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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 August 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because is exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
This NON-FINAL action is in response to communications received 17 May 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 – “the GJK distance algorithm” should be corrected to “the Gilbert-Johnson-Keerthi (GJK) algorithm” as abbreviations or acronyms must first be written out fully and then shortened.
Claim 2 – “wherein the establishing an airspace discrete subdivision raster model” should be corrected to “wherein establishing the airspace discrete subdivision raster model” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 2 – “expanding the latitude and longitude” should be corrected to “expanding a latitude and longitude” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 3 – “wherein the constructing a conversion relationship” should be corrected to “wherein constructing the conversion relationship” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 3 – “a raster code rule” should be corrected to “the raster code rule” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 3 – “the three-dimensional code of an airspace grid system” should be corrected to “a three-dimensional code of an airspace grid system” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 4 – “wherein the establishing an unmanned aerial vehicle safety protection area” should be corrected to “wherein establishing the unmanned aerial vehicle safety protection area” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 5 – “wherein the performing gridding expression” should be corrected to “wherein performing gridding expression” for clarity.
Claim 6 – “wherein the establishing a coordinate system” should be corrected to “wherein establishing the coordinate system” to avoid antecedent issues and for clarity.
Claim 7 – “wherein the calculating the Minkowski difference” should be corrected to “wherein calculating the Minkowski difference” for clarity.
Claim 8 – “wherein the determining whether the unmanned aerial vehicle” should be corrected to “wherein determining whether the unmanned aerial vehicle” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “an airspace discrete subdivision raster model establishment module configured to establish an airspace discrete subdivision raster model” in claim 9 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of pages 13-14 of the specification wherein “As described above, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be implemented in various terminal devices, such as a server of a distributed computing system. In one example, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be integrated into the terminal device as a software module and/or a hardware module. For example, the apparatus may be a software module in an operating system of the terminal device, or may be an application developed for the terminal device; of course, the apparatus may also be one of many hardware modules of the terminal device” or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a conversion relationship construction module configured to construct a conversion relationship between a raster code rule and longitude and latitude coordinates and grid codes” in claim 9 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of pages 13-14 of the specification wherein “As described above, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be implemented in various terminal devices, such as a server of a distributed computing system. In one example, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be integrated into the terminal device as a software module and/or a hardware module. For example, the apparatus may be a software module in an operating system of the terminal device, or may be an application developed for the terminal device; of course, the apparatus may also be one of many hardware modules of the terminal device” or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a gridding expression module configured to establish an unmanned aerial vehicle safety protection area, and perform gridding expression on the unmanned aerial vehicle in the airspace” in claim 9 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of pages 13-14 of the specification wherein “As described above, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be implemented in various terminal devices, such as a server of a distributed computing system. In one example, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be integrated into the terminal device as a software module and/or a hardware module. For example, the apparatus may be a software module in an operating system of the terminal device, or may be an application developed for the terminal device; of course, the apparatus may also be one of many hardware modules of the terminal device” or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a coordinate conversion module configured to establish a coordinate system to convert the grid codes of the unmanned aerial vehicle into coordinates” in claim 9 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of pages 13-14 of the specification wherein “As described above, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be implemented in various terminal devices, such as a server of a distributed computing system. In one example, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be integrated into the terminal device as a software module and/or a hardware module. For example, the apparatus may be a software module in an operating system of the terminal device, or may be an application developed for the terminal device; of course, the apparatus may also be one of many hardware modules of the terminal device” or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a Minkowski difference set calculation module configured to calculate the Minkowski difference set of two blocks using the GJK distance algorithm” in claim 9 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of pages 13-14 of the specification wherein “As described above, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be implemented in various terminal devices, such as a server of a distributed computing system. In one example, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be integrated into the terminal device as a software module and/or a hardware module. For example, the apparatus may be a software module in an operating system of the terminal device, or may be an application developed for the terminal device; of course, the apparatus may also be one of many hardware modules of the terminal device” or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “an unmanned aerial vehicle conflict determination module configured to determine whether the unmanned aerial vehicle conflicts or not according to the Minkowski difference set” in claim 9 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of pages 13-14 of the specification wherein “As described above, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be implemented in various terminal devices, such as a server of a distributed computing system. In one example, the apparatus according to the embodiment of the present application may be integrated into the terminal device as a software module and/or a hardware module. For example, the apparatus may be a software module in an operating system of the terminal device, or may be an application developed for the terminal device; of course, the apparatus may also be one of many hardware modules of the terminal device” or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the Minkowski difference set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the GJK algorithm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the Minkowski difference set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the GJK algorithm". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention covers non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to transitory forms of signal transmission (signals per se). Therefore, Claim 10 is NOT within at least one of the four statutory categories and warrants rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing to claim statutory subject matter.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic and non-transitory device if the Specification supports such an amendment. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Examiner’s Comment
Independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for lacking antecedent basis. Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected as depending upon rejected claim 1. Once an amendment is made addressing the lack of antecedent basis, independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 2-8 are allowable for the following reasons:
As per claim 1, prior art did not reveal all claim limitations. Specifically, prior art did not reveal “calculating the Minkowski difference set of two blocks using the GJK distance algorithm”. Typically calculating a Minkowski difference set between two complex shapes is a computationally expensive task. However, utilizing a Gilbert-Johnson-Keerthi distance algorithm simplifies the calculation and allows its use for collision avoidance.
As per claim 9, prior art did not reveal all claim limitations. Specifically, prior art did not reveal “calculate the Minkowski difference set of two blocks using the GJK distance algorithm”. Typically calculating a Minkowski difference set between two complex shapes is a computationally expensive task. However, utilizing a Gilbert-Johnson-Keerthi distance algorithm simplifies the calculation and allows its use for collision avoidance.
Regarding claim 10 in view of the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101, overcoming the rejection may prove difficult as the Specification does not appear to support an amendment to include statutory subject matter (e.g. non-transitory computer-readable storage media). It may be appropriate to cancel claim 10 to advance prosecution.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hruschka (US 20230316924 A1) discloses determining a collision probability of a vehicle with an object. A three-dimensional position and orientation of the vehicle and the object is detected. The vehicle is approximated by at least one first geometrical element, that includes a part of the vehicle. The same is done for the object. A first error and a second error is determined in relation to the geometrical element for the vehicle or object. A Minkowski difference is formed for each combination of the at least one first geometrical element with the at least one second geometrical element. A third error is standardized via a transformation. The transformation serves to calculate calculation elements. The collision probability of the vehicle with the object is determined on the basis a spatial union of the calculation elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 9:00 - 19:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights