions are satisfied. The recommended position is a distance away from the current position that is multiplied by a desired upper limit of a flight distance. see at least [¶07, 065-066 & 0136-0139]).
Yamada would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of allocating flight space to aircaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Evans, Kantor, Kusumi ‘176, Eyhorn and Johnson to use the technique of identifying the recommended position where the first performance or the second performance satisfies the plurality of performance conditions by changing the at least one position and where a total flight distance based on the changed positions falls within a distance multiplied by a predetermined percentage of a total flight distance based on the plurality of positions before the changing as taught by Yamada. Doing so would lead to improved safety of drones while flying through an airspace (see at least [¶0133]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AIRFLOW MODELING FOR ROUTE OPTIMIZATION (US 20200234601 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 866-2
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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667