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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 04 Dec 2025, with respect to Claim 12’s first argument is not persuasive since the Applicant states that Soma fails to sufficiently disclose or to suggest "the flying body and to be operated by a user, wherein the user is not located in the flying body;" in citing paragraph [0032]. This argument is not persuasive since the Examiner cites in the Final Rejection that the "flying body and to be operated by a user" is cited in para 40 "...individual identification data showing the driving person of the flying vehicle 2..." As such, "a user" is cited. As for the limitation, "wherein the user is not located in the flying body:" Soma's paragraph [0032] cites "... a flight object (e.g. an UAV (unmanned aero vehicle) like a drone) to the takeoff and landing sections 22..." and thus reads on the Applicant's aforementioned limitation since a drone's user is not located in the body of the drone.
Applicant’s other two arguments, see Pages 11-13, filed 04 Dec 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Claims 12-29 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Soma, Zhang, Yamazaki, Chak, and Ohata.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-14, 18-20, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. US 20190027050 A1 (herein, Soma), in view of Zhang et al. US 20190278897 A1 (herein, Zhang), Ohata et al. US20180222582A1 (herein, Ohata), and in further view of Yamazaki et. al., US 20220208009 A1 (herein, Yamazaki).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Soma discloses, a flying body identification system (FIG. 1) comprising:
a flying body (FIG. 1, #2 – flying vehicle) configured to transmit an airframe ID (FIG. 3A, Step S06, ¶[0048] – “…the vehicle identification data 16 transmitted to the control system 4…”);
a communication terminal (FIG. 2, #41 – registered records database) configured to obtain the airframe ID (FIG. 2, vehicle ID data) from the flying body (FIG. 2, ¶[0040]) and to be operated by a user, wherein the user is not located in the flying body (¶[0032] – “…the user… by restricting entry of another vehicle (e.g. a vehicle driven by a person) or a flight object (e.g. an UAV (unmanned aero vehicle) like a drone) to the takeoff and landing sections…”); and
a control system configured to communicate with the communication terminal (¶[0042] – “…for example… the data accumulated in the registered records database 41…”) and control an operation of the flying body (FIG. 2, #43, ¶[0042] – “…flight control processing device 43 carries out various operations to control the flying vehicle 2….”),
wherein the control system is further configured to:
manage the airframe ID and a plurality of types of information (¶[0042] – “…the position data 12, the measuring equipment data 17, and the biological diagnosis data 18, all of which are transmitted from the flying vehicle 2…”) regarding the flying body indicated by the airframe ID so as to be associated with each other, wherein a type of the plurality of types of information regarding the flying body is a flight plan, and a second type of the plurality of types of information is a position (¶[0013] – “…the flying vehicle takes off, from among a plurality of takeoff and landing sections set on the ground, based on the position data of the flying vehicle and the destination data, and transmits to the flying vehicle a flight plan that contains the selected first takeoff and landing section…” – i.e., varies types of information);
control a drive mechanism of the flying body such that the flying body approaches the path of the flight plan (¶[0025] – “…an unmanned machine and has a mechanism for running on a road and a mechanism for flying. Note that the mechanism for running on the road and the mechanism for flying may not be fully separated…”).
Soma disclose an airframe ID and the communication terminal but does not disclose, select, in a case where an inquiry message containing the airframe ID and an authority level assigned to the communication terminal is received from the communication terminal (41), information to be transmitted to the communication terminal from among the plurality of types of information regarding the flying body associated with the airframe ID in accordance with the authority level of the communication terminal.
However, Ohata teaches, select, in a case where an inquiry message containing the airframe ID and an authority level assigned to the communication terminal (FIG. 1, ¶[0030] – “…a single authentication station may be installed for the entire region of Japan to monitor drones in Japan, and or a sub authentication station may be installed for each area or each facility. The authentication station 2 does not need to be fixedly installed but may be configured as a movable system.…”) is received from the communication terminal (41), information to be transmitted to the communication terminal from among the plurality of types of information regarding the flying body associated with the airframe ID in accordance with the authority level of the communication terminal (FIG. 7, ¶[0070] – “The position information C214 indicates the position of a legitimate drone. The position includes, for example, the latitude, the longitude, and the altitude. The position may include the past history of the position and a future position in a flight plan. The altitude of a legitimate drone may be a value obtained by an altitude sensor mounted on the legitimate drone.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by Soma to include an authority level and corresponding communication terminal in accordance with the authority level as taught by Ohata. Doing so provides the requisite authority level and communication terminal so as the position information can include the flight plan and change flight path to a legitimate drone.
Modified Soma discloses the communication terminal but does not disclose, transmit the selected information to the communication terminal.
However, Zhang teaches, transmit the selected information to the communication terminal (¶[0161] – “…the UAV or flight platform, a module for authorization of the identity information and permission management may receive the relevant information and further transmit it to an identity information setting module which may set or confirm an identity of the owners, identity of operators…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by modified Soma to include the transmission of information to the communication terminal as taught by Zhang. Doing so provides the requisite information to the communication terminal so as to provide the operator with the same so a more informed decision can be made.
Modified Soma teaches the flight plan and position but does not disclose, determine, based on the flight plan and the position, that the flying body has deviated from a path of the flight plan.
However, Yamazaki teaches, determine, based on the flight plan and the position, that the flying body has deviated from a path of the flight plan (Claim 8 and ¶[0076] – “…thus determining whether or not the flight of the flight vehicle 3 is deviated from the flight path or the flight time. In this connection, the determination unit 122 may determine a deviation of the flight vehicle 3 in terms of the flight path or the flight time of the flight application information before the flight of the flight vehicle 3, during the flight of the flight vehicle 3…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by modified Soma to include the determination the deviation of the a path of the flight plan as taught by Yamazaki. Doing so provides the requisite information to the communication terminal so as to provide the user with information pertaining a deviation of flight plan’s path.
Regarding Claims 13, 19, and 25, modified Soma discloses, wherein the control system is further configured to:
manage the plurality of types of information regarding the flying body and a plurality of authority levels so as to be associated with each other (¶[0049 – “…when the flying vehicle 2 is an unmanned aerial vehicle with no driving person, the check of the driving person is unnecessary….” – i.e. different authority levels); and
select information regarding the flying body associated with the authority level assigned to the communication terminal ([0050] – “…When the flying vehicle 2 is not registered, the flight of the flying vehicle 2 is not permitted…” – i.e., authority level (flying or not) associated with the flying body), or select information regarding the flying body associated with the authority level assigned to the communication terminal and an authority level lower than the authority level (FIG. 3A, ¶[0051] – “…the flying vehicle 2 and the automatic biological diagnosis of the driving person are carried out (Step S07)…”).
Regarding Claims 14, 20, and 26, modified Soma discloses the control system, flying body and information but does not disclose, wherein the control system is further configured to encrypt information on the flying body, the information being associated with a predetermined authority level.
However, Zhang teaches, wherein the control system is further configured to encrypt information on the flying body, the information being associated with a predetermined authority level (¶[0071] – “…Differing authority levels may be provided for administrators… communication in the identity registration, authentication and management system may be encrypted…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by modified Soma to include the encryption of information as relates to the predetermined authority level as taught by Zhang. Doing so provides the additional security of the information due to utilizing encryption.
Regarding Claim 24, Soma discloses,
manage the airframe ID and a plurality of types of information (¶[0042] – “…the position data 12, the measuring equipment data 17, and the biological diagnosis data 18, all of which are transmitted from the flying vehicle 2…”) regarding the flying body indicated by the airframe ID so as to be associated with each other, wherein a type of the plurality of types of information regarding the flying body is a flight plan, and a second type of the plurality of types of information is a position (¶[0013] – “…the flying vehicle takes off, from among a plurality of takeoff and landing sections set on the ground, based on the position data of the flying vehicle and the destination data, and transmits to the flying vehicle a flight plan that contains the selected first takeoff and landing section…” – i.e., varies types of information);
select, in a case where an inquiry message containing the airframe ID and an authority level assigned to the communication terminal (FIG. 2, ¶[0049] – “…the individual identification data, the biological data for biometric authentication…”) is received from the communication terminal (41), information to be transmitted to the communication terminal from among the plurality of types of information regarding the flying body associated with the airframe ID in accordance with the authority level of the communication terminal (FIG. 2, ¶[0049] – “…biometric authentication is carried out by using the biological data transmitted to the control system 4 and the biological data registered on the registered records database 41…”); and
Soma discloses a flying body identification (FIG. 3A, Step S06, ¶[0048] – “…the vehicle identification data 16 transmitted to the control system 4…”) and control system (FIG. 1, #4 – control system) but does not disclose, a non-transitory computer readable medium in which a program for causing a computer to perform a flying body identification process in a control system is stored, the program causing a computer to execute processes.
However, Zhang teaches, a non-transitory computer readable medium in which a program for causing a computer to perform a flying body identification process in a control system is stored, the program causing a computer to execute processes (Claim 20 – “…managing a flight of the UAV according to the processing of the input and the offline data.”, ¶[0010] – “…and impose a restriction on the UAV when the processing deviate from said predetermined criterion,…”) and ¶[0132] – “…device may be a computer (e.g., personal computer, laptop computer, server),… may include non-transitory computer readable medium which may store code, logic or instructions for performing one or more steps…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by Soma to include the non-transitory computer readable medium, program, and computer as taught by Zhang. Doing so provides the requisite hardware and software to control the flying body,
control a drive mechanism of the flying body such that the flying body approaches the path of the flight plan (¶[0025] – “…an unmanned machine and has a mechanism for running on a road and a mechanism for flying. Note that the mechanism for running on the road and the mechanism for flying may not be fully separated…”),
the control system is capable of communicating with the communication terminal (¶[0042] – “…for example… the data accumulated in the registered records database 41…”) and configured to control an operation of the flying body (FIG. 1 illustrates control of flying body), the flying body is capable of transmitting the airframe ID, the communication terminal (FIG. 2, #43, ¶[0042] – “…flight control processing device 43 carries out various operations to control the flying vehicle 2….”) is configured to be operated by a user, and wherein the user is not located in the flying body (¶[0032] – “…the user… by restricting entry of another vehicle (e.g. a vehicle driven by a person) or a flight object (e.g. an UAV (unmanned aero vehicle) like a drone) to the takeoff and landing sections…”).
Modified Soma discloses the communication terminal but does not disclose, transmit the selected information to the communication terminal.
However, Zhang teaches, transmit the selected information to the communication terminal (¶[0161] – “…the UAV or flight platform, a module for authorization of the identity information and permission management may receive the relevant information and further transmit it to an identity information setting module which may set or confirm an identity of the owners, identity of operators…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by modified Soma to include the transmission of information to the communication terminal as taught by Zhang. Doing so provides the requisite information to the communication terminal so as to provide the operator with the same so a more informed decision can be made.
Modified Soma teaches the flight plan and position but does not disclose, determine, based on the flight plan and the position, that the flying body has deviated from a path of the flight plan.
However, Yamazaki teaches, determine, based on the flight plan and the position, that the flying body has deviated from a path of the flight plan (Claim 8 and ¶[0076] – “…thus determining whether or not the flight of the flight vehicle 3 is deviated from the flight path or the flight time. In this connection, the determination unit 122 may determine a deviation of the flight vehicle 3 in terms of the flight path or the flight time of the flight application information before the flight of the flight vehicle 3, during the flight of the flight vehicle 3…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by modified Soma to include the determination the deviation of the a path of the flight plan as taught by Yamazaki. Doing so provides the requisite information to the communication terminal so as to provide the user with information pertaining a deviation of flight plan’s path.
Claims 15-17, 21-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma et al. US 20190027050 A1 (herein, Soma), in view of Zhang et al. US 20190278897 A1 (herein, Zhang), Yamazaki, and in further view of Chakraborty et al. US 20220041187 A1 (herein, Chak)
Regarding Claims 15, 21, and 27, modified Soma further discloses the flying body, communication terminal, control system, and a landing place (FIG. 1, #22 – landing section) but does not disclose, wherein in case of emergency, the flying body is configured to directly transmit emergency information to the communication terminal without passing through the control system, the emergency information containing failure and a landing place.
However, Chak teaches, wherein in case of emergency, the flying body is configured to directly transmit emergency information to the communication terminal without passing through the control system, the emergency information containing failure and a landing place (FIGS. 14-17, ¶[00082] – “…various use case emergency scenarios…” and Claim 5 – “…receive a confirmation of the emergency event from the hybrid mobile unit, wherein the confirmation is based at least in part on the mobile sensor data captured by the hybrid mobile unit; and transmit emergency information associated with the emergency event to a remote system associated with a first-responder organization,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flight body identification system as disclosed by modified Soma to include transmitting emergency information by the flying body as taught by Chak. Doing so provides the additional capability since the flying body transmits emergency information and thus provides real time information to the operator.
Regarding Claims 16, 22, and 28, modified Soma further discloses, wherein the flying body is further configured to broadcast the emergency information (FIG. 1, #2 and 12) to a communication terminal on earth (FIG. 3, #3), the communication terminal existing at the landing place and on a landing
path (FIG. 3 illustrates a landing path parallel from the exclusive road and ground reference station).
Regarding Claims 17 and 23, modified Soma further discloses, wherein the flying body is further configured to broadcast the emergency information to the communication terminal on earth via a mobile network managed by a communication common carrier (FIG. 1, ¶[0026] – “…as artificial satellites 5, the GPS (global positioning system) satellites and quasi zenith satellites can be used…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not utilized in the Office Action pertain to flying body identification system.
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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 on (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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666