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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of 08 April 2026.
Claim 16 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-15, and 17-23 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
While applicant’s amendments have overcome numerous of the previously identified issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), some issues remain as detailed below. Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argued:
The claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in aircraft
guidance and safety systems . The claimed functional sequences collect aircraft location data and a closest location point on a 3D boundary to determine a recommended adjustment for the aircraft . . . The Office alleges that the recited steps of collecting data and determining distances are mental processes, yet the Office provides no evidence to support the allegation. . . The sensor-based collection of location data and the geometric determination of a closest point on a 3D boundary cannot practically be performed in the mind or via pen and paper. . . Such a configuration stands in contrast to the Examiner’s characterization of the claims as reciting a mental process on generic computer components.
The claims solve the technical problem of generating nuanced, actionable guidance data near a flight boundary, a problem that simple threshold-based warnings fail to address effectively. . . As acknowledged in the present disclosure, a pilot may find identifying the distance from a boundary challenging during flight, and the claimed features address the challenge providing a safer, smoother, and more informed flight experience (see paragraph [0003]). As recited in independent claim 1, the technical solution involves collecting location data and a closest location point to determine, as a function of the determined distance, a recommended adjustment for the aircraft. . . the hardware components work in concert to achieve the technical benefit of reducing pilot navigation overhead and improving navigational precision. Because the interaction of the hardware elements activates the technical improvement to the aircraft guidance system, the claimed features are patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2. . . The Examiner alleges that the additional hardware elements represents “insignificant extra-solution activity.” However, the providing of the recommended adjustment for the aircraft via the display device is not incidental or tangential. Rather, the visual representation activates the improvement to the guidance data accuracy . . . Here, the display device works in concert with the sensor and computing device to provide an improved human-computer interaction that reduces system latency and minimizes pilot navigation overhead. . . Instead, the limitations integrate any alleged mental steps into a practical application that represents tangible improvements to the technical field of aircraft navigation systems under MPEP 2106.
The Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts “ The claims are not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in aircraft guidance and safety systems . The claimed functional sequences collect aircraft location data and a closest location point on a 3D boundary to determine a recommended adjustment for the aircraft . . . The Office alleges that the recited steps of collecting data and determining distances are mental processes, yet the Office provides no evidence to support the allegation. . . The sensor-based collection of location data and the geometric determination of a closest point on a 3D boundary cannot practically be performed in the mind or via pen and paper. . . Such a configuration stands in contrast to the Examiner’s characterization of the claims as reciting a mental process on generic computer components.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits the limitations “determine a distance between the position of the aircraft and the location point” and “determine, . . . , a recommended adjustment for the aircraft, the recommended adjustment including a magnitude and a direction” , under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. Regarding the amended limitations “collect aircraft location data that include a position of the aircraft” and “collect a location point of a plurality of location point closest to the position of the aircraft, the plurality of location points disposed on a boundary of a three-dimensional area” are recited at a high-level of generality and directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. The Examiner notes that the argued amended limitations analyses are under step 2A prong 2 and not step 2A prong 1.
Further, applicant asserts “The claims solve the technical problem of generating nuanced, actionable guidance data near a flight boundary, a problem that simple threshold-based warnings fail to address effectively. . . As acknowledged in the present disclosure, a pilot may find identifying the distance from a boundary challenging during flight, and the claimed features address the challenge providing a safer, smoother, and more informed flight experience (see paragraph [0003]) . . . Because the interaction of the hardware elements activates the technical improvement to the aircraft guidance system, the claimed features are patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2. . . The Examiner alleges that the additional hardware elements represents “insignificant extra-solution activity.” However, the providing of the recommended adjustment for the aircraft via the display device is not incidental or tangential. Rather, the visual representation activates the improvement to the guidance data accuracy . . . Here, the display device works in concert with the sensor and computing device to provide an improved human-computer interaction that reduces system latency and minimizes pilot navigation overhead. . . Instead, the limitations integrate any alleged mental steps into a practical application that represents tangible improvements to the technical field of aircraft navigation systems under MPEP 2106.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement in “reducing pilot navigation overhead and improving navigation precision” is an improved abstract idea, and cannot constitute an additional element in the claim that might integrate the abstract idea to a practical application. Regarding the additional elements “display device”, “computing device”, and “sensor” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea ( or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Additionally, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Additionally, the additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. Regarding the limitation “provide a visual representation of an adjustment for an aircraft”, this is recited at a high-level of generality and directed to outputting data. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by the applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “ Zhang disclosure and the Robertson disclosure describe systems that trigger pre-set flight response . . . rather than the functional sequence where a recommended adjustment is determined as a result of the measured proximity to a specific location point . . .” however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language because the “functional sequence” is not apparently claimed. Further, with respect to the amended limitation, applicant’s arguments/amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under non-statutory double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts “ … Because the ‘441 patent fails to recite the determination of the recommended adjustment as a function of the distance, the pending claims are patentably distinct.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the reference patent claims “generate a recommended aircraft adjustment as a function of the distance datum”. Therefore, the rejection of claims under non-statutory double patenting is being maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 21, the claim recites “determine the distance as a function of a flight duration of the aircraft, and increase the magnitude of the recommended adjustment as flight duration increases.” that is not supported by the original description, which constitutes new matter to the original disclosure. For example, the paragraph that appears to somewhat address the concept that is similar to what is described in the claim has been found in paragraph 56 “autonomous function may perform one or more aircraft maneuvers, take offs, landings, altitude adjustments, flight leveling adjustments, turns, climbs, and/or descents. As a further non-limiting example, autonomous function may adjust one or more airspeed velocities, thrusts, torques, and/or groundspeed velocities. As a further non-limiting example, autonomous function may perform one or more flight path corrections and/or flight path modifications as a function of flight element 420” of the specification. The applicant’s specification paragraph 56 appears to describe performing a flight path correction; however, the specification does not appear to describe, in sufficient detail, “determine the distance as a function of a flight duration of the aircraft, and increase the magnitude of the recommended adjustment as flight duration increases.” As such, the specification does not describe the limitation as provided in the amended claims. Therefore, the limitation “determine the distance as a function of a flight duration of the aircraft, and increase the magnitude of the recommended adjustment as flight duration increases.” is new matter and does not evidence that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “determine a distance between the position of the aircraft and the location point”, and “determine, as a function of the determined distance, a recommended adjustment for the aircraft, the recommended adjustment including a magnitude and a direction” when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, a human mind could reasonably determine a location of an aircraft within its flying space and calculate a distance given the aircraft location and the location point. As such, the claim recites at least on abstract idea (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to amount to integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, for example, the claimed elements “a display device configured to provide a visual representation of an adjustment for an aircraft” , “collect aircraft location data that include a position of the aircraft”, “collect a location point of a plurality of location points closest to the position of the aircraft …”, “provide, to the computing device, the aircraft location data and the location point” , “receive, from the sensor, the aircraft location data and the location point”, and “provide the recommended flight adjustment to the display device” are recited at a high-level of generality and are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and outputting data. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a sensor”, “a display device”, and “a computing device” are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea. The “a sensor”, “a display device”, and “a computing device” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The components merely automate the aforementioned steps and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application”. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient enough to provide an
inventive concept in Step 2B, for example, the claimed elements “a display device configured to provide a visual representation of an adjustment for an aircraft” , “collect aircraft location data that include a position of the aircraft”, “collect a location point of a plurality of location points closest to the position of the aircraft …”, “provide, to the computing device, the aircraft location data and the location point” , “receive, from the sensor, the aircraft location data and the location point”, and “provide the recommended flight adjustment to the display device” are well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d), II, “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);”.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “a sensor”, “a display device”, and “a computing device” are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea. The “a sensor”, “a display device”, and “a computing device” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11 , the claim recites a method which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 11 recites similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1 . Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-15 and 17-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-15 and 17-23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitation of claim 10 “wherein the display device further presents a permitted direction of flight associated with the three-dimensional area” is recited at a high-level of generality and are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-12, 17-18, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180308367 A1) in view of Robertson et al. (US 20210082288 A1) and further in view of Herwitz (US 7706979 B1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, Zhang et al. discloses A
system comprising: a display device ([0051] “remote devices may include a remote controller that may control operation of the UAV, payload, carrier, sensors, or any other component of the UAV, a display terminal that may show information received by the UAV, a database that may collect information from the UAV, or any other external device. The remote communications may be wireless communications. The communications may be direct communications between the UAV and the remote device. Examples of direct communications may include WiFi, WiMax, radio-frequency, infrared, visual, or other types of direct communications.”) a computing device communicably coupled to the display device; and ([0151] “The sensing module 902 can be operatively coupled to a processing unit 904 having a plurality of processors. In some embodiments, the sensing module can be operatively coupled to a transmission module 912 (e.g., a Wi-Fi image transmission module) configured to directly transmit sensing data to a suitable external device or system. For example, the transmission module 912 can be used to transmit images captured by a camera of the sensing module 902 to a remote terminal”)
a sensor, communicably coupled to the computing device, the sensor configured to: collect an aircraft location data that include a position of an aircraft; ([0039] “The location of the UAV may be determined. This may occur prior to take-off of the UAV and/or while the UAV is in flight. In some instances, the UAV may have a GPS receiver that may be used to determine the location of the UAV.”, [0126] “The systems, devices, and methods described herein can be applied to a wide variety of movable objects…any description herein of a UAV may apply to and be used for any movable object. Any description herein of a UAV may apply to any aerial vehicle.”, and [0127] “the movement of the movable object can be constrained with respect to one or more degrees of freedom, such as by a predetermined path, track, or orientation. The movement can be actuated by any suitable actuation mechanism, such as an engine or a motor. The actuation mechanism of the movable object can be powered by any suitable energy source, such as electrical energy”)
provide, to the computing device, the aircraft location data and the location point; ([0039] “The location of one or more flight-restricted regions may be stored on-board the UAV. The location stored on-board the UAV may comprise information regarding a coordinate of the flight restricted regions and/or reference restriction features. The location may be a reference point as further described below…The location of the UAV may be determined. This may occur prior to take-off of the UAV and/or while the UAV is in flight. In some instances, the UAV may have a GPS receiver that may be used to determine the location of the UAV. In other examples, the UAV may be in communication with an external device, such as a mobile control terminal. The location of the external device may be determined and used to approximate the location of the UAV. Information about the location of one or more flight restricted regions accessed from a data source off-board the UAV may depend on, or be governed by a location of the UAV or an external device in communication with the UAV….If the UAV is within a third threshold distance of the flight-restricted region, the UAV may provide an alert to an operator of the UAV regarding the proximity of the flight-restricted region.”, and [0067] “the UAV may alert the user (e.g., via mobile application, flight status indicator, audio indicator, or other indicator) regarding the flight-restricted region. In some instances, an alert can include a visual alert, audio alert, or tactile alert via an external device. The external device may be a mobile device (e.g., tablet, smartphone, remote controller) or a stationary device (e.g., computer).”)
the computing device configured to: receive, from the sensor, the aircraft location data and the location point; ([0039] “the UAV may have a GPS receiver that may be used to determine the location of the UAV… the UAV may be in communication with an external device, such as a mobile control terminal. The location of the external device may be determined and used to approximate the location of the UAV. Information about the location of one or more flight restricted regions accessed from a data source off-board the UAV may depend on, or be governed by a location of the UAV or an external device in communication with the UAV.”, and [0051] “the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. Examples of remote devices may include a remote controller that may control operation of the UAV, payload, carrier, sensors, or any other component of the UAV, a display terminal that may show information received by the UAV, a database that may collect information from the UAV, or any other external device. The remote communications may be wireless communications.”)
determine a distance between the position of the aircraft and the location point, ([0125] “the UAV may be in communication with an external device, such as a mobile control terminal. The location of the external device may be determined and used to approximate the location of the UAV. Information about the location of one or more flight-restriction regions accessed from a data source off-board the UAV may depend on, or be governed by a location of the UAV or an external device in communication with the UAV… The distance between the UAV and a flight-restriction region may be calculated. Based on the calculated distance, one or more flight response measures may be taken.”, and see at least [0067])
provide ([0039] “the UAV may have a GPS receiver that may be used to determine the location of the UAV… the UAV may be in communication with an external device, such as a mobile control terminal. The location of the external device may be determined and used to approximate the location of the UAV. Information about the location of one or more flight restricted regions accessed from a data source off-board the UAV may depend on, or be governed by a location of the UAV or an external device in communication with the UAV.”, [0040] “it may be sufficient to provide warnings to an operator of the UAV regarding a flight restriction region, but allow flight.”, and [0067] “the UAV may alert the user (e.g., via mobile application, flight status indicator, audio indicator, or other indicator) regarding the flight-restricted region. In some instances, an alert can include a visual alert, audio alert, or tactile alert via an external device. The external device may be a mobile device (e.g., tablet, smartphone, remote controller) or a stationary device (e.g., computer). In other examples the alert may be provided via the UAV itself. The alert may include a flash of light, text, image and/or video information, a beep or tone, audio voice or information, vibration, and/or other type of alert. For example, a mobile device may vibrate to indicate an alert. In another example, the UAV may flash light and/or emit a noise to indicate the alert. Such alerts may be provided in combination with other flight response measures or alone. A UAV outside of the flight restricted region generated in 205 may not be subject to the set of flight response measures. The UAV as referred to herein may be a fixed-wing UAV or a multi-rotor UAV.”)
Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a display device configured to provide a visual representation of an adjustment for an aircraft; collect a location point of a plurality of location points closest to the position of the aircraft, the plurality of location points disposed on a boundary of a three-dimensional area; determine, as a function of the determined distance, a recommended adjustment for the aircraft, the recommended adjustment including a magnitude and a direction; and provide the recommended flight adjustment to the display device.
Robertson et al. teaches a display device configured to provide a visual representation of an adjustment for an aircraft; (Figure 7, [[0061] “generates information or signals to be presented via user interface 508. In various embodiments, the user interface may be a display which presents visual information (e.g., the boundaries of the 3D flying space, an icon or avatar of the aircraft showing the position or location of the aircraft relative to the 3D flying space, a permitted direction of flight, a speed limit, etc.)”, and [0074] “Display 700 shows a top view with an icon or avatar for the aircraft (702) as well as the boundaries (704a and 704b) of the 3D flying space. With this information (e.g., including advance information), the pilot can see that the path is about to bend to the right. It may be helpful for the pilot to have advance notice about an upcoming change to a 3D flying space so that the pilot can time the turning of the aircraft to match the bend of the path so that the aircraft does not run into the boundary (e.g., 704a or 704b) of the 3D flying space.”),
collect a location point of a plurality of location points closest to the position of the aircraft, the plurality of location points disposed on a boundary of a three-dimensional area; and ([0028] “Cross-sectional area 200 shows an example where a 3D flying space has an elliptical cross-sectional area. Aircraft 202 shows an example of an aircraft which is constrained or otherwise configured to remain within the boundaries of a 3D flying space, including cross-sectional area 200, even if the pilot indicates, via the controls or input devices, that they want to fly outside of cross-sectional area 200.”, and [0067] “If the aircraft is relatively centered and is therefore in a good position relative to cross-sectional boundary 622 (e.g., not crossing any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 in FIG. 2), then all of the edges in boundary 622 are displayed in green (not shown). If the aircraft gets too close to the boundary on any side (e.g., any one of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 in FIG. 2 is crossed), then the too-close edge(s) is/are displayed in red whereas the good edges (i.e., at a safe or sufficient distance from the aircraft) are displayed in green. For example, for the state shown in display 620b, the left border or edge of cross-sectional boundary 622 would be displayed in red but the top, right, and bottom edges would be green.”, and see at least Fig. 2).
determine, as a function of the determined distance, a recommended adjustment for the aircraft, the recommended adjustment including (Figure 11, [0082] “audio information about the position of the aircraft relative to the boundaries of the 3D flying space is provided via speaker 810. For example, while the aircraft is not in any danger of crossing the boundary of a 3D flying space (e.g., not crossing any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 in FIG. 2), speaker 810 may be silent or may periodically indicate this (e.g., “The aircraft is not near any boundaries of the 3D flying space.”). However, should any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 in FIG. 2 be crossed, the speaker may issue an audible suggestion or correction (e.g., “Please steer the aircraft to the right.”). As before, the audible suggestions may be limited to suggestions that only require the use of a single hand and/or single input device and which would not require the simultaneous use of two input devices (e.g., where both hands would be required).”, [0083] “speaker 810 is used to provide audible advance information. For example, “There is a 15 degree turn to the right coming up in 5 seconds. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Please turn to the right 15 degrees now.”, [0105] “At 1100, a distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft is determined”, [0106] “At 1102, the distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft is compared against a threshold. For example, in FIG. 2, this would correspond to determining if aircraft 206 has crossed any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226.”, [0107] “information is presented based at least in part on the boundary information associated with the 3D flying space and the location information associated with the aircraft, including by in response to the distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft being less than the threshold, suggesting, via a speaker, a correction direction which would cause the distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft to increase. For example, when an aircraft is relatively centered in a 3D flying space (as aircraft 206 is in FIG. 2 where none of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 is crossed), there may be no correction direction suggested via the speaker. However, should one of the thresholds be crossed (e.g., left threshold 224), then a correction direction may be suggested via the speaker (e.g., “Please move to the right”). Once the aircraft has moved away sufficiently (e.g., so that the threshold is no longer exceeded or crossed), the speaker may stop suggesting the correction direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. to incorporate distance measurement to a closest point on a boundary as taught by Robertson et al. for the purpose of keeping the aircraft in the 3D flying space to “avoid areas of danger and/or concern”. ([0029], Robert et al.)
However, Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. fails to explicitly disclose the recommended adjustment including a magnitude. . . and provide the recommended flight adjustment to the display device.
Hertwiz teaches the recommended adjustment including a magnitude. . . and provide the recommended flight adjustment to the display device. (Column 1 line 66 – column 2 line 13 “(i) determining and displaying the three dimensional position and velocity coordinates and/or position and velocity vectors of the UAV and other AVs moving in the same airspace; (ii) estimating and displaying the time and distance of closest approach between the UAV and one or more other independent AVs; (iii) iteratively determining the modification of the UAV's position, velocity and/or acceleration vectors needed to maintain a safe separation distance from other AVs; and (iv) deriving the recommended change in the UAV's flight path and/or flight speed based on the modified position, velocity and/or acceleration vectors. The system provides a graphic display of this information and the associated audio and visual alerts to the UAV pilot responsible for executing changes in the UAV's manually controlled or programmed flight path.”, and column 7 lines 22 – 34 “(ii) the computed projected distance of closest approach based on the present UAV and AV position and velocity vectors is shown as the space between distinctly colored (e.g., red) vector lines projecting from the UAV and the AV and representing the projected future positions of the UAV and the AV; (iii) an audio voice issues an adjustable alert notice (e.g., "warning"); (iv) a line of text is presented in a display window showing the estimated time and distance of closest approach; (v) a line of text is presented showing the recommended change in the UAV's flight path or flight speeds needed for conflict avoidance; and (vi) a graphic display shows the recommended change in the UAV's flight path and/or flight speed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. to incorporate displaying a recommended adjustment including a magnitude (e.g. flight speeds) as taught by Hertwiz for the purpose of allowing the operator to make corrective adjustment when operating the drone/aircraft, increasing user usability.
b. Regarding claim 2, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
Zhang et al. discloses wherein the aircraft is a manned aircraft. ([0057] “The object may be remotely controlled or manually controlled. In some instances, the one or more objects that interact with the reference restriction feature may refer to manned objects such as fixed-wing aircrafts or helicopters. In some instances, the one or more objects that interact with the reference restriction feature may be flying objects or aerial vehicles such as airplanes.”)
c. Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
Zhang et al. discloses wherein the location point includes longitude data and latitude data. ([0055] “a location of a reference restriction feature may be obtained or determined… The reference point as used herein may refer to a location of the reference restriction feature as defined with respect to Cartesian coordinates.”)
d. Regarding claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
Zhang et al. discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to provide an alert to a user ([0067] “the flight response measure may ensure that the UAV stays outside of the flight-restriction region. In some instances, the flight response measure may force the UAV to immediately exit the flight-restriction region if the UAV ends up within the flight restriction region, e.g., by accident or through error… the flight response measure may comprise providing an alert to an operator of the UAV. In some instances, the UAV may alert the user (e.g., via mobile application, flight status indicator, audio indicator, or other indicator) regarding the flight-restricted region. In some instances, an alert can include a visual alert, audio alert, or tactile alert via an external device. The external device may be a mobile device (e.g., tablet, smartphone, remote controller) or a stationary device (e.g., computer)”)
Robertson et al. teaches provide an alert to a user when the distance is below the distance threshold.([0095] “the display presents a warning when a distance between the location information and the boundary of the 3D flying space is less than (i.e., does not exceed) a threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate a distance threshold as taught by Robertson et al. for the purpose of informing the user and allowing the user to control the aircraft to remain within the boundaries of a 3D flying space.
e. Regarding claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 7,
Zhang et al. discloses wherein the alert comprises an auditory alert. ([0067] “The alert may include … a beep or tone, audio voice or information, vibration, and/or other type of alert.”)
f. Regarding claim 10, and similarly with respect to claim 20, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1
Robertson et al. teaches wherein the display device further presents a permitted direction of flight associated with the three-dimensional area. (Fig. 6, “a display which is configured to display an aircraft's position relative to the boundaries of a three-dimensional (3D) flying space.”, and [0053] “3D flying space 100 has a permitted direction of flight where the aircraft is permitted to fly in a clockwise direction through the path shown but not in a counterclockwise direction. In some embodiments, step 400 includes receiving information associated with a permitted direction of flight (e.g., clockwise) and that information is displayed at step 404 (e.g., a direction arrow).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate a permitted direction of flight as taught by Robertson et al. for the purpose of informing the user and allowing the user to control the aircraft to remain within the boundaries of a 3D flying space.
g. Regarding claim 22, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The
system of claim 1,
Robertson et al. teaches wherein providing the visual representation of the recommended adjustment includes displaying the recommended adjustment on the display device. (Figure 2, [0060] “the flight computer (500) generates two output signals: one or more control signals to one or more control surfaces (510) and information to present or otherwise display to the pilot (e.g., based on the 3D flying space, the location of the aircraft, etc.) via the user interface (508). For example, for multiple 202/206 in FIG. 2”, and [0061] “the user interface may be a display which presents visual information (e.g., the boundaries of the 3D flying space, an icon or avatar of the aircraft showing the position or location of the aircraft relative to the 3D flying space, a permitted direction of flight, a speed limit, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate the teachings of Robertson et al. for the same reasons as stated in the motivation of claim 1.
h. Regarding claim 23, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
Robertson et al. teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the location point closest to the position of the aircraft and generate the recommended adjustment for each aircraft location datum received from the sensor. (Figure 11, [0082] “audio information about the position of the aircraft relative to the boundaries of the 3D flying space is provided via speaker 810. For example, while the aircraft is not in any danger of crossing the boundary of a 3D flying space (e.g., not crossing any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 in FIG. 2), speaker 810 may be silent or may periodically indicate this (e.g., “The aircraft is not near any boundaries of the 3D flying space.”). However, should any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 in FIG. 2 be crossed, the speaker may issue an audible suggestion or correction (e.g., “Please steer the aircraft to the right.”). As before, the audible suggestions may be limited to suggestions that only require the use of a single hand and/or single input device and which would not require the simultaneous use of two input devices (e.g., where both hands would be required).”, [0083] “speaker 810 is used to provide audible advance information. For example, “There is a 15 degree turn to the right coming up in 5 seconds. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Please turn to the right 15 degrees now.”, [0105] “At 1100, a distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft is determined”, [0106] “At 1102, the distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft is compared against a threshold. For example, in FIG. 2, this would correspond to determining if aircraft 206 has crossed any of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226.”, [0107] “information is presented based at least in part on the boundary information associated with the 3D flying space and the location information associated with the aircraft, including by in response to the distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft being less than the threshold, suggesting, via a speaker, a correction direction which would cause the distance between the boundary of the 3D flying space and the location of the aircraft to increase. For example, when an aircraft is relatively centered in a 3D flying space (as aircraft 206 is in FIG. 2 where none of thresholds 220, 222, 224, or 226 is crossed), there may be no correction direction suggested via the speaker. However, should one of the thresholds be crossed (e.g., left threshold 224), then a correction direction may be suggested via the speaker (e.g., “Please move to the right”). Once the aircraft has moved away sufficiently (e.g., so that the threshold is no longer exceeded or crossed), the speaker may stop suggesting the correction direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate the teachings of Robertson et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation statement of claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180308367 A1) in view of Robertson et al. (US 20210082288 A1), in view of Hertwiz (US 20120209457 A), and further in view of Gong et al. (US 20180068567 A1).
a. Regarding claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to generate an updated recommended adjustment for the aircraft as a function of a user interaction.
Gong et al. teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to generate an updated recommended aircraft adjustment as a function of a user interaction. ([0326] “The UAV may be permitted to modify a flight plan of the UAV prior to starting the flight plan. The UAV may be permitted to modify a flight plan while the UAV is executing the flight plan… If the UAV is permitted to make the requested modification, the flight plan may be updated to include the requested modification.”, [0584] – [0585] “when a user asks for a resource, such as airspace, for a future time, a predicted available airspace may be assessed… the flight plan may be accepted or rejected.”, and see at least [0943])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the alerting system of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate updated flight plan in response to a user request/interaction as taught by Gong et al. for the purpose allowing to flexibly control/adjust a flight path of an aircraft.
b. Regarding claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises a ranging sensor.
Gong et al. teaches wherein the sensor comprises a ranging sensor. ([0098] “The UAV can have one or more sensors… proximity or range sensors (e.g., ultrasonic sensors, lidar, time-of-flight or depth cameras)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the aircraft of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate ranging sensor as taught by Gong et al. for the purpose of allowing the aircraft/UAV to measure/determine distance.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180308367 A1) in view of Robertson et al. (US 20210082288 A1), in view of Hertwiz (US 20120209457 A), and further in view of Onomura et al. (US 20170270808 A1).
a. Regarding claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 19, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the sensor is further configured to receive a temporal indicator, wherein the distance is further determined as a function of the temporal indicator.
Onomura et al. teaches wherein: the sensor is further configured to receive a temporal indicator, wherein the distance is further determined as a function of the temporal indicator. ([0044] In this example, the controller 17 may cause the first flight hindrance range evaluator 171 to determine a flight hindrance range R1 of the respective other aircrafts AP on the basis of other aircraft information S1 as illustrated in FIG. 3A. In addition, the controller 17 may cause the second flight hindrance range evaluator 172 to determine a flight hindrance range R2 of the respective bad weathers BW on the basis of the bad weather information S2 as illustrated in FIG. 3B. The controller 17 may determine the flight hindrance ranges R1 and R2 for each time (for each time cross-section) from a current time to a predetermined future time.”, and [0045] “It is to be noted that the spatial range of the no-fly zone NZ is not needed to be determined because information on the no-fly range and the valid time thereof is included in the no-fly zone information S3.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the boundary/distance system of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate time dependent boundaries (e.g. flight hindrance range) as taught by Onomura et al. for the purpose of allowing the aircraft to avoid no-fly zone, increasing safety.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20180308367 A1) in view of Robertson et al. (US 20210082288 A1), in view of Herwitz (US 7706979 B1) and further in view of Bushnell (US 20120209457 A1).
a. Regarding claim 21, as best understood by the Examiner, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Zhang et al. in view of Robertson et al. and Hertwiz fails to explicitly disclose determine the distance as a function of a flight duration of the aircraft, and increase the magnitude of the recommended adjustment as the flight duration increases.
Bushnell teaches determine the distance as a function of a flight duration of the aircraft, and increase the magnitude of the recommended adjustment as the flight duration increases. (314, figure 3, [0319] “the direction of relative velocity vector 1308 may be changed to increase the miss distance. For example, aircraft 1300 may maneuver in some combination of the direction of vector 1310, and the direction of vector 1312, (Vrel.times.R). These two vectors, vector 1310 and vector 1312, are orthogonal vectors in this example. Vector 1312 is the cross product vector of relative velocity vector 1308 and range vector 1304, or Vrel.times.R. Vector 1310 is the cross product vector of relative velocity vector 1308 and vector 1312, or Vrel.times.Vrel.times.R.”, [0320] “The direction of vector 1310 may be substantially the same as the direction of miss distance vector 1306. Altering the flight path of aircraft 1300 to provide the desired level of separation by changing the relative velocity of aircraft 1300 in the direction of vector 1310 may require a smaller change in velocity than changing the relative velocity of aircraft 1300 in the direction of vector 1312.”, and see at least Figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Zhang et al. in combination with Robertson et al. and Hertwiz to incorporate an altered flight operation as taught by Bushnell for the purpose of “perform escape maneuvers to avoid a collision…with other aircraft in air traffic management environment.” ([0105], Bushnell)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 1 renders obvious instant claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 2 renders obvious instant claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 9 renders obvious instant claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 10 renders obvious instant claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 7 renders obvious instant claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 6 renders obvious instant claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 11 renders obvious instant claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 11 renders obvious instant claim 12.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 19 renders obvious instant claim 14.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 20 renders obvious instant claim 17.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 17 renders obvious instant claim 18.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11789441 B2. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claim 16 renders obvious instant claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights