DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 01/16/2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/16/2026 is being entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 14, and 16 are amended. The amendment overcomes the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. However, after further search and consideration, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the safety buffer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0047700 A1) hereinafter Liu in view of Kimchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0120094 A1) hereinafter Kimchi further in view of Surace (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0196754 A1) hereinafter Surace.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by an air vehicle, a flight state for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0082 – discusses step 620: a user inputting a desired movement path on a remote controller, input commands that control the position, orientation, and motion of a UAV (flight control instructions), the desired movement path is used to control the UAV];
wherein a command and control unit of the air vehicle provides the received flight state to a protection module of the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0083 – discusses that flight control instructions are input on the remote control (command and control unit) and are provided to the UAV in order to detect obstacles along the desired movement path using sensors on the UAV (protection module)], and
wherein actuators of the air vehicle are controlled to control a current flight state of the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0122 – discusses propulsion mechanisms for the UAV (moving object), and see Paragraph 0082 – the UAV is directed along the desired movement path (using the propulsion mechanisms)];
protecting against the air vehicle colliding with an object, based on a determined risk [see Paragraphs 0074-0081 – discusses selecting a type of flight mode at step 610, for example the selected flight mode is an erroneous user input obstacle avoidance strategy: the erroneous user input obstacle avoidance strategy sends information to the remote control to alert the user when there is a detected obstacle along the desired movement path and autonomously controls the UAV due to erroneous user input if the user input is not corrected to avoid the obstacle] based on:
transmitting a command to a control stick used to control the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0077 – discusses providing warning information to the remote control, see Paragraph 0096 – discusses that that the remote control includes joysticks, and see Paragraph 0095 – discusses the warning information involves haptic feedback based on an obstacle being detected – the command is the signal],
wherein transmitting the command to the control stick provides haptic feedback via the control stick [see Paragraph 0095 – discusses the haptic feedback is provided to the remote control as warning information, see Paragraph 0096 – discusses that the joysticks are a part of the remote control – the remote control (including the joysticks) vibrates due to the haptic feedback].
Kimchi discloses:
identifying an object below an air vehicle, using one or more sensors of the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0133 - discusses determining the surrounding environment using sensors, and see Paragraph 0134 - discusses determining an object on the ground (i.e. human, animal) based on the surrounding environment information]; and
determining a risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle lose propulsion [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses determining whether a failure path (see Paragraph 0133 - discusses that a failure path is a path the UAV follows if all power and control is lost) intersects an object (human), and determining that the failure path intersects with the object].
Kimchi suggests that by considering objects below the UAV and determining whether the UAV will collide with object if the UAV loses power and control, reduces the harm to objects on the ground (humans or animals) [see Paragraph 0132].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify protecting against the air vehicle colliding with an object (the erroneous user input obstacle avoidance strategy flight mode) as taught by Liu to be based on an air vehicle colliding with an object below should the air vehicle lose propulsion as taught by Kimchi in order to reduce the harm to objects on the ground if the UAV loses power and control [Kimchi, see Paragraph 0132].
Surace disclose a safety buffer around an object based on characteristics of the object on the ground [see Paragraphs 0028-0029 – discusses detecting ground objects and determining an envelope (safety buffer) around the ground objects based on the position and velocity (characteristics)].
Surace suggests that the envelopes (safety buffers) indicate potential collision hazards [see Paragraph 0029].
Further, basing the risk (intersection of trajectory and object on ground) on the safety buffer yields the predictable result of adding another level of protection for objects on the ground.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the determination of a risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle lose propulsion as taught by Kimchi to be based on a safety buffer around the object based on characteristics of an object on the ground as taught by Surace in order to indicate potential collision hazards [Surace, see Paragraph 0029] and yield the predictable result of another level of protection for objects on the ground if an air vehicle were to later lose propulsion.
Regarding claim 5, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of: see Paragraph 0083]
Regarding claim 6, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Kimchi further discloses wherein determining the risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle later lose propulsion comprises using a falling model for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0133 - discusses a falling model (i.e. a failure path if the vehicle were to lose all power and control)].
Regarding claim 7, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 6. Kimchi further discloses wherein the falling model comprises at least one of: see Paragraph 0133 - a vehicle that loses all power and control would be in a freefall, therefore the failure path is a parabolic freefall model]
Regarding claim 8, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Kimchi further discloses wherein protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object comprises:
generating a corrected flight state for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses altering the navigation path (path is based on the trajectory, speed, and altitude)]; and
automatically controlling the air vehicle to operate using the corrected flight state [see Paragraph 0129 - discusses the navigation of a route/path is determined during the traversal of the route/path, therefore, as the navigation route/path is adjusted the UAV is controlled to follow the adjusted route].
Kimchi suggests that by altering the navigation path of the UAV minimizes interactions with objects on the ground [see Paragraph 0134].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object as taught by Liu to include generating a corrected flight state for the air vehicle and automatically controlling the air vehicle to operate using the corrected flight state as taught by Kimchi in order to minimizes interactions with objects on the ground [Kimchi, see Paragraph 0134].
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer program code that, when executed by operation of one or more computer processors [see Paragraph 0130 – discusses that the movable object (UAV) includes one or more processors, coupled to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium], performs operations comprising:
receiving a flight state for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0082 – discusses step 620: a user inputting a desired movement path on a remote controller, input commands that control the position, orientation, and motion of a UAV (flight control instructions), the desired movement path is used to control the UAV];
wherein a command and control unit of the air vehicle provides the received flight state to a protection module of the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0083 – discusses that flight control instructions are input on the remote control (command and control unit) and are provided to the UAV in order to detect obstacles along the desired movement path using sensors on the UAV (protection module)], and
wherein actuators of the air vehicle are controlled to control a current flight state of the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0122 – discusses propulsion mechanisms for the UAV (moving object), and see Paragraph 0082 – the UAV is directed along the desired movement path (using the propulsion mechanisms)];
protecting against the air vehicle colliding with an object, based on a determined risk [see Paragraphs 0074-0081 – discusses selecting a type of flight mode at step 610, for example the selected flight mode is an erroneous user input obstacle avoidance strategy: the erroneous user input obstacle avoidance strategy sends information to the remote control to alert the user when there is a detected obstacle along the desired movement path and autonomously controls the UAV due to erroneous user input if the user input is not corrected to avoid the obstacle] based on:
transmitting a command to a control stick used to control the air vehicle see Paragraph 0077 – discusses providing warning information to the remote control, see Paragraph 0096 – discusses that that the remote control includes joysticks, and see Paragraph 0095 – discusses the warning information involves haptic feedback based on an obstacle being detected – the command is the signal],
wherein transmitting the command to the control stick provides haptic feedback via the control stick [see Paragraph 0095 – discusses the haptic feedback is provided to the remote control as warning information, see Paragraph 0096 – discusses that the joysticks are a part of the remote control – the remote control (including the joysticks) vibrates due to the haptic feedback].
Kimchi discloses:
identifying an object below an air vehicle, using one or more sensors of the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0133 - discusses determining the surrounding environment using sensors, and see Paragraph 0134 - discusses determining an object on the ground (i.e. human, animal) based on the surrounding environment information]; and
determining a risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle lose propulsion [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses determining whether a failure path (see Paragraph 0133 - discusses that a failure path is a path the UAV follows if all power and control is lost) intersects an object (human), and determining that the failure path intersects with the object].
Kimchi suggests that by considering objects below the UAV and determining whether the UAV will collide with object if the UAV loses power and control, reduces the harm to objects on the ground (humans or animals) [see Paragraph 0132].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify protecting against the air vehicle colliding with an object (the erroneous user input obstacle avoidance strategy flight mode) as taught by Liu to be based on an air vehicle colliding with an object below should the air vehicle lose propulsion as taught by Kimchi in order to reduce the harm to objects on the ground if the UAV loses power and control [Kimchi, see Paragraph 0132].
Surace disclose a safety buffer around an object based on characteristics of the object on the ground [see Paragraphs 0028-0029 – discusses detecting ground objects and determining an envelope (safety buffer) around the ground objects based on the position and velocity (characteristics)].
Surace suggests that the envelopes (safety buffers) indicate potential collision hazards [see Paragraph 0029].
Further, basing the risk (intersection of trajectory and object on ground) on the safety buffer yields the predictable result of adding another level of protection for objects on the ground.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the determination of a risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle lose propulsion as taught by Kimchi to be based on a safety buffer around the object based on characteristics of an object on the ground as taught by Surace in order to indicate potential collision hazards [Surace, see Paragraph 0029] and yield the predictable result of another level of protection for objects on the ground if an air vehicle were to later lose propulsion.
Regarding claim 14, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 12. Kimchi further discloses wherein determining the risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the UAV later lose propulsion comprises using a falling model for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0133 - discusses a falling model (i.e. a failure path if the vehicle were to lose all power and control)].
Regarding claim 15, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 12. Kimchi further discloses wherein protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object comprises:
generating a corrected flight state for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses altering the navigation path (path is based on the trajectory, speed, and altitude)]; and
automatically controlling the air vehicle to operate using the corrected flight state [see Paragraph 0129 - discusses the navigation of a route/path is determined during the traversal of the route/path, therefore, as the navigation route/path is adjusted the UAV is controlled to follow the adjusted route].
Kimchi suggests that by altering the navigation path of the UAV minimizes interactions with objects on the ground [see Paragraph 0134].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object as taught by Liu to include generating a corrected flight state for the air vehicle and automatically controlling the air vehicle to operate using the corrected flight state as taught by Kimchi in order to minimizes interactions with objects on the ground [Kimchi, see Paragraph 0134].
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [see Paragraph 0121 - discusses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (movable object)], comprising:
a computer processor [see Paragraph 0130 – discusses a system for controlling the UAV]; and
a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed on the computer processor [see Paragraph 0130], performs operations comprising:
identifying a flight state for the UAV [see Paragraph 0082 – discusses step 620: a user inputting a desired movement path on a remote controller, input commands that control the position, orientation, and motion of a UAV (flight control instructions), the desired movement path is used to control the UAV];
wherein a command and control unit of the UAV provides the received flight state to a protection module of the UAV [see Paragraph 0083 – discusses that flight control instructions are input on the remote control (command and control unit) and are provided to the UAV in order to detect obstacles along the desired movement path using sensors on the UAV (protection module)], and
wherein the actuators of the UAV are controlled to control a current flight state of the UAV [see Paragraph 0122 – discusses propulsion mechanisms for the UAV (moving object), and see Paragraph 0082 – the UAV is directed along the desired movement path (using the propulsion mechanisms)];
transmitting a command to a control stick associated with the UAV [see Paragraph 0077 – discusses providing warning information to the remote control, see Paragraph 0096 – discusses that that the remote control includes joysticks, and see Paragraph 0095 – discusses the warning information involves haptic feedback based on an obstacle being detected – the command is the signal],
wherein transmitting the command to the control stick provides haptic feedback via the control stick [see Paragraph 0095 – discusses the haptic feedback is provided to the remote control, see Paragraph 0096 – discusses that the joysticks are a part of the remote control – the remote control (including the joysticks) vibrates due to the haptic feedback].
Kimchi discloses:
determining a risk that the UAV will collide with an object should the UAV lose propulsion [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses determining whether a failure path (a see Paragraph 0133 - discusses that a failure path is a path the UAV follows if all power and control is lost) intersects an object below (human)].
Kimchi suggests that by considering objects below the UAV and determining whether the UAV will collide with object if the UAV loses power and control, reduces the harm to objects on the ground (humans or animals) [see Paragraph 0132].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processor of the UAV as taught by Liu to include determining a risk that is based on an air vehicle colliding with an object below should the air vehicle lose propulsion as taught by Kimchi in order to reduce the harm to objects on the ground if the UAV loses power and control [Kimchi, see Paragraph 0132].
Kimchi further discloses:
receiving a corrected flight state for the UAV [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses altering the navigation path (path is based on the trajectory, speed, and altitude)], wherein the corrected flight state is calculated based on identifying an object below the UAV using one or more sensors of the UAV [see Paragraph 0133 – discusses determining a failure path based on the surrounding environment information from the sensors (includes objects on the ground (below the UAV))]; and
automatically controlling the UAV to operate using the corrected flight state [see Paragraph 0129 - discusses the navigation of a route/path is determined during the traversal of the route/path, therefore, as the navigation route/path is adjusted the UAV is controlled to follow the adjusted route].
Kimchi suggests that by altering the navigation path of the UAV minimizes interactions with objects on the ground [see Paragraph 0134].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the processor of the UAV as taught by Liu to include generating a corrected flight state for the air vehicle and automatically controlling the air vehicle to operate using the corrected flight state as taught by Kimchi in order to minimizes interactions with objects on the ground [Kimchi, see Paragraph 0134].
Surace disclose a safety buffer around an object based on characteristics of the object on the ground [see Paragraphs 0028-0029 – discusses detecting ground objects and determining an envelope (safety buffer) around the ground objects based on the position and velocity (characteristics)].
Surace suggests that the envelopes (safety buffers) indicate potential collision hazards [see Paragraph 0029].
Further, basing the risk (intersection of trajectory and object on ground) on the safety buffer yields the predictable result of adding another level of protection for objects on the ground.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the determination of a risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle lose propulsion as taught by Kimchi to be based on a safety buffer around the object based on characteristics of an object on the ground as taught by Surace in order to indicate potential collision hazards [Surace, see Paragraph 0029] and yield the predictable result of another level of protection for objects on the ground if an air vehicle were to later lose propulsion.
Regarding claim 18, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 16. Kimchi further discloses wherein determining the risk that the UAV will collide with the object should the UAV later lose propulsion comprises using a falling model for the UAV [see Paragraph 0133 - discusses a falling model (i.e. a failure path if the vehicle were to lose all power and control)].
Regarding claim 19, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 16. Liu further discloses wherein the UAV comprises the one or more sensors [see Paragraphs 0083 and 0007 – discusses one or more sensors], the operations further comprising: capturing sensor data relating to the object using the one or more sensors [see Paragraph 0083 – discusses sensors determine objects near the UAV].
Regarding claim 20, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 19. Liu further discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of: see Paragraph 0083].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kimchi in view of Surace in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0413517 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein the air vehicle comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)].
However, Kimchi fails to disclose:
determining a predicted trajectory for the object,
wherein determining the risk that the UAV will collide with the object is further based, at least in part, on the predicted trajectory.
Lee discloses:
determining a predicted trajectory for an object [see Paragraph 0137 - discusses calculating a contact probability based on movement prediction data or planned movement data of an object],
wherein determining a risk that a UAV will collide with the object is further based, at least in part, on the predicted trajectory [see Paragraph 0135 - discusses that the safety degree is determined based on the contact probability with the object].
Lee suggests that by determining a risk (safety degree) of a movement route for a UAV, a safer movement without exposing the UAV to danger due to an approach of a dynamic object is determined [see Paragraphs 0145-0146].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the method as taught by Liu to determine a risk that a UAV will collide with an object based on a predicted trajectory of the object as taught by Lee in order to determine the risk of the movement route of the UAV and determine a safer movement route without exposing the UAV to danger due to an approach of a dynamic object [Lee, see Paragraphs 0145-0146].
Claims 3-4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kimchi in view of Surace in view of Lee further in view of Kennedy et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0050000 A1) hereinafter Kennedy in view of Kamenev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0295171 A1) hereinafter Kamenev.
Regarding claim 3, Liu, Kimchi, Surace, and Lee disclose the invention with respect to claim 2.
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, Surace, and Lee fail to disclose:
wherein identifying the object uses a first one or more trained machine learning (ML) models and determining the predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models.
Kennedy discloses identifying the object uses a first one see Paragraph 0044 - discusses determining a class of an object using a machine learning].
Kennedy suggests that by classifying objects, a risk associated with the object is determined for autonomous navigation [see Paragraph 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the object identification as taught by Kimchi to determine an object using a trained ML models as taught by Kennedy in order to associate a risk with an object for autonomous navigation [Kennedy, see Paragraph 0045].
Kamenev further discloses determining a predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models [see Paragraphs 0067-0074 - discusses a method of determining object trajectories using machine learning (a deep neural network), see Paragraph 0019 - discusses that the method is used by drones].
Kamenev suggests that by using machine learning to predict object trajectories, the predictions are accurate and reliable compared to conventional systems and the processing burden is reduced [see Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the object trajectory prediction as taught by Lee to be determined using a trained ML models as taught by Kamenev in order to increase accuracy and reliability of trajectory predictions for objects [Kamenev, see Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Regarding claim 4, Liu, Kimchi, Lee, Surace, Kennedy, and Kamenev disclose the invention with respect to claim 3.
Kennedy and Kamenev further disclose wherein the first and second one or more trained ML models each comprise respective deep learning neural networks (DNNs) [Kennedy, see Paragraph 0044 and Kamenev, see Paragraph 0066].
Regarding claim 13, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 12. Liu further discloses wherein the air vehicle comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [see Paragraph 0044 - discusses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)].
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, and Surace fails to disclose:
determining a predicted trajectory for the object,
wherein determining the risk that the UAV will collide with the object is further based, at least in part, on the predicted trajectory.
Lee discloses:
determining a predicted trajectory for an object [see Paragraph 0137 - discusses calculating a contact probability based on movement prediction data or planned movement data of an object],
wherein determining a risk that a UAV will collide with the object is further based, at least in part, on the predicted trajectory [see Paragraph 0135 - discusses that the safety degree is determined based on the contact probability with the object].
Lee suggests that by determining a risk (safety degree) of movement routes for a UAV, a safer movement without exposing the UAV to danger due to an approach of a dynamic object is determined [see Paragraphs 0145-0146].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Liu to determine a risk that a UAV will collide with an object based on a predicted trajectory of the object as taught by Lee in order to determine the risk of the movement route of the UAV and determine a safer movement route without exposing the UAV to danger due to an approach of a dynamic object [Lee, see Paragraphs 0145-0146].
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, Surace, and Lee fail to disclose:
wherein identifying the object uses a first one or more trained machine learning (ML) models and determining the predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models.
Kennedy discloses identifying the object uses a first one see Paragraph 0044 - discusses determining a class of an object using a machine learning].
Kennedy suggests that by classifying objects, a risk associated with the object is determined for autonomous navigation [see Paragraph 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the object identification as taught by Kimchi to determine an object using a trained ML models as taught by Kennedy in order to associate a risk with an object for autonomous navigation [Kennedy, see Paragraph 0045].
Kamenev discloses determining a predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models [see Paragraphs 0067-0074 - discusses a method of determining object trajectories using machine learning (a deep neural network), see Paragraph 0019 - discusses that the method is used by drones].
Kamenev suggests that by using machine learning to predict object trajectories, the predictions are accurate and reliable compared to conventional systems and the processing burden is reduced [see Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the object trajectory prediction as taught by Lee to be determined using a trained ML models as taught by Kamenev in order to increase accuracy and reliability of trajectory predictions for objects [Kamenev, see Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Regarding claim 17, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace disclose the invention with respect to claim 16.
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, and Surace fails to disclose wherein the corrected flight state is further based, at least in part, on determining a predicted trajectory for the object and wherein identifying the object uses a first one or more trained machine learning (ML) models and determining the predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models.
Lee discloses wherein a corrected flight state [see Paragraph 0138 – discusses determining a path/route based on a contact probability of a dynamic object] is based, at least in part, on determining a predicted trajectory for the object [see Paragraph 0137 - discusses calculating the contact probability based on movement prediction data or planned movement data of the dynamic object].
Lee suggests that by determining a risk (safety degree) of a movement route for a UAV, a safer movement without exposing the UAV to danger due to an approach of a dynamic object is determined [see Paragraphs 0145-0146].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the corrected flight state as taught by Kimchi to be further determined based on a predicted trajectory for the object by Lee in order to determine the risk of the movement route of the UAV and determine a safer movement route without exposing the UAV to danger due to an approach of a dynamic object [Lee, see Paragraphs 0145-0146].
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, Surace, and Lee fail to disclose:
wherein identifying the object uses a first one or more trained machine learning (ML) models and determining the predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models.
Kennedy discloses identifying the object uses a first one see Paragraph 0044 - discusses determining a class of an object using a machine learning].
Kennedy suggests that by classifying objects, a risk associated with the object is determined for autonomous navigation [see Paragraph 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the object identification as taught by Kimchi to determine an object using a trained ML models as taught by Kennedy in order to associate a risk with an object for autonomous navigation [Kennedy, see Paragraph 0045].
Kamenev discloses determining a predicted trajectory uses a second one or more trained ML models [see Paragraphs 0067-0074 - discusses a method of determining object trajectories using machine learning (a deep neural network), see Paragraph 0019 - discusses that the method is used by drones].
Kamenev suggests that by using machine learning to predict object trajectories, the predictions are accurate and reliable compared to conventional systems and the processing burden is reduced [see Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the object trajectory prediction as taught by Lee to be determined using a trained ML models as taught by Kamenev in order to increase accuracy and reliability of trajectory predictions for objects [Kamenev, see Paragraphs 0002-0003].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kimchi in view of Surace in view of Lewis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0147749 A1) hereinafter Lewis.
Regarding claim 9, Liu, Kimchi, and Surace discloses the invention with respect to claim 8.
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, and Surace fails to disclose wherein generating the corrected flight state for the air vehicle further comprises: generating a safety buffer for the air vehicle and the object, wherein the corrected flight state is based on the safety buffer
Lewis discloses wherein generating the corrected flight state for the air vehicle further comprises: generating a safety buffer for the air vehicle and the object, wherein the corrected flight state is based on the safety buffer [see Paragraph 0051 - discusses generating a buffer around an obstacle, and the flight path is modified to avoid the obstacle].
Lewis suggests that by including a buffer ensures that the flight path avoids the obstacle [see Paragraph 0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the generated correct flight state as taught by Kimchi to include a buffer for the air vehicle and the object as taught by Lewis in order to ensures that the flight path avoids the obstacle [Lewis, see Paragraph 0051].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Kimchi in view of Surace in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0220002 A1) hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 10, Liu and Kimchi discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Kimchi further discloses that the air vehicle is controlled by a pilot using a remote [see Paragraph 0108].
However, the combination of Liu, Kimchi, and Surace fails to disclose wherein protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object comprises: transmitting a warning to a pilot for the air vehicle reflecting the risk that the air vehicle will collide with the object should the air vehicle later lose propulsion.
Huang discloses transmitting a warning to a pilot for an air vehicle reflecting a risk that the air vehicle will collide with an object [see Paragraph 0150].
Huang suggests that a warning will help the pilot take appropriate measures to avoid a collision [see Paragraph 0150].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object as taught by Kimchi to include transmitting a warning to a pilot as taught by Huang in order for the pilot take appropriate measures to avoid a collision [Huang, see Paragraph 0150].
Regarding claim 11, Liu, Kimchi, Surace, and Huang disclose the invention with respect to claim 10. Kimchi further discloses wherein protecting against the air vehicle colliding with the object further comprises:
generating a corrected flight state for the air vehicle [see Paragraph 0134 - discusses altering the navigation path] and that the air vehicle is controlled by a pilot using a remote [see Paragraph 0108].
Huang further discloses:
generating a corrected flight state for an air vehicle [see Paragraph 0124 - discusses a motion controller of a UAV generates a motion path for traversing through an environment, see Paragraph 0125 - discusses an obstacle avoidance unit of the motion controller determines a collision with an obstacle based on a predicted movement of the UAV along a motion path, see Paragraph 0126 - discusses determining whether a trajectory of the UAV intersects with one or more obstacles by overlaying the motion path onto an environmental map, see Paragraph 0128 - discusses adjusting the motion path when there is an intersection of the object and the motion path (this adjusts motion information of the UAV), and see Paragraphs 0130-0132 - discusses that the motion controller generates the adjusted motion information (flight state) and sends the adjusted motion information to a remote/user terminal (pilot remote)]; and
providing at least a portion of the corrected flight state to the pilot [see Paragraph 0136 - discusses that an overlay engine of the remote generates augmented reality layer comprising the motion information, the augmented reality layer is displayed on the display device of the remote/user terminal (see Paragraph 0141), see Paragraph 0147 – discusses flight (motion) information is displayed on the display].
Huang suggests that providing the motion information aids a user in control of the UAV [see Paragraph 0147].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention as taught by Liu to include generating a corrected flight state for an air vehicle and providing at least a portion of the corrected flight state to the pilot as taught by Huang in order to aid a user (pilot) in control of the UAV [Huang, see Paragraph 0147].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter, and are not persuasive, as noted supra in the rejections of that claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665