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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 18/201,543, filed on May 24, 2023. In response to Examiner's Final Office Action dated July 28, 2025, Applicant on November 26, 2025, amended claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10-15, canceled claim 9 and added new claim 16. Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-16 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
The amendment to the claims filed on November 26, 2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the amendments do not included all the required markings; see 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2). Examiner has acknowledged the amendments and will examine the claims as filed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 14 and 15 have been withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 9-12, 14 and 15 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10 and 11 and canceling claim 9. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to claims 1-4, 10-12, 14 and 15 and new claim 16.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 6, 7 and 13 are hereby amended pursuant to Applicants amendments to claims 1, 6, 7 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed November 26, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed November 26, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the Office Action alleged that the claims are directed to monitoring and analyzing data to implement identified mitigation strategies and thus, are directed to ineligible abstract idea. Applicant continues to respectfully disagree.
Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims do not "recite a mental process" under Step 2A, Prong 1, because the human mind is not practically capable of performing the recited operations. The controlling guidance explains that a claim does not recite a mental process when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations in practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a) and SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to categorize the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited).
Applicant cites amended claim language from claims 1, 10 and 11 (see p. 8-9, Applicant Remarks).
These operations are applied to streaming, heterogeneous aviation telemetry in an uncrewed aviation ecosystem. The specification explains ingestion from diverse external systems over heterogeneous protocols (UDP, RESTful APIs, AMQP, MQTT, WebSocket) and normalization to standardized internal formats divided by logical domain (paras. [0020]-[0023]). As a practical matter, a human mind cannot perform schema-driven per-field integrity checks with message timing validation and M-of-N gating across asynchronous, multi-protocol data feeds in real time. Mitigation selection may be performed by AI or presented to a human, and execution follows an ordered pipeline from ingestion and monitoring to impact analysis and mitigation (see [0034]-[0035], [0042], Steps 508-522). This is a machine-orchestrated supervisory function across disparate sensor domains - not a mental exercise.
The claims also require ecosystem-level impact assessment and an execution phase expressly limited to supervisory actions (alerts, constraints, contingency procedures, registered triggers) without transmitting commands to any onboard flight controller or aircraft actuator of the vehicle (paras. [0037]; [0042], STEPS 516-522; [0045]). Under MPEP § 2106.04(a) and SRI, such telemetry-level analyses are not practicable mental processes.
Taken together, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited limitations require machine-speed, parallel processing of multi-protocol aviation telemetry using explicit technical rules (schema-defined passing criteria and filters), cross-domain impact assessment, and indirect mitigation execution. These operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite a mental process in Step 2A, Prong 1. Because no judicial exception is recited, the § 101 analysis ends at Prong 1, and withdrawal of the abstract-idea rejection is warranted.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the courts found the claim recited utilizing a plurality of network monitors to analyze specific network traffic data (e.g., analysis of network traffic data selected from one or more of the following categories: (network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors, network packet data volume, network connection requests, network connection denials, error codes included in a network packet, network connection acknowledgements, and network packets indicative of well-known network-service protocols) and integrate generated reports from the monitors to identify hackers and intruders on the network, which constituted an improvement rooted in computer network technology. Since the claim improves technology, the claim imposes meaningful limits on any recited judicial exception, and the claim would be eligible under the 2019 PEG at least at Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner finds no similar improvement here. The pending claims recite generic computer components (i.e., a processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory) to ingest and continuously monitor information from diverse external systems, detect issues associated with the aviation ecosystem by performing a data integrity monitoring technique, assessing the impact of the issues and determining and generating mitigation strategies to publish an alert message, constraint, contingency procedure, and/or trigger for external registered mitigation actions via interfaces to external systems. The mitigation strategies however do not directly control the performance of the uncrewed vehicle or issue flight-control commands to any onboard system of the unmanned vehicle. Examiner finds no technological improvement here. Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, regardless of the complexity and/or granularity collecting and assessing data metrics to provide mitigation strategies without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Examiner finds the aforementioned limitations constitute methods that mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the recitation of the additional elements do not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states even if a judicial exception were implicated, the claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application and add significantly more. The ordered combination of multi-protocol ingestion (see [0021]), normalization and relationship-function analysis (see [0027]-[0029]), schema-driven integrity checks with message timing and predetermined filters (see [0031]- [0032]), ecosystem-level impact assessment see [0033]), runtime configuration reload without pausing service (see [0008], [0041]), and indirect mitigation execution (see [0034]-[0035], [0042], [0045]) reflects a non-conventional architecture in the aviation telemetry context.
These concrete, technical features present a practical application that improves the functioning of the supervisory computing architecture in the defined technological environment by enhancing data integrity, reducing false alerts, enabling cross-domain trend detection, and providing uninterrupted configuration updates. The Office's cited authorities, such as Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and FairWarning v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), involved claims broadly directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information without reciting specific technological improvements. By contrast, the amended claims recite schema-specific integrity monitoring with message timing constraints, M-of-N alert gating, cross-source relationship functions, protocol translation and domain standardization, runtime configuration reload without service interruption, and non-control supervisory execution with a concrete constraint-volume output. These claim-level requirements integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and materially distinguish the present claims from the general data monitoring cases.
Therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as well.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Diamond v. Diehr discloses an example that recites meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Specifically, the claim is directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation in an automated process for operating a rubber‐molding press. The court found the claim recites meaningful limitations along with the judicial exception including installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, constantly recalculating the cure time and opening the press at the proper time. These limitations sufficiently limit the claim to the practical application of molding rubber products and are clearly not an attempt to patent the mathematical equation and thus recite improvements to the technology. Examiner finds there are no similar technology, technological problem or solution here. As stated above, regardless of complexity and/or granularity, data analysis without meaningful limitations within the claims that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself is a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). Applicant has not identified any limitations in the claimed invention that show or submit that the technology used is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states Under Step 2B, the inquiry is whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, i.e., whether they are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. See MPEP §2106.05. The Office bears the burden to show, with evidence, that claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Final Office Action does not cite evidence establishing that the particular combination recited here - schema-based per-field integrity checks including message timing; M-of-N alert gating; cross-source relationship-function analysis over time; protocol translation to standardized internal domain formats; runtime configuration reload without pausing service; and explicit exclusion of onboard command signaling - was routine or conventional in the field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) (the claim must reflect the disclosed improvement). The amended independent claims now "reflect" the improvements to integrity monitoring, alert quality, cross-domain analytics, and service availability that are disclosed in the specification, and the program product and system claims recite these concrete features at the claim level. Viewed as a whole, the ordered combination transforms any asserted abstract idea into a patent-eligible application that amounts to significantly more.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, the analysis in Step 2B addresses the question on whether an additional element (or combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine and/or conventional activities. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than monitoring and analyzing data to implement identified mitigation strategies. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Examiner notes evidence that the additional elements recited in the claims amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions has been sufficiently provided in the 37 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite additional elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do these elements provide meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 12-16 (see p. 11-15, Applicant Remarks).
In response, Examiner finds the limitations of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 12-16 recite limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g), generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f), merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular environment and/or further narrowing the instructions of the abstract idea. Applicant has not made any persuasive argument that would alter this analysis. Examiner maintains the depending claims do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, Applicant states Claim 2, as amended, recites runtime reconfiguration by re-loading configuration without pausing service. The specification discloses that configuration files are read at start-time and "updated during run-time by re-loading the configuration," with "No pause in service ... required"(¶[0041]; ¶[0008]). Belt's emergency flight plan selection during operation is a mission behavior, not an in-service reload of module configurations in a telemetry integrity and analysis pipeline, and Belt does not disclose reload "without pausing service.".
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an in-service reload of module configurations in a telemetry integrity and analysis pipeline) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner finds the Belt is sufficient in teaching the limitations of claim 2 because the emergency flight plan can be executed immediately if monitored metrics exceed a threshold (see at least Belt par. 0129-0132). As stated in the previous office action, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner finds the emergency flight plan that can be deployed during operation is sufficient in teaching the refresh command because the emergency flight plan differs from the pre-flight plan.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant states Claim 6, as amended, recites determining trends via preconfigured relationship functions applied over time across multiple independent external data sources of the uncrewed aviation ecosystem. Claim 7, as amended, narrows to historic trends across heterogeneous external systems comprising at least surveillance, weather, and navigation sources. The specification describes a cross-domain methodology: ingestion from diverse protocols and sources, standardization by domain, relationship functions over time across heterogeneous streams, deviation detection against thresholds, and alert filtering (11[0020]-[0023]; 11[0027]-[0029]; FIG. 3, STEPS 302-314; 1[0039] for historical analysis across disparate datasets including weather and surveillance). The Office concedes that these features are not disclosed in Belt et al. Gentry is focused on predicting failure conditions within an individual UAV's physical systems and structures using sensor data, trend data of that UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs, and classification of failure conditions; examples include rates of change for power supply temperature and in-flight vibration frequency thresholds for structural health. Gentry does not teach or suggest preconfigured relationship functions across multiple independent external sources in an ecosystem context, nor does it suggest multi-domain historical trends across surveillance, weather, and navigation sources. The proposed combination would require transforming Belt's site operations and impending-violation detection into a cross- domain, ecosystem-level relationship-function trend analysis, which is neither taught nor supported by Gentry's per-UAV physical subsystem framework. The Final Office Action does not provide an articulated rationale with reasonable expectation of success for such a transformation. Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 are not obvious over Belt in view of Gentry.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Belt discloses a management agent receiving data from various sources (see par. 0037). Examiner finds Gentry improves upon Belt by disclosing environmental conditions may relate to the weather conditions and terrain contours over which the in-flight diagnostic checks are to be performed and a navigation system that includes a GPS unit can be tested in flight by comparing the output GPS co-ordinates with those of a known landmark. Thus, Examiner finds Gentry is sufficient in teaching the abovementioned limitations because the reference discloses a sensor data processing module that may determine whether a physical system or physical structure is functioning normally by a comparing processed sensor data to historical trends of the same UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, see pg. 15-19, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot because they are directed to newly amended subject matter and do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12 and 16 are directed towards a method, claim 10 is directed towards a system and claims 11 and 13-15 are directed towards a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite monitoring and analyzing data to implement identified mitigation strategies.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, continuously monitoring the data; detecting one or more issues associated with at least one of health, integrity, or performance associated with the data or the uncrewed aviation ecosystem, wherein the detecting comprises performing data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema that defines passing criteria including at least one of field completeness, parameter bounds, message rate, and rate of change, applying a preconfigured M of N filter to limit false alerts, and applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple data sources to identify deviations against thresholds; assessing impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem; determining one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues; and executing the one or more mitigation strategies without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of performing the steps by at least one processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory and external system interfaces does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, monitor the data; detect one or more issues associated with the at least one of health, integrity, or performance associated with the data or associated systems comprising evaluating one of completeness, bounds, message rate, and rate of change according to a configurable schema and applying a preconfigured filter including comparing send and receipt timestamps of messages against a time of applicability to determine latency and comparing the latency to a configured threshold; assess impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem; determine one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues; and execute one or more mitigation strategies without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle and without transmitting commands to any onboard flight controller or aircraft actuator of the uncrewed vehicle constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of at least one processing device coupled to a memory does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on mental processes. Specifically, monitor the data; detect one or more issues associated with the at least one of health, integrity or performance issues associated with the data or associated systems; assess impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem; determine one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues; and execute one or more mitigation strategies without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle and without transmitting commands to any onboard flight controller or aircraft actuator of the uncrewed vehicle, the one or more mitigation strategies comprising at least one of sending an alert, sending a constraint, providing a contingency procedure, and triggering an external registered mitigation action constitutes methods based on observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs executable by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites ingesting data from at least one of communications systems, surveillance systems, navigation systems, weather sensing systems, and digital infrastructure systems in association with performance of an uncrewed aviation ecosystem and wherein executing comprises generating and publishing at least one of alert messages, constraints, contingency procedures, or triggers for externally registered mitigation actions via interfaces to external systems, without issuing flight-control commands to any onboard system of the unmanned vehicle, which are limitations considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites wherein the steps are performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising at least one processor, coupled to a memory recited in claim 10 and computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs executable by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory and data ingestion module in claim 11 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components; see MPEP 2106.05(f) and an addition element performing an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g), respectively. Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 10 and 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory, system comprising at least one processor coupled to a memory, computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and at least one of communications systems, surveillance systems, navigation systems, weather sensing systems, and digital infrastructure systems amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 3, 7, 13, 15 and 16 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 3, 15 and 16 recite sending, providing, read, updating and/or transmitting limitations respectively, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 4 recites additional elements that recite an instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14 and 16 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 12-16 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0263537 [hereinafter Belt], and further in view of Hammerschmidt, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0062004 [hereinafter Hammerschmidt].
Referring to Claim 1, Belt teaches:
A method, comprising:
ingesting data from at least one of communications systems, surveillance systems, navigation systems, weather sensing systems, and digital infrastructure systems in association with performance of an uncrewed aviation ecosystem (Belt, [0037]), “the flight manager 110 includes various agents or modules 211… the management agent 212 receives weather, air traffic data (e.g., automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data, radar data, and/or other data (such as acoustic data and/or light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data) indicative of aircraft or objects in flight), positional information, and/or other data from the control tower 130 and/or the navigation beacons 140”; (Belt, [0054]), “the control tower 130 can include various sensors and systems to collect environmental condition data related to the site of operation. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the control tower 130 includes a radar system 434, a GPS 435, an ADS-B radio 436, weather sensors 437, a camera 438, and a compass 439”; (Belt, [0055]; [0058]; [0064]; [0067]; [0155]);
continuously monitoring the data (Belt, [0023]), “Redundant localization systems and techniques for continuously monitoring the UAV and other environmental conditions at a site of operation increase the likelihood that the UAV will remain safe and within the operational envelope during flight operations”; (Belt, [0116]), “flight manager continuously monitors the data it receives from the control tower to verify site safety prior to flight plan execution…”; (Belt, [0138]), “the navigation beacons, control tower, and flight manager can continuously capture data related to (and/or can continuously monitor environmental conditions of) the site of operation while the UAV executes the flight plan…”; (Belt, [0049]; [0051]; [0094]; [0142]; [0155]);
detecting one or more issues associated with at least one of health, integrity, or performance associated with the data or the uncrewed aviation ecosystem (Belt, [0023]), “analyzing data collected by and/or provided to the UAV, and (b) intercede when it detects that the UAV has or is about to violate the operational envelope”; (Belt, [0133]), “the UAV can use various systems and/or sensors (e.g., an onboard accelerometer) to determine whether the UAV is exhibiting abnormal flight behavior indicative of failure, malfunction, or other compromise (e.g., hack) of a UAV sensor or system”; (Belt, [0147]; [0149]);
assessing impact of the one or more issues with respect to the uncrewed aviation ecosystem (Belt, [0134]), “the UAV can be configured to take one or more emergency actions dependent, for example, of the type and/or severity of the internal emergency detected…”; (Belt, [0050]-[0051]; [0147]; [0149]; [0112]; [0130]);
determining one or more mitigation strategies to address the impact of the one or more issues (Belt, [0023]), “system can define an emergency flight plan tied to a UAV's flight path. The emergency flight plans can specify a safe landing zone for every point or segment of the flight path”; (Belt, [0133]), “In the event that an internal emergency is detected at subblock 912e, the method 910 proceeds to block 914 such that the UAV takes emergency action. Otherwise, the method 910 proceeds to subblock 912f”; (Belt, [0148]; [0150]);
executing the one or more mitigation strategies without directly controlling performance of an uncrewed vehicle, wherein executing comprises generating and publishing at least one of alert messages, constraints, contingency procedures, or triggers for externally registered mitigation actions via interfaces to external systems, without issuing flight-control commands to any onboard system of the unmanned vehicle (Belt, [0112]), “performing a pre-flight inspection of the UAV, the system, and/or environmental site conditions. In some embodiments, the pre-flight inspection of the UAV is performed at least in part by the UAV inspection system… In the event damage is identified, a notification can be sent to a service technician… Additionally, or alternatively, if the UAV fails the pre-flight inspection and there is a backup UAV of the system available that passes the pre-flight inspection, the flight plan can be provided to the backup UAV for execution of the flight plan by the backup UAV”; (Belt, [0113]), “The pre-flight system inspection determines that all components (e.g., the control tower, the navigation beacons, the UAV inspection system, and/or the UAV) are operational and in communication with (e.g., the MQTT server of) the flight manager before a flight plan is executed… If one of the components of the system fails to respond to the inquiry, a notification can be sent to a field technician to investigate”; (Belt, [0117]), “If the flight manager determines that the flight plan violates the current flight restrictions and/or NOTAMs, the flight manager can (i) alter the flight plan (e.g., the flight path and/or emergency flight paths defined by the flight plan) to adhere to the current flight restrictions and/or NOTAMs, (ii) trigger a notification to a user (e.g., an operator) of the system, and/or (iii) prevent the UAV from executing the flight plan (at least until the flight plan is no longer in violation of current flight restrictions and/or NOTAMs)”; (Belt, [0022]; [0029]);
wherein the steps are performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor operatively coupled to a memory (Belt, Fig. 3, [0043]), “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the UAV 120 of the system 100 (FIGS. 1A and 1B). As shown, the UAV 120 has a multi-processor architecture (in this case, a dual-processor architecture) comprising an onboard flight controller 321 and an onboard oversight processor 324. The UAV 120 further includes a shared media interface 325, localization telemetry devices 326, aircraft control mechanisms 327, a (e.g., WAN and/or LAN) network communications interface 322, and a parachute 328. In some embodiments, the shared media interface 325 is a memory interface (e.g., a non-volatile memory interface) configured to receive system parameters from memory media”; (Belt, [0022]; [0253]).
Belt teaches analyzing collected data and interceding when it detects that the UAV has or is about to violate the operational envelope (see par. 0023) and using various systems and/or sensors (e.g., an onboard accelerometer) to determine whether the UAV is exhibiting abnormal flight behavior indicative of failure, malfunction, or other compromise (e.g., hack) of a UAV sensor or system (see par. 0133), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
wherein the detecting comprises performing data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema that defines passing criteria including at least one of field completeness, parameter bounds, message rate, and rate of change, applying a preconfigured M of N filter to limit false alerts, and applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple data sources to identify deviations against thresholds.
However Hammerschmidt teach:
wherein the detecting comprises performing data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema that defines passing criteria including at least one of field completeness, parameter bounds, message rate, and rate of change, applying a preconfigured M of N filter to limit false alerts, and applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple data sources to identify deviations against thresholds (Hammerschmidt, [0145]-[0169]), “The system has a switching threshold, and when the same is exceeded or fallen below, an action is triggered, such as the transmission of measurement data towards the outside or the change of a system-internal state, which again, for example, causes an increase of the sampling rate. 2. This switching threshold can also be determined adaptively as described in (1,2) or can be altered by a timer in a time-dependent way. 3. The noise caused by the sensor system and its characteristic is known and, thus, an error probability (p.sub.el) for the single measurement results.… 5. The decision is always repeated when a decision criterion is fulfilled. If it is not the same in the repetition, the decision is discarded and the repetitions are terminated. If the decision is the same in the repetition, the repetition is continued until n repetitions with the same result are present and then the decision is finally made… Variations are: The error probability results as p.sub.e (m of n)=p.sub.el/(1-p.sub.el).sup.m-n. This variation is particularly useful when the signal to be decided upon is also random and can occasionally fall to a value, which would not lead to a decision … Several thresholds can be defined, which have to occur with a different frequency in order to lead to a decision… The decision is only finally made when one of the criteria associated to the different thresholds is fulfilled within a defined time window… The time intervals of the repetition measurements have to be in the same period as the measurements prior to the threshold exceeding, but can take place faster to ensure a sampling rate…”; (Hammerschmidt, [0115]), “a certain number of repetitions of criteria fulfillment within a window of a predetermined number of measurement values is predetermined (n of m) in order to trigger a state change. In a random exceeding of the switching threshold due to noise, this will not occur with high probability. As a result of this, no further action will be initiated. When reaching the point indicated with `b`, the vehicle starts driving. The threshold is again exceeded. Then, the measurement is repeated again. The pressure variations due to which this exceeding has occurred are band-limited. This means that exceeding the threshold can be reproduced in consecutive measurements with high probability and, therefore, the criterion for multiple exceeding within the time window for the predetermined number of measurement values will be fulfilled”; (Hammerschmidt, [0070]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the violation detection in Belt to include the data integrity monitoring limitation as taught by Hammerschmidt. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of reliable determination of a state parameter of an object to be monitored (see Hammerschmidt par. 0016).
Referring to Claim 2, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the method of claim 1. Belt further teaches:
wherein one or more steps are configured for a specific deployment at system startup with ability to be reconfigured during runtime through execution of a manual or automated configuration refresh command, wherein reconfiguration is performed by re-loading configuration without pausing service (Belt, [0105]), “To create the UAV flight plan, a user defines a flight path, approves an emergency flight plan corresponding to the defined flight path, defines UAV actions during execution of the flight plan, and/or sets a schedule for execution of the flight path…”; (Belt, [0107), “Once a flight path has been defined (in whole or in part), an emergency flight plan corresponding to the flight path can be (e.g., automatically) generated”; (Belt, [0150]), “if wind data exceeds a first wind threshold… determine that the appropriate response is for the UAV (a) to change altitude, (b) hover in place, and/or (c) return to the docking station…Once the flight manager has determined an appropriate response to the weather conditions, the method 920 can proceed to block 928 where the flight manager transmits one or more commands to the UAV for the UAV to execute the appropriate response. In some embodiments, the method 920 can return to any one of the blocks 922-926 after weather conditions have improved to safe operating conditions”; (Belt, [0085]), “… a user can define an operational envelope for a first region at the site of operation, and the operational envelope for the first region can be associated with a UAV that is or will be deployed at the site of operation to execute flight plans within the first region. Continuing with this example, the user can additionally or alternatively define an operational envelope for a second region (e.g., a region different and/or separate from the first region) at the site of operation, and the operational envelope for the second region can be associated with another UAV that is or will be deployed at the site of operation to execute flight plans within the second region”; (Belt, [0129]; [0051]; [0131]; [0049]; [0100]; [0134]; [0136]).
Referring to Claim 3, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the method of claim 1. Belt further teaches:
wherein executing the one or more mitigation strategies includes at least one of sending an alert, sending a constraint, providing a contingency procedure, and triggering an external registered mitigation action (Belt, [0107]), “Once a flight path has been defined (in whole or in part), an emergency flight plan corresponding to the flight path can be (e.g., automatically) generated…”; (Belt, [0049]), “in the event that the oversight processor 324 determines that the flight controller 321 is operating at, near, or beyond the operational envelope defined by the parameters, the oversight processor 324 can communicate with the flight controller 321 over a uni-directional communications line to trigger an alert or alarm, to reduce operational velocity of the UAV 120, force execution of alternate instructions (e.g., to hover in place, to immediately return the UAV 120 to within the operational envelope and/or to the flight path, to land the UAV 120 within a safe landing zone, to return the UAV 120 to its original take off location, and/or to perform another action to attempt to bring the UAV back into a safe operating state), to execute a gradual shutdown procedure, and/or to temporarily or permanently disable the UAV 120”; (Belt, [0131]; [0117]).
Referring to Claim 4, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the method of claim 3. Belt further teaches:
wherein executing the one or more mitigation strategies is automatically performed (Belt, [0024]), “In the event the system identifies an emergency while the UAV is in flight, the UAV can execute the emergency flight plan to land at the safe landing zone specified in the emergency flight plan”; (Belt, [0138]), “he navigation beacons, control tower, and flight manager can continuously capture data related to (and/or can continuously monitor environmental conditions of) the site of operation while the UAV executes the flight plan. As discussed in greater detail below with respect to FIG. 9B, the flight manager can identify external emergencies that can jeopardize the safe and/or successful execution of the flight plan based at least in part on the captured data and/or environmental conditions. As such, the flight manager can generate commands for the UAV to execute in response to identifying an external emergency and can transmit these commands to the UAV. When the UAV receives these commands, the method 910 can proceed from subblock 912f to block 915 to execute the commands. Examples of commands that the flight manager can transmit to the UAV and that the UAV can execute include taking evasive action (e.g., by deviating from the flight path), hovering in place (e.g., for a specified period of time), returning to the docking station, and/or executing a portion of the emergency flight plan corresponding to the UAV's current position to land at a safe landing zone”; (Belt, [0116]; [0129]; [0131]; [0134]-[0135]).
Referring to Claim 10, Belt teaches
A system, comprising:
at least one processor, coupled to a memory (Belt, Fig. 3, [0043]), and configured to:
detect one or more issues associated with the at least one of health, integrity, or performance issues associated with the data or associated systems comprising evaluating one of completeness, bounds, rate, and rate of change associated with the data (Belt, [0155]), “the systems continuously collect and monitor data to identify emergencies both internal and external the UAVs… in the event the systems identify an emergency during flight of a UAV, the UAV can quickly and safely respond to the emergency…”; (Belt, [0050]), “the oversight processor 324 merely oversees operation of the flight controller 321 and intercedes when it detects a violation of system parameters (e.g., of operational envelope parameters associated with the UAV 120), which can indicate that the flight controller 321 has failed, is malfunctioning, and/or has become compromised (e.g., hacked)”; (Belt, [0154]; [0042]-[0043]).
Claim 10 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Belt teaches analyzing collected data and interceding when it detects that the UAV has or is about to violate the operational envelope (see par. 0023) and using various systems and/or sensors (e.g., an onboard accelerometer) to determine whether the UAV is exhibiting abnormal flight behavior indicative of failure, malfunction, or other compromise (e.g., hack) of a UAV sensor or system (see par. 0133), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
according to a configurable schema and applying a preconfigured filter including comparing send and receipt timestamps of messages against a time of applicability to determine latency and comparing the latency to a configured threshold.
However Hammerschmidt teach:
according to a configurable schema and applying a preconfigured filter including comparing send and receipt timestamps of messages against a time of applicability to determine latency and comparing the latency to a configured threshold (Hammerschmidt, [0145]-[0169]), “The system has a switching threshold, and when the same is exceeded or fallen below, an action is triggered, such as the transmission of measurement data towards the outside or the change of a system-internal state, which again, for example, causes an increase of the sampling rate. 2. This switching threshold can also be determined adaptively as described in (1,2) or can be altered by a timer in a time-dependent way. 3. The noise caused by the sensor system and its characteristic is known and, thus, an error probability (p.sub.el) for the single measurement results.… 5. The decision is always repeated when a decision criterion is fulfilled. If it is not the same in the repetition, the decision is discarded and the repetitions are terminated. If the decision is the same in the repetition, the repetition is continued until n repetitions with the same result are present and then the decision is finally made… Variations are: The error probability results as p.sub.e (m of n)=p.sub.el/(1-p.sub.el).sup.m-n. This variation is particularly useful when the signal to be decided upon is also random and can occasionally fall to a value, which would not lead to a decision … Several thresholds can be defined, which have to occur with a different frequency in order to lead to a decision… The decision is only finally made when one of the criteria associated to the different thresholds is fulfilled within a defined time window… The time intervals of the repetition measurements have to be in the same period as the measurements prior to the threshold exceeding, but can take place faster to ensure a sampling rate…”; (Hammerschmidt, [0115]), “a certain number of repetitions of criteria fulfillment within a window of a predetermined number of measurement values is predetermined (n of m) in order to trigger a state change. In a random exceeding of the switching threshold due to noise, this will not occur with high probability. As a result of this, no further action will be initiated. When reaching the point indicated with `b`, the vehicle starts driving. The threshold is again exceeded. Then, the measurement is repeated again. The pressure variations due to which this exceeding has occurred are band-limited. This means that exceeding the threshold can be reproduced in consecutive measurements with high probability and, therefore, the criterion for multiple exceeding within the time window for the predetermined number of measurement values will be fulfilled”; (Hammerschmidt, [0070]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the violation detection in Belt to include the data integrity monitoring limitation as taught by Hammerschmidt. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of reliable determination of a state parameter of an object to be monitored (see Hammerschmidt par. 0016).
Referring to Claim 11, Belt teaches:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code, when executed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (Belt, [0253]), causes the at least one processing device to:
ingest via a data ingestion module data from external data feeds and sources in association with performance of an uncrewed aviation ecosystem (Belt, [0037]), “the flight manager 110 includes various agents or modules 211… the management agent 212 receives weather, air traffic data (e.g., automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data, radar data, and/or other data (such as acoustic data and/or light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data) indicative of aircraft or objects in flight), positional information, and/or other data from the control tower 130 and/or the navigation beacons 140”; (Belt, [0054]), “the control tower 130 can include various sensors and systems to collect environmental condition data related to the site of operation. For example, in the illustrated embodiment, the control tower 130 includes a radar system 434, a GPS 435, an ADS-B radio 436, weather sensors 437, a camera 438, and a compass 439”; (Belt, [0055]; [0058]; [0064]; [0067]; [0155]).
Claim 11 disclose substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1, and is rejected using the same rationale as previously set forth.
Referring to Claim 12, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the method of claim 1. Belt further teaches:
wherein performing the evaluation comprises comparing the data to per-field threshold parameters and message timing parameters defined in the configurable schema, determining whether the data exceeds a corresponding parameter, and generating alerts only upon satisfaction of the preconfigured filter (Belt, [0128]), “In the event the UAV uses multiple difference thresholds for the comparison performed at subblock 912c, the emergency action taken by the UAV at block 914 can depend on which of the difference thresholds are exceeded. For example, if the difference between the determined positions of the UAV exceed a first difference threshold but not a second difference threshold, the UAV can take emergency action (a) by slowing its velocity and/or hovering in place and (b) waiting for a recalculated position of the UAV determined used the first localization system and/or a second recalculated position of the UAV determined using the second localization system, to stabilize and come back into alignment. If the recalculated positions come back into alignment within a specified period of time, the method 910 can return to block 912 and/or proceed to subblock 912d”; (Belt, [0130]-[0131]), “the method 910 continues by determining whether the current position of the UAV (a) is approaching a violation of or is already violating the UAV's operational envelope or (b) is deviating from the flight path defined in the flight plan… the oversight processor can check (a) the current position of the UAV (as defined by the positions of the UAV determined using the first and second localization system of the UAV) and/or (b) the UAV's current trajectory, velocity, and/or acceleration to determine if the UAV is about to violate or is currently violating its operational envelope. In the event the oversight processor determines that the UAV is not currently in violation of the UAV's operational envelope but is approaching a violation, the oversight processor can notify the flight controller of an impending violation, and the flight controller can take corrective action… A similar procedure can be performed if the flight controller and/or the oversight processor determine that the UAV is deviating from the flight path defined in the flight plan by more than one or more deviation thresholds… If the method 910 proceeds to block 914 from subblock 912d, the UAV can be configured to take one or more emergency actions.…”; (Belt, [0129]; [0150]).
Referring to Claim 15, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Belt further teaches:
wherein information identifying modules to use and configuration parameters therefor is read from configuration files at start-time and is updatable during run-time by re-loading the configuration without pausing service (Belt, [0105]), “To create the UAV flight plan, a user defines a flight path, approves an emergency flight plan corresponding to the defined flight path, defines UAV actions during execution of the flight plan, and/or sets a schedule for execution of the flight path…”; (Belt, [0107), “Once a flight path has been defined (in whole or in part), an emergency flight plan corresponding to the flight path can be (e.g., automatically) generated”; (Belt, [0150]), “if wind data exceeds a first wind threshold… determine that the appropriate response is for the UAV (a) to change altitude, (b) hover in place, and/or (c) return to the docking station…Once the flight manager has determined an appropriate response to the weather conditions, the method 920 can proceed to block 928 where the flight manager transmits one or more commands to the UAV for the UAV to execute the appropriate response. In some embodiments, the method 920 can return to any one of the blocks 922-926 after weather conditions have improved to safe operating conditions”; (Belt, [0085]), “… a user can define an operational envelope for a first region at the site of operation, and the operational envelope for the first region can be associated with a UAV that is or will be deployed at the site of operation to execute flight plans within the first region. Continuing with this example, the user can additionally or alternatively define an operational envelope for a second region (e.g., a region different and/or separate from the first region) at the site of operation, and the operational envelope for the second region can be associated with another UAV that is or will be deployed at the site of operation to execute flight plans within the second region”; (Belt, [0051]; [0131]; [0049]; [0100]; [0134]; [0136])..
Referring to claim 16, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the method of claim 1. Belt Further teaches:
wherein executing the one or more mitigation strategies comprises generating a 3D or 4D airspace constraint volume with metadata and transmitting the constraint to external systems (Belt, [0115]), “the control tower transmits weather and/or air traffic data to the flight manager. Air traffic data transmitted to the flight manager can include (a) the video/image data captured by the control tower and/or the navigation beacons, and/or (b) positional information for air traffic obstructions (e.g., foreign objects, other aircraft, birds, and/or other objects posing a risk to the UAV within the airspace at or around the site of operation) identified within the video/image data…. The processing can further include combining the first bearing with at least one other bearing of the air traffic obstruction determined from video/image data captured using another control tower or navigation beacon. In particular, the processing further includes using the two or more bearings with the known positions of the corresponding control towers and/or navigation beacons to triangulate the air traffic obstruction's position in two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional space. The control tower can send positional information for identified air traffic obstructions to the flight manager before, while, after, or in lieu of sending the captured video/image data to the flight manager…”; (Belt, [0145]), “the control tower(s) can process the video/image data and/or the orientation data to (a) identify air traffic obstructions and (b) determine positional information for the identified obstructions. For example, the control tower can process the video/image data and/or the orientation data to generate a (e.g., three-dimensional) map of airspace at the site of operation with all objects therein. The positional information (e.g., the map of the airspace) can be sent to the flight manager in addition to or in lieu of the video/image data. Additionally, or alternatively, the video/image data can be sent to the flight manager for processing by the flight manager”.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0263537 [hereinafter Belt] in view of Hammerschmidt, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0062004 [hereinafter Hammerschmidt], and further in view of Gentry, U.S. Patent No. 9,944,404 [hereinafter Gentry].
Referring to Claim 6, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the method of claim 1. Belt teaches determining whether the current position of the UAV deviating from the flight path defined in the flight plan and the oversight processor can notify the flight controller of an impending violation (see par. 0130), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
including determining one or more trends associated with the data in association with the performance of the uncrewed aviation ecosystem, the one or more trends facilitating detection of the one or more issues, wherein the determining comprises applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple independent external data sources of the uncrewed aviation ecosystem.
However Gentry teaches:
including determining one or more trends associated with the data in association with the performance of the uncrewed aviation ecosystem, the one or more trends facilitating detection of the one or more issues, wherein the determining comprises applying preconfigured relationship functions over time across multiple independent external data sources of the uncrewed aviation ecosystem (Gentry, [col. 16, ln. 12-27]), “the prognostic system identifies and performance a series of flight tests to further isolate the source of the failure condition. The flight tests are performed an awareness of mission constraints and environmental conditions. Mission constraints may relate to available energy resources and time limits, whereas environmental conditions may relate to the weather conditions and terrain contours over which the flight tests are to be performed… a failure condition may be identified by comparing the processed sensor data at 908 to historical trends of the same UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs”; (Gentry, [col. 2, ln. 67]-[col. 3, ln. 3]), “the prognostic system 102 includes distributed computing resources 104 that can communicate with one another and with external devices via one or more network(s) 106”; (Gentry, [col. 8, ln. 13-30]), “… The test plan module 340 may cause a message to be sent to an operations center 114 indicating the nature of the failure condition. In some embodiments, the test plan module 340 may modify the maintenance schedule that corresponds to the UAV 302 to schedule inspections or additional tests at predetermined time intervals to monitor the progress of the identified failure condition until a final corrective action is performed. Other flight non-critical category classifications may include, but are not limited to, minor detection of corrosion on flight non-critical components, infrequent network dropouts”; (Gentry, [col. 5, ln. 34-57]), “…the sensor data processing module 336 identifies physical systems and physical structures that are not functioning normally, and are considered likely subjects of a failure condition… the sensor data processing module 336 may determine whether a physical system or physical structure is functioning normally by a comparing processed sensor data to historical trends of the same UAV 302 or a fleet of similar UAVs. In various examples, the historical trends may identify normal operating conditions of various physical systems and physical structures of the UAV. As a non-limiting example, historical trends of a power supply may indicate that a temperature increase of ‘A’ within a predetermined time period of ‘B’ is a normal ‘temperature rate of change.’ Therefore, if the sensor data processing module 336 processes sensor data that indicates a comparably higher ‘temperature rate of change’ on a power supply, the processed sensor data may be indicating a likely failure condition on the power supply”, Examiner considers the rate of change to teach trends; (Gentry, [col. 15, ln. 64]-[col. 16, ln. 2]), “a failure condition may be identified by comparing the processed sensor data to historical trends of the same UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs. In various examples, the historical trends identify the normal operating conditions of various physical systems and physical structures of the UAV”; (Gentry, [col. 16, ln. 21-27]; [col. 7, ln. 50-67]; [col. 9, ln. 16-32]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determining of impending violations in Belt to include the trend limitation as taught by Gentry. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of predicting failure conditions that may affect an UAV physical system or structure before they occur (see Gentry col. 2, ln. 1-2).
Referring to Claim 7, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt in view of Gentry teaches the method of claim 6. Belt teaches a management agent receiving data from various sources (see par. 0037), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more trends include historic trends across heterogeneous external systems comprising at least surveillance, weather, and navigation sources.
However Gentry teaches:
wherein the one or more trends include historic trends across heterogeneous external systems comprising at least surveillance, weather, and navigation sources (Gentry, [col. 15, ln. 53-59]), “diagnostic checks may be assigned to different phases of a flight cycle based on an awareness of mission constraints and environmental conditions. Mission constraints may relate to available energy resources and time, whereas environmental conditions may relate to the weather conditions and terrain contours over which the in-flight diagnostic checks are to be performed”; (Gentry, [col. 7, ln. 39-49]), “the sensor data processing module 336 can perform regular interval system checks to ensure that physical systems are functioning correctly. For example, a navigation system that includes a GPS unit can be tested in flight by comparing the output GPS co-ordinates with those of a known landmark…”; (Gentry, [col. 5, ln. 34-57]), “…the sensor data processing module 336 identifies physical systems and physical structures that are not functioning normally, and are considered likely subjects of a failure condition… the sensor data processing module 336 may determine whether a physical system or physical structure is functioning normally by a comparing processed sensor data to historical trends of the same UAV 302 or a fleet of similar UAVs. In various examples, the historical trends may identify normal operating conditions of various physical systems and physical structures of the UAV. As a non-limiting example, historical trends of a power supply may indicate that a temperature increase of ‘A’ within a predetermined time period of ‘B’ is a normal ‘temperature rate of change.’ Therefore, if the sensor data processing module 336 processes sensor data that indicates a comparably higher ‘temperature rate of change’ on a power supply, the processed sensor data may be indicating a likely failure condition on the power supply”, Examiner considers the rate of change to teach trends; (Gentry, [col. 15, ln. 64]-[col. 16, ln. 2]), “a failure condition may be identified by comparing the processed sensor data to historical trends of the same UAV or a fleet of similar UAVs. In various examples, the historical trends identify the normal operating conditions of various physical systems and physical structures of the UAV”; (Gentry, [col. 10, ln. 41-57]; [col. 16, ln. 21-27]; [col. 7, ln. 50-67]; ).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the determining of impending violations in Belt to include the trend limitation as taught by Gentry. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of predicting failure conditions that may affect an UAV physical system or structure before they occur (see Gentry col. 2, ln. 1-2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0263537 [hereinafter Belt], in view of Hammerschmidt, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0062004 [hereinafter Hammerschmidt], in view of Neubauer et al., U.S. Publication No. 2020/0394929 [hereinafter Neubauer], and further in view of Wiseman et al., U.S. Publication No. 2022/0333808 [hereinafter Wiseman].
Referring to Claim 13, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Belt further teaches:
wherein the data ingestion module is configured to process inputs from a plurality of independent data sources comprising air traffic control, remote sensing infrastructure, and unmanned aircraft system service providers (Belt, [0037]), “the management agent 212 receives weather, air traffic data (e.g., automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data, radar data, and/or other data (such as acoustic data and/or light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data) indicative of aircraft or objects in flight), positional information, and/or other data from the control tower 130 and/or the navigation beacons 140”; (Belt, [0161]-[0162]), “The UAV operational containment system of example 1, further comprising a UAV having a plurality of localization systems, wherein: each localization system in the plurality of localization systems is configured to determine a position of the UAV independent of other localization systems of the plurality of localization systems”.
Belt teaches a management agent receiving data from various sources (see par. 0037), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
The data ingestion module is configured to process inputs from unmanned aircraft system service providers and to translate heterogeneous interface types selected from UDP, RESTful APIs, AMQP, MQTT, and WebSocket into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain.
However Neubauer teaches:
The data ingestion module is configured to process inputs from unmanned aircraft system service providers (Neubauer, [0108]), “The aviation control nodes comprise nodes operated by one or more of aviation authorities, ATM (air traffic management) systems, UAV service providers, UTM systems, or UAV control centers…”; (Neubauer, [0159]), “the processing node 500 is connected, over a plurality of interfaces, to a plurality of networks (Network A . . . , network N) 530A-N respectively including a network server 531 and network nodes (base station including transmission/reception antennas) such as network node 532, an Aviation Authorities or ATM system as aviation control node 540, a plurality of UAV service providers 550A-N, a data server 510 or database server storing data, about terrain (topography), buildings, weather, and other data, as well as a data processing server 520, continuously or regularly receiving and forwarding (current) measurements (e.g. signal, channel measurements) from one or more UAVs (including UAV 560)”; (Neubauer, [0115]; [0168]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the data received by the management agent in Belt to include the service provider limitation as taught by Neubauer. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of facilitating safe guidance and control of UAVs (see Neubauer, 0010).
Belt teaches a management agent receiving data from various sources (see par. 0037), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
translate heterogeneous interface types selected from UDP, RESTful APIs, AMQP, MQTT, and WebSocket into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain.
However Wiseman teaches:
translate heterogeneous interface types selected from UDP, RESTful APIs, AMQP, MQTT, and WebSocket into standardized internal formats divided by logical domain (Wiseman, [0056]), “one or more of the test instruments 10 transmit data to the computing system 100 in accordance with a standardized format and/or standardized protocol. The standardized format and/or protocol may be defined by a standard setting organization or other appropriate organization (such as an industry trade group or trade association). The standardized format may also be defined in accordance with an application programming interface (API), such as a Representational State Transfer (REST) based API. A standardized format, protocol, and/or APIs in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention includes features and characteristics that are particular to the domain of embodiments of the present invention, such as specifying data formats (e.g., canonical data formats) for each type of test instrument… and such as specifying particular use cases… Accordingly, different manufacturers of test instruments can configure their products to communicate with the computing system 100 of embodiments of the present invention using a standardized format, standardized protocol, and/or application programming interface in accordance with embodiments of the present invention. In some embodiments, data that is received in a proprietary of specialized format may be canonized into the standardized data format”; (Wiseman, [0055]; [0065]; [0067]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the data received by the management agent in Belt to include the translation limitations as taught by Wiseman. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of internal auditing and overall performance monitoring (see Wiseman, 0065).
Additionally, a number of interface type elements have been identified in Wiseman and therefore predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belt et al., U.S. Publication No. 2021/0263537 [hereinafter Belt], in view of Hammerschmidt, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0062004 [hereinafter Hammerschmidt], and further in view of Ruvio et al., U.S. Publication No. 2019/0036946 [hereinafter Ruvio].
Referring to Claim 14, Belt in view of Hammerschmidt teaches the computer program product of claim 11. Belt teaches continuously collecting and monitoring data to identify emergencies both internal and external the UAVs (see par. 0155), but Belt does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to perform data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema defining passing criteria including thresholds, rates of change, and message timing, and to evaluate at least one of data completeness, bounds, message rate, and rate of change for individual data streams, and to generate alerts based on a preconfigured filter.
However Ruvio teaches:
wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to perform data integrity monitoring using a configurable schema defining passing criteria including thresholds, rates of change, and message timing, and to evaluate at least one of data completeness, bounds, message rate, and rate of change for individual data streams, and to generate alerts based on a preconfigured filter (Ruvio, [0111]), “the monitoring of the integrity of the data may be computed periodically at predefined intervals and/or triggered by events”; (Ruvio, [0129]), “The malicious activity may be identified based on a probability of the presence of malicious activity according to a probability requirement, for example, a threshold, a range, and/or a function”; (Ruvio, [0135]), “The sensor data for sending to the server may be based on time windows, for example, 1 second, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or values computed based on time windows, for example maximum speed in the last 30 seconds, or other computed values”; (Ruvio, [0042]), “the analysis is performed based on a comparison between the sensor data received from the computing unit of the vehicle, and sensor data designated as normal operation received from other vehicles. Deviation from normal (e.g., according to a statistical correlation requirement, and/or as computed by a statistical classifier) is indicative of the presence of malicious activity”; (Ruvio, [0141]), “…comparing the first data framework and the second data framework in real time across one or more data integrity monitoring applications 110, selectively transmitting a notification message if it is determined whether the first data framework has been modified, compromised and/or is not authentic based on the performed correlation between the first data framework and the second data framework…”; (Ruvio, [0112]; [0121]-[0121]).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the monitored data in Belt to include the data integrity monitoring as taught by Ruvio. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the method of monitoring unmanned aerial vehicles and other environmental conditions at a site of operation during flight operations in Belt (see par. 0023) to efficiently include the results of accurately detecting the presence of the malicious activity (see Ruvio, 0131).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goupil et al. (US 11287283 B2) – The present invention relates to a method and an associated device for monitoring and estimating parameters relating to the flight of an aircraft in real time.
Vidal Franco et al. (US 20230267845 A1) - Systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) collision prevention are provided. The method includes receiving an indication of a location as a no crash zone (NCZ), calculating a trajectory for flight of a vehicle including a plurality of location points, generating a risk score for each location point of the plurality of location points, generating, based on the generated risk scores for each of the location points, a flight risk value for the trajectory of the flight of the vehicle, determining the flight risk value is below a risk threshold, and loading the trajectory to the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624