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 .
The correspondence below is an after non-final.
Response to Amendment
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 17-21 are new.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are currently pending.
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.
CLAIM 1 IS REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is 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 claims 1 and 19 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 (14 and 19 parallel in scope and spirit) Recites:
A method for helping to keep a drone within an authorized airspace, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining, with a path estimator not embedded on the drone, a value of an item of speed data of the drone and a value of an item of location data carrying a current position of the drone and a value of an item of navigation data of the drone making it possible to assess whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn, the path estimator having a controller and a display; and
displaying several symbols on a the display of the path estimator, the displaying of several symbols comprising: i) displaying an aircraft symbol showing a current position of the drone; ii) displaying a boundary symbol showing a boundary of the authorized airspace in a position in relation to the aircraft symbol representative of a position of the boundary of the authorized airspace in relation to the current position of the drone; and iii) determining a geometry and displaying a path symbol showing a predicted path of the drone without changing values of the item of speed data and the item of navigation data, the geometry of the path symbol being a shape of the path symbol determined by the controller using a stored model based at least on the value of the item of speed data and the value of the item of navigation data, wherein the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period, a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length,
wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises
determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis, the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performances within the limitation of the human mind. For example, “determining…” and “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a bystander observing an air vehicle and forming a simple judgement. For example, a bystander would be capable of determining if an aircraft is traveling in a straight line or turning, and, if the aircraft is falling, a bystander would be able to estimate its path. For example, the aircraft appears it will fall from its current position “to my east” to a location “to my west”. Or, a person observing sensor collected data (attitude (yaw, pitch, roll), heading, acceleration, current velocity) and determining a future location of an aircraft using a model, for example, comprising one or more mathematical laws, one or more equations, etc. Or, in a 2D space, y=mx+b. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
Claim 1 (14 and 19 parallel in scope and spirit) Recites:
A method for helping to keep a drone within an authorized airspace, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
determining, with a path estimator not embedded on the drone, a value of an item of speed data of the drone and a value of an item of location data carrying a current position of the drone and a value of an item of navigation data of the drone making it possible to assess whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn, the path estimator having a controller and a display; and
displaying several symbols on a the display of the path estimator, the displaying of several symbols comprising: i) displaying an aircraft symbol showing a current position of the drone; ii) displaying a boundary symbol showing a boundary of the authorized airspace in a position in relation to the aircraft symbol representative of a position of the boundary of the authorized airspace in relation to the current position of the drone; and iii) determining a geometry and displaying a path symbol showing a predicted path of the drone without changing values of the item of speed data and the item of navigation data, the geometry of the path symbol being a shape of the path symbol determined by the controller using a stored model based at least on the value of the item of speed data and the value of the item of navigation data, wherein the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period, a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length,
wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises
determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis, the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
“a path estimator”, “a controller”, and “controller using a stored model (instant spec: [0011] The model may, for example, comprise one or more mathematical laws, one or more equations, etc.)”, the examiner respectfully submits that these limitations explain/expand on how the exception is to be applied. Further, it appears the crux of the invention is a mathematical model, which is addressed below.
Generic computer/processor and data acquisition via generic sensors
All of the displaying, the examiner respectfully submits, is extra-solution activity (post-solution).
The use of generic sensors to acquire data, and displaying a determination based upon data acquired using a generic computer/processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application significantly more the judicial exception. 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, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 evaluating 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 of collection and displaying, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities (pre and post solution). Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors (speed, gps, etc.), and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer/processor. 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. The additional limitations of “displaying” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3 and 5-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects (an expansion) of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 and 5-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 11-21 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
CLAIMS 6-8 ARE REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Parallel to the analysis of claim 1,
Claim 7 (claims 6 ((MPEP 2106.04(a)(2),I,A) equations in word form) and 8 parallel) Recites:
The method according to claim 5, wherein
the turn radius is determined using the following relation: R= (V*V) / (g*tan (phi))
where "R" represents the turn radius,
"V" represents the item of speed data,
"g" represents the acceleration of gravity,
"phi" represents the item of navigation data in the form of a roll angle,
"=" represents the equals sign,
"/" represents the division sign and
"*" represents the multiplication sign.
The examiner respectfully submits, the claim contains only an equation and the equation description. Therefore, there are no limitations capable of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
The courts have stated ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws”. When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. See, e.g., Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902-03 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’."). For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, Para. 3)). A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, B Para. 1)).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“path estimator” in claims 1, 5, 14-19, and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 5, 14-19, and 21 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of: “path estimator” in claims 1, 5, 14-19, and 21.
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of the ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim limitations “path estimator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states that claimed functions are implemented based on input/output. The disclosure of the application does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of the ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the official correspondence below, a “path estimator” will be interpreted as a processor.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
All remaining/intervening claims are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 20180068567 A) in view of Dupre (US 20090055037 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, as best understood, Gong discloses, determining, with a path estimator not embedded on the drone (Gong: [0445] The predicted path 1310 of the UAV travel may be determined. Data from a user remote controller may be used to determine information about the predicted path; [0933] a future flight path may be displayed on a user interface), a value of an item of speed data of the drone (Gong: [0446] Predicted movement of the UAV, such as predicted velocity and/or predicted accelerated may be considered in calculating a predicted; [0588] include tracking movement of the UAV (e.g., translational velocity, translational acceleration, angular velocity, angular acceleration)) and a value of an item of location data carrying a current position of the drone (Gong: [0474] A UAV may regularly and actively report to the air control system its current position and course; [0588]) and a value of an item of navigation data of the drone (Gong: [0446] the predicted path is straight forward and that the velocity of the UAV is remaining steady, a predicted location may be calculated; [0474]; [0588]) making it possible to assess whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn (Gong: [0446] At any given point in time, a predicted location 1330 for the UAV may be determined based on the predicted path. Predicted movement of the UAV, such as predicted velocity and/or predicted accelerated may be considered in calculating a predicted location ... if it is determined that the predicted path is straight forward and that the velocity of the UAV is remaining steady, a predicted location may be calculated; [0588] The non-compliance countermeasure system may track UAV activity ... the location of the UAV may be tracked ... include orientation of the ... include tracking movement of the UAV (e.g., translational velocity, translational acceleration, angular velocity, angular acceleration)), the path estimator having a controller (Gong: [0445] The predicted path 1310 of the UAV travel may be determined. Data from a user remote controller may be used to determine information about the predicted path; [1010] The processing unit 3804 can be operatively coupled to a communication module 3810 configured to transmit and/or receive data from one or more external devices (e.g., a terminal, display device, or other remote controller)) and a display (Gong: [0027] a display configured to show geo-fencing device information to a user; [1010]); and displaying several symbols on the display of the path estimator (Gong: [0918]; [0934] A priority level for the geo-fencing devices may be displayed on the user interface. A visual indicator may permit visual differentiation between different levels of priorities for the geo-fencing devices … a size or shape of an icon may be indicative of a priority level for the geo-fencing device. A color of an icon may be indicative of a priority level for the geo-fencing device. A label, such as a word or numerical value may be provided by the geo-fencing device which may be indicative of the priority level of the geo-fencing device; [0997]), the displaying of several symbols comprising: i) displaying an aircraft symbol showing a current position of the drone (Gong: [0923] A location of the first UAV may be displayed; [0926]; [0932-0933]); ii) displaying a boundary symbol showing a boundary of the authorized airspace in a position in relation to the aircraft symbol representative of a position of the boundary of the authorized airspace in relation to the current position of the drone (Gong: [0934] A priority level for the geo-fencing devices may be displayed on the user interface. A visual indicator may permit visual differentiation between different levels of priorities for the geo-fencing devices. For example, a size or shape of an icon may be indicative of a priority level for the geo-fencing device. A color of an icon may be indicative of a priority level for the geo-fencing device. A label, such as a word or numerical value may be provided by the geo-fencing device which may be indicative of the priority level of the geo-fencing device); and iii) determining a geometry and displaying a path symbol showing a predicted path of the drone without changing values of the item of speed data and the item of navigation data (Gong: [0932] a UAV may have a flight trajectory or direction. The trajectory or direction of the UAV may be shown on the user interface ... an arrow or vector may be pointed in the direction that the UAV is traveling. The visual indicator of UAV direction or trajectory may or may not be indicative of UAV speed or other movement factors ... the indicator may be able to visually distinguish whether the UAV is traveling at a higher velocity or lower velocity ... a numerical velocity value may be displayed ... a longer arrow or vector may correspond with a greater velocity than a shorter arrow or vector ... [0933] Information pertaining to a UAV flight path may be displayed on the user interface ... information about the past UAV flight path may be displayed ... a dotted line or other indicator of a path may show where the UAV has already traveled. A map may display a line or other indicator of the path that the UAV has already traversed ... The future flight path may be updated and/or displayed continuously), the geometry of the path symbol being a shape of the path symbol determined by the controller using a stored model based at least on the value of the item of speed data and the value of the item of navigation data (Gong: [0019] a dynamic indicator that (1) changes over time from being in accordance with a first indicator parameter to being in accordance with a second indicator parameter of said plurality; [0932] The trajectory or direction of the UAV may be shown on the user interface ... an arrow or vector may be pointed in the direction that the UAV is traveling. The visual indicator of UAV direction or trajectory may or may not be indicative of UAV speed or other movement factors ... the indicator may be able to visually distinguish whether the UAV is traveling at a higher velocity or lower velocity ... a numerical velocity value may be displayed ... a longer arrow or vector may correspond with a greater velocity than a shorter arrow or vector ... [0933] Information pertaining to a UAV flight path may be displayed on the user interface ... information about the past UAV flight path may be displayed ... a dotted line or other indicator of a path may show where the UAV has already traveled. A map may display a line or other indicator of the path that the UAV has already traversed ... The future flight path may be updated and/or displayed continuously), wherein the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period (Gong: [0933] The future flight path may be altered or updated in real-time. The future flight path may be updated and/or displayed continuously, periodically (e.g., at regular or irregular intervals), in accordance with a schedule ... the future flight path shown on a screen may be updated within less than 15 minutes, 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes, 1 minute, 30 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 seconds, 5 seconds, 3 seconds, 2 seconds, 1 second, 0.5 seconds, 0.1 seconds, 0.05 seconds, or 0.01 seconds of an alteration to the future flight path), a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length (Gong: [0932] a longer arrow or vector may correspond with a greater velocity than a shorter arrow or vector), wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line (Gong: [0445] Attitude/orientation of the UAV may be considered in calculating a predicted path … [0446] if it is determined that the predicted path is straight forward and that the velocity of the UAV is remaining steady, a predicted location may be calculated) or performing a turn (Gong: [0445] Attitude/orientation of the UAV may be considered in calculating a predicted path) based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis (Gong: [0445] Attitude/orientation of the UAV may be considered in calculating a predicted path. The flight commands may result in maintenance or adjustment of the UAV orientation, which may be used to affect a flight path), the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn (Gong: [0932] a numerical velocity value may be displayed ... a longer arrow or vector may correspond with a greater velocity than a shorter arrow or vector; [0933] a future flight path may be displayed on a user interface … a UAV may have a predetermined or semi-predetermined flight plan. The flight plan may include a projected future flight path. The projected flight path may be displayed on the user interface ... a line or other indicator of a path may be shown where the UAV is projected to travel ... The future flight path may be altered or updated in real-time. The future flight path may be updated and/or displayed continuously).
As stated in the prior office action, the examiner respectfully submits Gong discloses, wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis, the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn.
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Dupre discloses, wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line (Dupre: [0014] b) the current values of flight characteristics of the aircraft (speed, heading, etc.); [0020] the said predicted path is displayed; [0034] a breakdown into a path without wind (basic trigonometry; [0035] superimposition of a constant wind (constant drift); [0036] display of the path in consecutive segments) or performing a turn (Dupre: [ABS] a predicted path which is a flight path having a constant roll angel, taking account of the effect of the wind) based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis (Dupre: [ABS] a predicted path which is a flight path having a constant roll angel, taking account of the effect of the wind), the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn (Dupre: [0036] display of the path in consecutive segments), for the benefit of a sufficiently precise and continuous path display.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Gong to include considering current values and characteristics before updating a predicted path taught by Dupre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a sufficiently precise and continuous path display.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong also discloses, the path symbol is positioned in relation to a current heading angle or a current track angle of the drone (Gong: [0474]; [0932-0933]; [FIG. 42]; [0588]; [0907]; [0997]).
Gong does not explicitly recite the terminology "path symbol is positioned in relation to a current heading angle or a current track angle". However, Gong discloses tracking and displaying trajectory, vector, orientation, translational acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration. Which is "a current heading angle or a current track angle".
REGARDING CLAIM 3, as best understood, Gong remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong also discloses, the item of speed data is an air speed or a ground speed (Gong: [0099]), and the item of navigation data is a roll angle or a heading angle or a track angle (Gong: [0148]; [0474]; [0588]; [0997]).
Gong does not explicitly recite the terminology "a roll angle or a heading angle or a track angle". However, Gong discloses tracking and displaying trajectory, vector, orientation, translational acceleration, angular velocity, position, course, and angular acceleration. Which is "a roll angle or a heading angle or a track angle".
REGARDING CLAIM 5, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Dupre also discloses, before displaying several symbols and when a turn is being performed, the method comprises determining with the path estimator a turn radius (R) based on the item of speed data and the item of navigation data, the geometry of the path symbol being based on the turn radius (Dupre: [0022-0026]).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Dupre also discloses, the path symbol is in the shape of an arc with the turn radius multiplied by a scale factor (Dupre: [FIG. 2]; [0080-0081]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Dupre also discloses, the turn radius is determined using the following relation: R= (V*V) / (g*tan (phi)) where "R" represents the turn radius, "V" represents the item of speed data, "g" represents the acceleration of gravity, "phi" represents the item of navigation data in the form of a roll angle, "=" represents the equals sign, "/" represents the division sign and "*" represents the multiplication sign (Dupre: [0022-0026]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Dupre also discloses, the turn radius is determined using the following relation: R=V/ (dxi/dt) where "R" represents the turn radius, "V" represents the item of speed data, "dxi/dt" represents the derivative or the pseudo- derivative of the item of navigation data in the form of a track or heading angle, "=" represents the equals sign and "/" represents the division sign (Dupre: [0022-0026]).
Dupre does not explicitly recite the equation, R=V/ (dxi/dt). However, because applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claim 8, would have been an obvious permutation for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving displacement and orientation, as shown by Dupre. Since the formula failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the recited formula, would be an obvious matter well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary mathematical/engineering skill.
REGARDING CLAIM 9, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Gong also discloses, the method comprising comparing the value of the item of navigation data with at least one navigation threshold (Gong: [0124]; [0161]; [0490]; [0554]; [0589]; [0705]).
Gong does not explicitly disclose, the aircraft symbol is positioned along a first geometric axis dividing a screen of the display into a first side and a second side, during a turn, the method comprises determining the position of a center along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis at a distance from the aircraft symbol equal to the product of the turn radius and a scale factor, the center being positioned on the first side or the second side depending on the comparison, the path symbol having an arc starting from the aircraft symbol and centered on the center.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dupre also discloses, the aircraft symbol is positioned along a first geometric axis dividing a screen of the display into a first side and a second side (Dupre: [FIG. 2]), during a turn, the method comprises determining the position of a center along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis at a distance from the aircraft symbol equal to the product of the turn radius (Dupre: [FIG. 2]) and a scale factor (Dupre: [FIG. 2]), the center being positioned on the first side or the second side depending on the comparison (Dupre: [FIG. 2]), the path symbol having an arc starting from the aircraft symbol and centered on the center (Dupre: [FIG. 2]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, as best understood, Gong discloses, implement a method for helping to keep the drone within an authorized airspace, the path estimator having a controller (Gong: [0445]; [1010]) and a display (Gong: [0027]; [1010]), wherein the path estimator is configured to determine a value of an item of speed data of the drone (Gong: [0446]; [0588]) and a value of an item of location data carrying a current position of the drone (Gong: [0446]; [0474]; [0508]; [0588]) and a value of an item of navigation data of the drone (Gong: [0446]; [0474]; [0508]; [0588]) making it possible to assess whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn (Gong: [0446]; [0588]); wherein the path estimator is configured to display several symbols on the display (Gong: [0382]; [0918]; [0925]; [0932-0934]; [0997]), the displaying of several symbols comprising: i) displaying an aircraft symbol showing a current position of the drone (Gong: [0923]; [0926]; [0932-0933]); ii) displaying a boundary symbol showing a boundary of the authorized airspace in a position in relation to the aircraft symbol representative of a position of the boundary of the authorized airspace in relation to the current position of the drone (Gong: [0934]); and iii) determining a geometry and displaying a path symbol showing a predicted path of the drone without changing values of the item of speed data and the item of navigation data (Gong: [0932-0933]), the geometry of the path symbol being a shape of the path symbol determined by the controller using a stored model based at least on the value of the item of speed data and the value of the item of navigation data (Gong: [0019]; [0932-0933]), wherein the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period (Gong: [0933]), a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length (Gong: [0932]); and wherein, before displaying several symbols, the path estimator is configured to determine whether the drone is flying in a straight line (Gong: [0445-0446]) or performing a turn (Gong: [0445]) based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis (Gong: [0445]), the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn (Gong: [0932-0933]).
As stated in the prior office action, the examiner respectfully submits Gong discloses, wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis, the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn.
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Dupre discloses, wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line (Dupre: [0014] b) the current values of flight characteristics of the aircraft (speed, heading, etc.); [0020] the said predicted path is displayed; [0034] a breakdown into a path without wind (basic trigonometry; [0035] superimposition of a constant wind (constant drift); [0036] display of the path in consecutive segments) or performing a turn (Dupre: [ABS] a predicted path which is a flight path having a constant roll angel, taking account of the effect of the wind) based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis (Dupre: [ABS] a predicted path which is a flight path having a constant roll angel, taking account of the effect of the wind), the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn (Dupre: [0036] display of the path in consecutive segments), for the benefit of a sufficiently precise and continuous path display.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Gong to include considering current values and characteristics before updating a predicted path taught by Dupre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a sufficiently precise and continuous path display.
REGARDING CLAIM 15, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 14, and further, Gong also discloses, A kit comprising a drone and the path estimator not embedded on the drone, wherein the path estimator is according to claim 14 (Gong: [0026]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 15, and further, Gong also discloses, the drone comprises a speed sensor measuring the item of speed data (Gong: [0099]) and a navigation sensor measuring the item of navigation data (Gong: [0098]) and a position sensor measuring the item of location data (Gong: [0098]), the drone having a transmitter transmitting the item of speed data (Gong: [0094]) and the item of navigation data (Gong: [0098-0099]; [0125]; [0132]; [0384]) and the item of location data (Gong: [0098-0099]; [0125]; [0132]; [0384]), the path estimator having a receiver receiving the item of speed data (Gong: [0098-0099]; [0125]; [0132]; [0384]) and the item of navigation data (Gong: [0098-0099]; [0125]; [0132]; [0384]) and the item of location data (Gong: [0098-0099]; [0125]; [0132]; [0384]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong also discloses, the predicted path of the drone is automatically generated using a flight path model stored in a memory of the path estimator (Gong: [0022] A non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions for operating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) may be provided in accordance with aspects of the invention).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong also discloses, speed data, navigation data, and location data are measured by sensors embedded on the drone (Gong: [0098] he UAV may further comprise other sensors that may be used to determine a location of the UAV, such as global positioning system (GPS) sensors … [0099] Sensors of different types may measure different types of signals or information (e.g., position, orientation, velocity, acceleration, proximity, pressure, etc.)) and transmitted to the path estimator via a wireless communication link (Gong: [0156] The flight regulations may govern whether the sensors can store or transmit information; [0384] The user terminal may be capable of both sending information to the UAV and receiving information from the UAV; [0437] A UAV can send out messages containing a signature. The messages may comprise various types of information concerning flight control command, GPS position of the UAV and/or time information; [0536] the subsequent data message (MSG) may be a remote control command, position report, a velocity report, etc).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, as best understood, Gong discloses, determining, with a path estimator not on the drone (Gong: [0445]; [0933]), a value of an item of speed data of the drone (Dupre: [0446]; [0588]) and a value of an item of location data carrying a current position of the drone (Gong: [0446]; [0474]; [0588]) and a value of an item of navigation data of the drone (Gong: [0446]; [0474]; [0588]) to assess whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn (Gong: [0446]; [0588]), the path estimator having a controller (Dupre: [0445]; [1010]) and a display (Gong: [0027]; [1010]); and displaying several symbols on the display of the path estimator (Gong: [0382]; [0918]; [0925]; [0934]; [0997]), the displaying of several symbols comprising: i) displaying an aircraft symbol showing a current position of the drone (Gong: [0923]; [0926]; [0932-0933]); ii) displaying a boundary symbol showing a boundary of the authorized airspace in a position in relation to the aircraft symbol representative of a position of the boundary of the authorized airspace in relation to the current position of the drone (Gong: [0934]); and iii) determining a geometry and displaying a path symbol showing a predicted path of the drone without changing values of the item of speed data and the item of navigation data (Gong: [0932-0933]), the geometry of the path symbol being a shape of the path symbol determined by the controller using a stored model based at least on the value of the item of speed data and the value of the item of navigation data (Gong: [0019]; [0932-0933]); wherein the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period (Gong: [0933]), a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length (Gong: [0932]); wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line (Gong: [0445-0446]) or performing a turn (Gong: [0445]), the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn (Gong: [0932]; [0933]).
As stated in the prior office action, the examiner respectfully submits Gong discloses, wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line or performing a turn based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis, the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn.
However, in the alternative, and in the same field of endeavor, Dupre discloses, wherein, before displaying several symbols, the method comprises determining whether the drone is flying in a straight line (Dupre: [0014]; [0020]; [0034-0036]) or performing a turn (Dupre: [ABS]) based on the item of navigation data with or without hysteresis (Dupre: [ABS]), the path symbol being in the form of a segment during a flight in a straight line and a curve during a turn (Dupre: [0036]), for the benefit of a sufficiently precise and continuous path display.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Gong to include considering current values and characteristics before updating a predicted path taught by Dupre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a sufficiently precise and continuous path display.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 19, and further, Gong also discloses, the path symbol is positioned in relation to a current heading angle or a current track angle of the drone (Gong: [0474]; [0932-0933]; [FIG. 42]; [0588]; [0907]; [0997]).
Gong does not explicitly recite the terminology "path symbol is positioned in relation to a current heading angle or a current track angle". However, Gong discloses tracking and displaying trajectory, vector, orientation, translational acceleration, angular velocity, and angular acceleration. Which is "a current heading angle or a current track angle".
REGARDING CLAIM 21, as best understood, Gong in view of Dupre remains as applied above to claim 19, and further, Dupre also discloses, determining with the path estimator a turn radius (Dupre: [0022-0026]) based on the item of speed data and the item of navigation data (Dupre: [0022-0026]), the geometry of the path symbol being based on the turn radius (Dupre: [0022-0026]), and the path symbol is in the shape of an arc with the turn radius multiplied by a scale factor (Dupre: [FIG. 2]; FIG. 2, the display mode shown is a usual mode called ARC, in which the aircraft symbol 13 has a fixed and centred position which is situated vertically at the bottom and horizontally at the centre of the display screen 11; [0080] a heading scale 14; and [0081] a distance scale 15).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 20180068567 A) in view of Dupre (US 20090055037 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20150142218 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, as best understood, Gong, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, displaying of the path symbol is disabled below a stored air speed or ground speed of the drone, with or without hysteresis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin discloses, displaying of the path symbol is disabled below a stored air speed or ground speed of the drone, with or without hysteresis (Lin: [0056]; [0090]), for the benefit of prompting human intervention and confirming guiding is complete.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Gong to include signaling to prompt human intervention and confirming completion taught by Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prompt human intervention and confirming guiding is complete.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 20180068567 A) in view of Dupre (US 20090055037 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walter (US 20130066488 A1) in further view of Polle (US 20170345166 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, as best understood, Gong, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, filtering at least one item of data from the item of speed data and the item of navigation data with a low-pass filter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walter discloses, filtering at least one item of data from the item of speed data (Walter: [0033]), for the benefit of avoiding an inappropriate reaction from the crew to an erroneous airspeed indication.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Gong to include speed data filtering taught by Walter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid an inappropriate reaction from the crew to an erroneous airspeed indication.
Gong, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, filter the item of navigation data with a low-pass filter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Polle discloses, and the item of navigation data with a low-pass filter (Polle: [ABS]), for the benefit of preventing error propagation over time.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Gong to include navigation data filtering taught by Walter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent error propagation over time.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (US 20180068567 A) in view of Dupre (US 20090055037 A1) as applied above to claim 1, and in further view of Graetz (US 20190054937 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, as best understood, Gong, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Gong, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, displaying of several symbols comprises displaying, on the display, a representation of the overflown terrain on top of which the aircraft symbol, the boundary symbol and the path symbol are superposed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Graetz discloses, displaying, on the display, a representation of the overflown terrain on top of which the aircraft symbol, the boundary symbol and the path symbol are superposed (Graetz: [0099]), for the benefit of detecting an interference along the flight path based on the received data, and adjusting the flight plan based on the interference.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Gong to include symbols and terrain features taught by Graetz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to detect an interference along the flight path based on the received data, and adjusting the flight plan based on the interference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-31-2025, beginning on page 9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §101, mental process, to the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the amendments overcome the patent ineligible subject matter rejection of record. Specifically, “a non-embedded path estimator” used to apply the method overcomes the current §101 rejection of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying a mental process using an electronic device does not overcome a §101 rejection.
The applicant has further contended the “specialized technical detail” improvement of “the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period, a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length” elevates the claim to significantly more than a mental process that can be practically performed within the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the prior art discloses that which is claimed, the language of the claims fail to patentably distinguish the instant application from the prior art references.
Because applying a mental process using a generic electronic, and because the claims fails to provide novelty, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 §101, mental process/abstract idea.
Regarding the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 USC §101, mathematical concept, the claims contain formulas or equations alpha-numerically. As stated above, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, Para. 3)). A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I, B Para. 1)). The examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 USC §101, mathematical concept.
Regarding amended claim 1, Gong (US 20180068567 A) still discloses that which is claimed. As cited above, Gong discloses, the path symbol displays the predicted path that the drone will follow for a fixed or adjustable upcoming time period (Gong: [0933] The future flight path may be altered or updated in real-time. The future flight path may be updated and/or displayed continuously, periodically (e.g., at regular or irregular intervals), in accordance with a schedule ... the future flight path shown on a screen may be updated within less than), a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length (Gong: [0932] a longer arrow or vector may correspond with a greater velocity than a shorter arrow or vector). Gong does not explicitly recite the terminology "a length of the path symbol being limited in order not to exceed a predetermined length". However, in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. The examiner respectfully submits, arrow length corresponding to a magnitude is, per se, predetermined and limiting (lower speeds cannot be longer than higher speed). Because the prior art of record discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663