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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on 05/21/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Turner et al., US 20170138759 A1, herein referred to as Turner, and in view of Orsino et al., US 20240212508 A1, herein referred to as Orsino.
Regarding claim 1, Turner discloses receiving a first set of sensor data from a plurality of internal data sources, wherein the first set of sensor data describes geospatial locations of objects within an airspace (Paragraphs 0023-0024; data maybe received from navigation systems, navigation systems may include GPS, ground based navigational facilities, ADS-B etc., navigation systems may return aircraft positional information obtained from numerous sensors (GPS of host aircraft, ADS-B returns positioning based on GPS)), the plurality of internal data sources comprises: an aerial data source coupled to at least one of the objects within the airspace and configured to report its own geospatial location; and a ground-based data source that uses radar to remotely detect the objects within the airspace (Paragraph 0024; the navigation system may include GPS, ground based navigational facilities, ADS-B, etc., GPS on a host aircraft may report its own position and can be one of the objects within an airspace, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility (TRACON) is ground based and returns radar-based positioning of aircraft in the airspace, examiner notes that TRACON is not a publicly accessible source of data and can be considered as an internal data source), receiving event data from a first external data source over a network, the event data describing publicly available information affecting the airspace (Paragraph 0046; the system may obtain information from weather sources, weather is publicly available information that can affect the airspace), receiving a second set of sensor data from a second external data source operated by a user, wherein the second set of sensor data describes an additional geospatial location of a user-operated object within the airspace (Paragraph 0024; user on a host-vehicle may use ADS-B (airspace traffic) and can determine positioning of the current host vehicle as well as other aircraft in the airspace, user can be a pilot of the host aircraft), generating object metadata based on the first set of sensor data, the second set of sensor data, and the event data (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0036-0038; data may be received by the visualization system which includes flights in the airspace and their positioning, heading, and distance from the host aircraft, traffic related data may be presented within a bubble (which includes information such as altitude, flight number, etc.) and can be considered metadata), receiving a streaming request from a computing device of the user over a network (Paragraphs 0028-0030; a user may select “play” on the display to generate the visualization system, a user selecting “play” may be considered a streaming request, the visualization system may be on a variety of computing systems such as tablet, hand-held device, etc.), and responsive to the streaming request, streaming at least a subset of the object metadata to the computing device of the user; wherein the subset of the object metadata is processed to generate, on a visual display of the computing device, a real-time three-dimensional rendering of the airspace, including the objects and the user-operated object (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0028-0030 and 0038; visualization system may render a three-dimensional representation of the airspace based on received data, the received data may be considered at least a subset of the metadata, the representation may include other aircraft in the airspace as well as the user (pilot) operated host aircraft (visualization includes flight trajectory and waypoints of host aircraft)).
However, Turner fails to disclose the aerial data source comprising a first unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operated by a UAS operator, and the second external data source comprising a second UAS not operated by the UAS operator, the second UAS configured to provide volume data during flight operation, the volume data indicating a spatial volume in which an aircraft is planning to operate. However, Orsino, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the aerial data source comprising a first unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operated by a UAS operator (Paragraphs 0031, 0041, 0046, 0076, 0129-0133; a remote user equipment may be used to communicate with various unmanned aerial vehicles; the unmanned aerial vehicles may transmit data between each other and the remote user equipment; each of the unmanned aerial vehicles may be operated remotely by a different user), the second external data source comprising a second UAS not operated by the UAS operator (Paragraphs 0031, 0041, 0046, 0076, 0129-0133; a second UAV may be operated by a different operator than that of a first UAV), and the second UAS configured to provide volume data during flight operation, the volume data indicating a spatial volume in which an aircraft is planning to operate (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0006, 0011; UAVs may operate between given height/altitude thresholds; the spaces between the thresholds may be considered volumes as they are defined spaces with given limits; height reporting may include horizontal movements/speeds which means that the vehicle can move in a volume defined by the height/altitude thresholds; this data is available to the operators and can be considered as providing the information). Therefore, from the teaching of Orsino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the air traffic visualization system of Turner to include the aerial data source comprising a first unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operated by a UAS operator, the second external data source comprising a second UAS not operated by the UAS operator, and the second UAS configured to provide volume data during flight operation, the volume data indicating a spatial volume in which an aircraft is planning to operate, as taught/suggested by Orsino. The motivation to do so would be to allow for remote operation which can allow for increased safety, especially when an airspace may be unsuitable for manned flights (severe weather, etc.). Additionally, having the second UAS provide a given operational volume/flight space may allow for better maneuvering decisions from all of the aerial vehicles as each space can be accounted for, further reducing the chance for collisions.
Regarding claim 2, Turner in view of Orsino renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Turner further discloses the first set of sensor data is received from the plurality of internal data sources over a private network (Paragraphs 0023-0024; data may be received from navigation systems, navigation systems may include GPS, ground based navigational facilities, ADS-B etc., receiving the GPS data of the host aircraft may be considered to be on a private network as it cannot be accessed directly by the public).
Regarding claim 4, Turner in view of Orsino renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Turner further discloses the streaming request includes a description of a geographical area, the method comprising filtering the object metadata to the subset of the object metadata that affects the geographical area (Paragraph 0029; when a user selects “play” on the visualization system, the visualization system may generate a three-dimensional rendering of the surround volume (or airspace), objects rendered in the surrounding volume/airspace may be considered a filter as objects and data are restricted to that volume/airspace; this restriction may result in information bubbles only appearing in the given volume/airspace).
Regarding claim 5, Turner in view of Orsino renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Turner further discloses the external data source is a weather service, and the event data comprises a mapping of current weather conditions (Fig. 4 item 410, Paragraphs 0039 and 0046; external data sources may include weather data sources that can be used to show predicted severe/hazardous weather regions on the visualization system).
Regarding claim 6, Turner in view of Orsino renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Turner further discloses the external data source is an air traffic surveillance system, and the event data comprises flight tracking information describing geospatial locations of crewed aircraft within the airspace (Paragraphs 0024 and 0046; external data sources may include airspace traffic information indicated by ADS-B, airspace traffic includes locations of crewed aircraft).
Regarding claim 7, Turner in view of Orsino renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Turner further discloses the plurality of internal data sources includes a simulator configured to generate simulated geospatial information representing a simulated object within the airspace (Fig. 4, Paragraph 0019; internal data sources could include the controller which controls the display element 102 to renders the airspace and show geospatial information regarding other objects in the airspace, the controller and display element together can be considered a simulator).
Regarding claim 8, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Turner additionally discloses a memory (Paragraph 0021; system may contain memory), and a processing device operatively coupled to the memory (Paragraph 0021; system may contain a processor; controller contains both the processor and memory which means they are operatively connected).
Regarding claims 9 and 11-14, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2 and 4-7, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 2 and 4-7.
Regarding claims 15-16 and 18-20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 8-9 and 11-13, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 8-9 and 11-13.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Turner, in view of Orsino, and further in view of Ali et al., US 20220052839 A1, herein referred to as Ali.
Regarding claim 3, Turner in view of Orsino renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Turner further discloses the event data and the second set of sensor data being received through software modules (Paragraphs 0021, 0024, 0046; software modules may be used by controller to perform various steps such as receiving the ADS-B data and weather data), but fails to disclose the event data and the second set of sensor data is received through an Application Programming Interface (API). However, Ali, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the event data and the second set of sensor data being received through an Application Programming Interface (API) (Paragraph 0058; APIs may be used to retrieve data including weather and airspace information). Therefore, from the teaching of Ali, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the air traffic visualization system of Turner to include the event data and the second set of sensor data is received through an Application Programming Interface (API), as taught/suggested by Ali. The motivation to do so would be to use a well-known programming interface to receive data in a simplified and user-accessible format.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 3 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 3 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that neither Turner nor Orsino disclose the feature of the second UAS configured to provide volume data during flight operation, the volume data indicating a spatial volume in which an aircraft is planning to operate. However, as seen in the rationale for claim 1, Orsino discloses the UAVs providing information to the user device regarding operations above/below/between height ranges. In effect, the UAVs are providing flight volumes (spaces between ranges) to the devices while they are operating within those spaces. As such, Orsino still teaches the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights