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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 1-5,7,10,13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kahn (US 2020/0351901).
The claimed invention reads on Kahn as follows.
Regarding claim 1, Kahn discloses an information processing apparatus (i.e. a system for monitoring and arbitrating UTM infrastructure networks) (fig. 1 number 100 and P:0018) comprising: an assessment unit (controller) that assesses whether or not there is an object (collision vehicle and /or encroachment) different from a flying vehicle (unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV) within a detection range defined (flight path) with respect to a position of the flying vehicle during flight (i.e. the controller can be configured to monitor UAV flight paths for potential proximity encroachment and reroute at least one of the UAV's to avoid proximity encroachment) (P:0051 line 32-34); and a switching control unit (arbitration unit) (195)(P:0051) that controls switching of communication performed by the flying vehicle (UAV) during flight between terrestrial communication using terrestrial communication equipment (wireless infrastructure) and satellite communication using a communication satellite (P:0051) on the condition that the assessment unit has assessed that the object is not within the detection range (i.e. Performance thresholds can be established for switching among available communications infrastructures, and for switching to a safe mode when performance characteristics are below acceptable thresholds for all communications infrastructures. In the case of aerial traffic management and maritime traffic management, the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position (i.e. the object is not within the detection range) and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles (object) using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems. Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles.) (P:0042-P:0045, P:0051 and P:0057).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Kahn discloses the switching control unit controls switching of the communication performed by the flying vehicle from the satellite communication to the terrestrial communication on the condition that the assessment unit has assessed that the object is not within the detection range (P:0057, see claim 1 above) and a radio signal strength of signals for the terrestrial communication is equal to or higher than a threshold value (i.e. In certain embodiments, the system 100 has a sensor detection system 180 that includes a sensor subsystem comprising a plurality of sensors 170 for determining signal performance between an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a wireless communication infrastructure (e.g., cellular telephone infrastructure) and between the UAV and a satellite communications infrastructure. The sensor subsystem may include a plurality of signal strength meters, signal latency detection calculators, and/or other sensors or modules for characterizing signal performance. The controller can be configured to switch tracking of (and/or communication with) the UAV from either communication infrastructure to the other when a loss of connectivity is detected. The controller can be configured to switch from the satellite communication infrastructure to the wireless communication infrastructure for the UAV whenever the performance criteria for the wireless communication infrastructure exceeds a threshold value (P:0051).
Regarding claim 3, Kahn discloses wherein the switching control unit controls switching of the communication performed by the flying vehicle from the terrestrial communication to the satellite communication on the condition that the assessment unit has assessed that the object is not within the detection range (see claim 1 above) and the radio signal strength of signals for the satellite communication is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. The controller can be configured to track the UAV with radar infrastructure when both communications infrastructure (satellite and/or wireless communication infrastructure) have degraded below a predetermined threshold value (P:0051).
Regarding claim 5 , Kahn discloses wherein the switching control unit controls switching of the communication performed by the flying vehicle from the terrestrial communication to the satellite communication on the condition that the assessment unit has assessed that the object is not within the detection range (see claim 1 above) and a radio signal strength of signals for the terrestrial communication is equal to or lower than a threshold value (i.e. switching to tracking and controlling the UAV via the satellite communication infrastructure when a signal is not available from the wireless communications infrastructure or the latency or performance of the signal from the wireless communication infrastructure is below a predetermined threshold (P:0051 and P:0052).
Regarding claim 7 , Kahn discloses the object is another flying vehicle (UAV) different from the flying vehicle (P:0045 and P:0051); the information processing apparatus further has an acquisition unit that acquires position information of the another flying vehicle (i.e. The controller can be configured to monitor UAV flight paths for potential proximity encroachment and reroute at least one of the UAV's to avoid proximity encroachment)(P:0051); and the assessment unit, based on the position information, in a case in which the another flying vehicle is positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is within the detection range (i.e. In the case of aerial traffic management and maritime traffic management, the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems. Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles) (P:0057), and in a case in which the another flying vehicle is not positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is not within the detection range (i.e. the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position (i.e. where the object is not within the detection range) and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles (object) using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems. Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles) (P:0043, P:0045, P:0051 and P:0057).
Regarding claim 10, Kahn discloses an acquisition unit that acquires measurement information measured within the detection range by the flying vehicle during flight; wherein the assessment unit, in a case in which the measurement information indicates that a measured object is positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is within the detection range, and in a case in which the measurement information does not indicate that a measured object is positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is not within the detection range (i.e. Disclosed, among other things, is a vehicle connectivity unit for monitoring performance characteristics of a plurality of communications infrastructures, and selecting a particular communications infrastructure for communication between a vehicle and a traffic management system based on measured performance characteristics and criteria for selecting an active communications infrastructure that is used for monitoring and/or controlling the vehicle, and/or for communication with other vehicle (P:0006), In the case of aerial traffic management and maritime traffic management, the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems. Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles) (P:0057), and in a case in which the another flying vehicle is not positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is not within the detection range (i.e. the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position (i.e. where the object is not within the detection range) and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles (object) using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems. Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles (P:0043, P:0045, P:0051 and P:0057).
Regarding claim 13, Kahn discloses the assessment unit determines the detection range based on scheduled flight information indicating scheduled flight positions of the flying vehicle at respective times (i.e. The UTM system 130 may be configured to receive data from the one or more UAS's 120. In non-limiting examples, the data may be flight data and/or position data, such as current position, speed, and the like. Non-limiting examples of the flight data may be data related to an anticipated flight of the UAS 120, a flight purpose, a current location, a flight path/pattern, a flight area, a flight time, a flight duration, and/or combinations thereof)(P:0023).
Regarding claim 14, Kahn discloses an information processing method (i.e. a method for monitoring and arbitrating UTM infrastructure networks) (fig. 2 P:0026-P:0043) comprising: assesses whether or not there is an object (collision vehicle and /or encroachment) different from a flying vehicle (unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV) within a detection range defined (flight path) with respect to a position of the flying vehicle during flight (i.e. the controller can be configured to monitor UAV flight paths for potential proximity encroachment and reroute at least one of the UAV's to avoid proximity encroachment) (P:0051 line 32-34); and switching of communication performed by the flying vehicle (UAV) during flight between terrestrial communication using terrestrial communication equipment (wireless infrastructure) and satellite communication using a communication satellite (P:0051) on the condition that the assessment unit has assessed that the object is not within the detection range (i.e. Performance thresholds can be established for switching among available communications infrastructures, and for switching to a safe mode when performance characteristics are below acceptable thresholds for all communications infrastructures. In the case of aerial traffic management and maritime traffic management, the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position (i.e. where the object is not within the detection range) and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles (object) using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems. Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles.) (P:0043, P:0045, P:0051 and P:0057).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (US 2020/0351901).
Regarding claim 6, Kahn discloses an information processing apparatus as discussed supra in claims 1 and 5 above. Kahn differs from claim 6 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose the radio signal strength of signals for the satellite communication is equal to or higher than a threshold value. However, Kahn teaches controlling the UAV via the wireless communication infrastructure when a signal is available from the wireless communication infrastructure and the latency and performance of the wireless signal exceeds a predetermined acceptable threshold; switching to tracking and controlling the UAV via the satellite communication infrastructure when a signal is not available from the wireless communications infrastructure or the latency or performance of the signal from the wireless communication infrastructure is below a predetermined threshold (i.e. the signal of the satellite communication infrastructure is better or above the wireless communications infrastructure threshold)(P:0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention for radio signal strength of signals for the satellite communication is equal to or higher than a threshold value in order for the UAV to switch to the satellite communication infrastructure for better and reliable communication with the information processing apparatus when the communication with the wireless communication infrastructure is below a predetermine threshold.
8. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (US 2020/0351901) in view of Gu et al. (WO 2018073878 A1) and Yoo et al. (KR 20190003884 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kahn discloses an information processing apparatus as discussed supra in claim 1 above. Kahn differs from claim 9 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose an acquisition unit that acquires map information of a region corresponding to the detection range; wherein the assessment unit, in a case in which an object indicated by the map information is positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is within the detection range, and in a case in which an object indicated by the map information is not positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is not within the detection range. Gu et al. teaches an UAV control unit 110 may acquire the three-dimensional information indicating the three-dimensional shape of the object existing around the unmanned aircraft 100 by referring to the three-dimensional map database stored in the memory 160. The UAV control unit 110 may acquire three-dimensional information related to the three-dimensional shape of an object existing around the unmanned aircraft 100 by referring to a three-dimensional map database managed by a server existing on the network (page 4, lines 17-21). Yoo teaches the control unit 400 detects nearby objects in real time through the image recognition unit 100 while the vehicle is traveling, and automatically searches candidate groups of the recognition objects on the map data at regular intervals based on the current position of the vehicle. The control unit 400 compares the neighboring object detected by the image recognizing unit 100 and the candidate group of the recognition object that is automatically searched on the map data, and the object information exists on the map data, If the neighboring object to be detected is not detected by the image recognition unit 100, it is determined that the neighboring object is missing in the actual environment, and the object information of the neighboring object is deleted on the map data (page 5, lines 13-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kahn with an acquisition unit that acquires map information of a region corresponding to the detection range; wherein the assessment unit, in a case in which an object indicated by the map information is positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is within the detection range, and in a case in which an object indicated by the map information is not positioned within the detection range, assesses that the object is not within the detection range in order for the information processing apparatus to determine if the UAV is in the path or not in the path of an another UAV on a map in to prevent a collision between UAVs, as taught by Gu et al. and Yoo et al..
9. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahn (US 2020/0351901) in view of Pragada et al. (US 2021/0297921).
Regarding claim 12, Kahn discloses an information processing apparatus as discussed supra in claim 1 above. Kahn differs from claim 12 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose the assessment unit determines the detection range based on a time period required for switching the communication performed by the flying vehicle between the terrestrial communication and the satellite communication. Pragada et al. teaches handovers may be performed by UAV jointly based on measurement events and time. In an example, the eNB may configure the UAV to perform a handover to a target cell Tcell at a particular time instant ‘t.sub.2’ or during the time period [t.sub.2−ε, t.sub.2] (where ε>0 denotes the hysteresis), provided Tcell is THR1 (denotes a threshold) better than the serving cell during the time [t.sub.2−ε, t.sub.2) (P:0120). Pragada et al. does not explicit disclose the handover is to a satellite communication. However, one of ordinary skill in the art could use the teaching of Pragada et al. for a time period required for switching the communication performed by the flying vehicle between the terrestrial communication and the satellite communication (i.e. handing over or switching from one network to another network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pragada et al. for the assessment unit determines the detection range based on a time period required for switching the communication performed by the flying vehicle between the terrestrial communication and the satellite communication in order for the information processing apparatus to determine the time for the UAV to switch between the terrestrial communication and the satellite communication when the signal strength of either the satellite communication infrastructure or the wireless communication infrastructure becomes better to communicate with the UAV, as taught by Pragada et al..
.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone, or in combination the object is another flying vehicle different from the flying vehicle; the information processing apparatus further includes an acquisition unit that acquires scheduled flight information indicating scheduled flight positions of the other flying vehicle at respective times; and the assessment unit, in a case in which the scheduled flight position at a current time is included within the detection range, assesses that the object is within the detection range, and in a case in which the scheduled flight position at a current time is not included within the detection range, assesses that the object is not within the detection range.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone, or in combination
the assessment unit assesses whether or not the object is within the detection range in accordance with whether or not the measured object is a registered object that has been preset.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. The following are explanations to the applicant arguments:
13. Argument: Applicant alleges that Kahn merely discloses switching from the primary infrastructure network versus the original secondary infrastructure networks, which does not satisfy “[controlling] switching of communication performed by the flying vehicle during flight between Terrestrial communication using terrestrial communication equipment and satellite communication using a communication satellite on the condition that the assessment unit has assessed that the object is not within the detection range” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1.
Explanation: Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kahn teaches a System 110 also includes a controller or UTM arbitration system 130 having a computing device (e.g., performance analysis tool 192) that receives signals from the sensor subsystem, and a performance arbitration module 195 for switching between tracking and communicating with the unmanned aerial vehicle using wireless infrastructure or satellite communications infrastructure depending on relative performance criteria for the communications infrastructure (P:0051). The unmanned aerial vehicle (i.e. an aircraft piloted by remote control) and/or in Kahn, UTM arbitration system 130 i.e. a computer platform where a user may, for example, instruct a computing platform embark upon a course of action via an indication of a selection, including, for example, pushing a key, clicking a mouse, maneuvering a pointer, touching a touch pad, touching a touch screen, acting out touch screen gesturing movements (P:0014), which controls the UAV to switch between tracking and communicating with the unmanned aerial vehicle using wireless infrastructure or satellite communications infrastructure (SATCOM) depending on relative performance criteria for the communications infrastructure (i.e. the UAV based upon the switching command from the UTM arbitration system 130 performs switching and communicating with either the wireless infrastructure or satellite communications infrastructure (SATCOM) depending on relative performance criteria for the communications infrastructure)(i.e. fig. two-way communication links and/or wireless links between SATCOM, SATELITE, UAV AND GROUND STATION and P:0051). Kahn further teaches a sensor detection system 180 (P:0051) and depending on the type and amount of discrepancies identified by the UTM arbitration system 110, non-limiting examples of corrective action may include the following: [0043] Switching from the primary infrastructure network 160A (i.e., wireless network) versus the original secondary infrastructure networks 160B (i.e., SATCOM or radar networks) based on performance of the primary infrastructure network 160A, with the ability to switch back to the primary infrastructure network 160A upon performance improvement; [0044] Modifying flight plans in the UTM system 130 based on discrepancies and/or needed flight corrections and results; and [0045] Disabling or modifying vehicle-to-vehicle (i.e. via communication link with the UAV) collision. In the case of aerial traffic management and maritime traffic management, the vehicle can be placed into a holding pattern where it substantially maintains a fixed position (i.e. the object is not within the detection range) and/or adjusts its position to avoid collisions with other vehicles (object) using various LIDAR-based, radar-based or other collision avoidance systems (i.e. UTM arbitration system 130 using assessments). Such safe modes may include extending distance between vehicles.) (P:0042-P:0045, P:0051 and P:0057).
Applicant’s (US publication 2024/0107412) discloses the switching control unit 123, for example, switches the communication performed by the flying vehicle 2 between terrestrial communication and satellite communication by transmitting to the flying vehicle 2. (P:0058). The switching control unit is located in the flight manager server (fig. 1 number 1). The flight control manager is not located in the Vehicle. The flight manager controls the switching of the fly vehicle (P:0058). Although the flying vehicle is switched by the control unit and the vehicle is performing the switching and communicating is all because of the instructions of the switching control unit 123 located in the flight management server (i.e. the vehicle would not know how to perform without the flight control manager) (P:0058).
Conclusion
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 KEITH FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am -3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley L Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/KEITH FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648