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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs (US 20210358310 A1) in view of Salentiny (US 20160225263 A1).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Sachs teaches a method for evaluating a mission of a mobile entity, comprising the steps of: obtaining, by at least one processor, information on a planned trajectory, the mobile entity, mission requirements, environment and public body rules (Sachs: [0020], [0029], and [0032] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, information on mission requirements is equivalent to a planned flight path.);
Transforming automatically, by the at least one processor, the information into a symbolic, probabilistic representation… to generate a probabilistic logic program (Sachs: [0034], [0037], and [0040]),
Wherein facts are extracted from the information and systematically designated with names within the probabilistic logic program (Sachs: [0020] and [0034] Note that the ground risk and air risk are the names within the probabilistic logic program.);
And wherein the probabilistic logic program is executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic inference to resolve queries (Sachs: [0032], [0037], and [0041] Note that Sachs' use of real time data and current flight paths to determine ground and air risk values (probabilities) is equivalent to the probabilistic logic program executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic queries. The real-time data in Sachs is used to determine the ground and air risk values, which are probabilities of a collision, to update the assessment as new data becomes available.),
Obtaining, via an interface, at least one probabilistic logic query on the mission (Sachs: [0042] and [0056]);
And generating, by the at least one processor, an answer to the at least one probabilistic logic query based on the probabilistic logic program (Sachs: [0032] and [0088] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating an answer to the probabilistic query is equivalent to the risk assessment module making decisions/recommendations for risk mitigation.),
And outputting the generated answer via the interface (Sachs: [0035]).
Sachs does not explicitly teach the probabilistic representation, comprising a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions, to generate a probabilistic logic program. However, Sachs teaches in [0042], [0056], and [0083] that the ground and air risk values represent probabilities that are used to output a risk recommendation and/or flight approval/denial.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the probabilistic representation to comprise a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions to generate a probabilistic logic program as similarly shown in Sachs' [0042], [0056], and [0083] use of ground and air risk values to determine an output. This provides the benefit of avoiding areas with ground and/or air risk to propose a safe route as explicitly explained in [0031].
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Salentiny teaches transforming automatically, by the at least one processor, the information into a symbolic, probabilistic representation, comprising a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions, to generate a probabilistic logic program (Salentiny: [0057] and [0058] Note that the tokenized rule that determines when no flight may occur (based on probability of loss of control) is equivalent to a set of logic clauses associated with probability distributions to generate a probabilistic logic program.),
And wherein the probabilistic logic program is executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic inference to resolve queries (Salentiny: [0057] Note that examining current condition to apply statistical analyses (probability calculation) to generate instructions (fly or no-fly status) is equivalent to the probabilistic logic program to apply probabilistic inference to resolve queries. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, probabilistic inference is interpreted as a real-time assessment of risk as new data (current conditions) becomes available.).
Sachs and Salentiny are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of flight path evaluation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs to incorporate the teachings of Salentiny for the symbolic, probabilistic representation to comprise a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions to generate a probabilistic logic program because it provides the benefit of a set of definitive rules to determine an optimized aircraft path. The operational rules improve on Sachs because it determines an area is a fly or no-fly zone based on specific scenarios to generate a final output as explicitly explained in [0058].
9. Regarding Claim 2, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches at least one of the information on the planned trajectory and the mobile entity is obtained from an agent unit (Sachs: [0029] and [0034]);
The information on the planned trajectory includes at least one of a spatio-temporal representation of the planned trajectory and information on an uncertainty along the planned trajectory (Sachs: [0029] and [0034]);
And the information on the mobile entity includes at least one of hardware specification, sensor data and information on measurements made by the mobile entity (Sachs: [0041]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one probabilistic logic query is obtained from the agent unit and the answer is sent to the agent unit (Sachs: [0020] and [0084]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the information on the environment is obtained from at least one of a source for public information and includes weather conditions, geographic and topological information (Sachs: [0032]).
12. Regarding Claim 5, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the information on the public body rules is obtained from at least one of a source of information on rules set by a public body and includes legislative rules and regulations to be complied with (Sachs: [0032]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the information on the mission requirements is obtained from an operator unit and includes operator rules and mission requirements (Sachs: [0020], [0029], and [0032]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one probabilistic logic query is obtained from the operator unit and the answer is sent to the operator unit (Sachs: [0020] and [0084]).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches a first logic program is generated based on the information on the planned trajectory and the mobile entity; a second logic program is generated on the information on the environment; a third logic program is generated on the information on the mission requirements; and the probabilistic logic program is generated by combining the first logic program, the second logic program und the third logic program (Sachs: [0032], [0034], and [0069] Note that information on the planned trajectory and mobile entity, information on the environment, and information on the mission requirements determines a ground risk and air risk value, which is combined into a total score and is equivalent to the combined first, second, and third logic program. Gathering data from multiple sources to generate a more accurate reflection of the current scenario of the aircraft in order to provide appropriate recommendations for mitigating risks).
16. Regarding Claim 9, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program that, when running on a computer or loaded onto a computer, causes the computer to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 (Sachs: [0036]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Sachs teaches a system for evaluating a mission of a mobile entity, comprising at least one processor, at least one storage device, and at least one interface, wherein the at least one processor is configured to (Sachs: [0040]):
Obtain information on a planned trajectory, the mobile entity, mission requirements, environment and public body rules (Sachs: [0020], [0029], and [0032] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, information on mission requirements is equivalent to a planned flight path.);
Transform automatically the information into a symbolic, probabilistic representation… to generate a probabilistic logic program (Sachs: [0034], [0037], and [0040]),
Wherein facts are extracted from the information and systematically designated with names within the probabilistic logic program (Sachs: [0020] and [0034] Note that the ground risk and air risk are the names within the probabilistic logic program.);
And wherein the probabilistic logic program is executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic inference to resolve queries (Sachs: [0032], [0037], and [0041] Note that Sachs' use of real time data and current flight paths to determine ground and air risk values (probabilities) is equivalent to the probabilistic logic program executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic queries. The real-time data in Sachs is used to determine the ground and air risk values, which are probabilities of a collision, to update the assessment as new data becomes available.),
And to obtain via the at least one interface at least one probabilistic logic query on the mission is obtained (Sachs: [0042] and [0056]);
Generate an answer to the at least one probabilistic logic query based on the probabilistic logic program and output the generated answer via the at least one interface (Sachs: [0032], [0035], and [0088] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, generating an answer to the probabilistic query is equivalent to the risk assessment module making decisions/recommendations for risk mitigation.).
Sachs does not explicitly teach the probabilistic representation, comprising a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions, to generate a probabilistic logic program. However, Sachs teaches in [0042], [0056], and [0083] that the ground and air risk values represent probabilities that are used to output a risk recommendation and/or flight approval/denial.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the probabilistic representation to comprise a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions to generate a probabilistic logic program as similarly shown in Sachs' [0042], [0056], and [0083] use of ground and air risk values to determine an output. This provides the benefit of avoiding areas with ground and/or air risk to propose a safe route as explicitly explained in [0031].
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Salentiny teaches to transform automatically the information into a symbolic, probabilistic representation, comprising a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions, to generate a probabilistic logic program (Salentiny: [0057] and [0058] Note that the tokenized rule that determines when no flight may occur (based on probability of loss of control) is equivalent to a set of logic clauses associated with probability distributions to generate a probabilistic logic program.),
And wherein the probabilistic logic program is executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic inference to resolve queries (Salentiny: [0057] Note that examining current condition to apply statistical analyses (probability calculation) to generate instructions (fly or no-fly status) is equivalent to the probabilistic logic program to apply probabilistic inference to resolve queries. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, probabilistic inference is interpreted as a real-time assessment of risk as new data (current conditions) becomes available.).
Sachs and Salentiny are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of flight path evaluation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs to incorporate the teachings of Salentiny for the symbolic, probabilistic representation to comprise a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions to generate a probabilistic logic program because it provides the benefit of a set of definitive rules to determine an optimized aircraft path. The operational rules improve on Sachs because it determines an area is a fly or no-fly zone based on specific scenarios to generate a final output as explicitly explained in [0058].
18. Regarding Claim 11, Sachs and Salentiny remain as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one processor causes at least one of an agent unit to provide the information on the planned trajectory and the mobile entity, to generate the at least one probabilistic logic query and to control the mobile entity based on the answer, and an interface of the at least one interface to receive the provided information and the at least one probabilistic logic query from the agent unit and to send the answer to the agent unit (Sachs: [0029], [0034], and [0035]);
The agent unit is an unmanned aerial vehicle, automotive vehicle, vessel, ground-based robot or indoor robot, wherein the agent unit is autonomous or remotely operated, or the agent unit is an input/output device, in particular a tablet or smartphone used by an operator of the mobile entity (Sachs: [0084]);
The information on the planned trajectory includes at least one of a spatio-temporal representation of the planned trajectory and information on an uncertainty along the planned trajectory (Sachs: [0032] and [0041]);
And the information on the mobile entity includes at least one of hardware specification, sensor data and information on measurements made by the mobile entity (Sachs: [0041]).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Sachs and Salentiny remain as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one processor causes a storage device to store the information on the environment and causes an interface of the at least one interface to receive the information on the environment from the storage device; and the information on the environment includes at least one of weather conditions, geographic and topological information (Sachs: [0032]).
20. Regarding Claim 13, Sachs and Salentiny remain as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one processor causes a storage device for storing the information on the public body rules and causes an interface of the at least one interface for receiving the information on the public body rules; and the information on the public body rules includes at least one of legislative rules and regulations to be complied with (Sachs: [0032]).
21. Regarding Claim 14, Sachs and Salentiny remain as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one processor causes an operator unit to generate the information on the mission requirements and the at least one probabilistic logic query based on an operation of a user and to output the answer to the user, and causes an interface of the at least one interface to receive the generated information and the at least one probabilistic logic query from the operator unit and to send the answer to the operator unit (Sachs: [0020] and [0084]);
The operator unit is a data processing device or a user interface (Sachs: [0035]),
And the information on the mission requirements includes operator rules and mission requirements (Sachs: [0020], [0029], and [0032]).
22. Regarding Claim 15, Sachs and Salentiny remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Sachs teaches the at least one processor is configured to generate a logic program based on the information on the planned trajectory and the mobile entity and to attach the information on the environment and the information on the mission requirements to the logic program to generate the probabilistic logic program (Sachs: [0032], [0034], and [0069] Note that information on the planned trajectory and mobile entity, information on the environment, and information on the mission requirements determines a ground risk and air risk value, which is combined into a total score and is equivalent to the combined first, second, and third logic program. Gathering data from multiple sources to generate a more accurate reflection of the current scenario of the aircraft in order to provide appropriate recommendations for mitigating risks).
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Salentiny (US 20160225263 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of transforming automatically the information into a symbolic, probabilistic representation, comprising a set of logic clauses with associated probability distributions, to generate a probabilistic logic program, wherein the probabilistic logic program is executable by a resolution engine applying probabilistic inference to resolve queries. Salentiny is applied in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0057] and [0058] to teach the use of operational rules to determine a fly or no-fly zone in an aircraft’s flight path.
24. Sachs (US 20210358310 A1) in view of Salentiny (US 20160225263 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
25. Claims 1-15 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights