DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed November 13, 2023. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 14-15, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The examiner recognizes that all original objections previously stated for the original claims 7-9 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of record. Specifically, Applicant states that the limitations of the independent claims should be considered as significantly more than an abstract idea because of the use of multiple components functioning in real time to execute the process described in the limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of computer components performing the function of the claim limitations merely amounts to applying the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more. The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of record is maintained and an updated rejection is found below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 14-15, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 14-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 14-15, are directed to a system and method for planning a flight and obtaining exclusive locks for airspace segments that correspond to the flight plan. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A route management device comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a request for an exclusive locking for a first airspace segment among a plurality of airspace segments within a route from a first AAM operating within the route;
a memory storing one or more instructions; and
a processor controlling the transceiver and executing the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to,
determine whether there is an AAM scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment based on pre-stored metadata for the first airspace segment, wherein the metadata includes an identifier, location, size, information on adjacent airspace segments, information on AAM being located therein at the time when the metadata is generated, and information on airspace segments through which the AAM is scheduled to pass during operation, for each of the plurality of airspace segments;
in response to determining a second AAM is scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment, generate and transmit an exclusive lock request message for requesting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment to the second AAM, wherein the exclusive lock request message includes the identifier of the first AAM requesting the exclusive lock and the type of requesting the exclusive lock transceiver;
in response to receiving, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock approval message for approving the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment, set the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment and
in response to receiving, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock rejection message for rejecting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment, compare the type of requesting the exclusive lock with the type of rejecting the exclusive lock, wherein the exclusive lock rejection message includes an identifier of the second AAM rejecting the exclusive lock and a type of rejecting the exclusive lock; and
determine whether to set the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment according to the comparison result.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represents a process for managing relationships or interactions (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and are therefore a method of organizing human activity. For example, an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) is able to receive filed flight plans from a plurality of AAMs and visually see their intended flight plans on a map. Additionally the ATC is able to access any form a database containing the identifiers of the airspace segments the AAMs would be traveling though and see if there are any conflicts with previously filed flight plans. The ATC is then able to note which airspace segments correspond to the flight plans and see if there are any conflicts. The ATC may then contact the operators of AAMs with conflicting flight plans and negotiate setting the exclusive lock for one of the AAMs while discussing it with the operators in real time in order to potentially approve or deny the received exclusive lock requests. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Examiner notes that the BRI of the exclusive lock, in light of specification, represents a form of reservation rather than the operation of a mechanical device.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
A route management device comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a request for an exclusive locking for a first airspace segment among a plurality of airspace segments within a route from a first AAM operating within the route;
a memory storing one or more instructions; and
a processor controlling the transceiver and executing the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to,
transmit an exclusive lock request message for requesting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment to a second AAM scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment using the transceiver;
receive, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock approval message for approving the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment; and
set the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment.
A route management device comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a request for an exclusive locking for a first airspace segment among a plurality of airspace segments within a route from a first AAM operating within the route;
a memory storing one or more instructions; and
a processor controlling the transceiver and executing the one or more instructions stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to,
determine whether there is an AAM scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment based on pre-stored metadata for the first airspace segment, wherein the metadata includes an identifier, location, size, information on adjacent airspace segments, information on AAM being located therein at the time when the metadata is generated, and information on airspace segments through which the AAM is scheduled to pass during operation, for each of the plurality of airspace segments;
in response to determining a second AAM is scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment, generate and transmit an exclusive lock request message for requesting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment to the second AAM, wherein the exclusive lock request message includes the identifier of the first AAM requesting the exclusive lock and the type of requesting the exclusive lock transceiver;
in response to receiving, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock approval message for approving the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment, set the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment and
in response to receiving, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock rejection message for rejecting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment, compare the type of requesting the exclusive lock with the type of rejecting the exclusive lock, wherein the exclusive lock rejection message includes an identifier of the second AAM rejecting the exclusive lock and a type of rejecting the exclusive lock; and
determine whether to set the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment according to the comparison result.
The characterization of the route management device and AAM amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The functions of the processor, the transceiver, and the memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The transmission and receipt functions of route management device and AAM represent extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the characterization of the route management device and AAM amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the processor, the transceiver, and the memory amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the transmission and receipt functions of route management device and AAM represent extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 1 and 10 are comparable to the limitations of claim 14 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2, 5-7, 9, and 15, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. (US 20170263132; hereinafter Butler, already of record), in view of Nakadai et al. (US 20210097870; hereinafter Nakadai), and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 20170278409; hereinafter Johnson, already of record).
Regarding Claim 1,
Butler teaches
A method of setting an exclusive lock within a route, performed by a route management device, (Butler: Abstract) the method comprising:
receiving, from a first advanced air mobility (AAM) moved within the route, a request for the exclusive lock for a first airspace segment among a plurality of airspace segments within the route, (Butler: Paragraph [0038]) wherein the request for the exclusive lock includes an identifier of the first AAM... (Butler: Paragraph [0029]; “Embodiments of the present invention provide a method comprising receiving a flight plan request for a drone, wherein the flight plan request comprises an identity of the drone,...”; [0030]; “Each drone has a corresponding unique identifier (e.g., a cell phone number) that may be used for communication (e.g., via text messaging).”)
Butler does not explicitly teach metadata containing specific information regarding the airspace segments.
However in the same field of endeavor, Nakadai teaches
...
wherein the request for the exclusive lock includes ... a type for requesting the exclusive lock; (Nakadai: Paragraph [0160]-[0162], [0164]; “Further, examples of use on the UAS operator side include a system having an interface for displaying airspace information and the like in a format corresponding to a purpose. More specifically, an interface that displays available airspace after aircraft information and flight purpose are input,...”)
determining whether there is an AAM scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment based on pre-stored metadata for the first airspace segment, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050], FIG. 3; “As shown in FIG. 3, the airspace information may include information related to an airspace including coordinate information, availability, and a flight plan (or a UAS operator, a UASSP) that uses the airspace.”; [0051] The air space information contains the flight plan of an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) which includes the first airspace segment that the UAS is entering and when it is scheduled to enter.) wherein the metadata includes an identifier, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050], FIG. 3; Airspace ID) location, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050], FIG. 3; “It should be noted that for each airspace, the position, size, time period, and the number of UASs allowed to be operated in the airspace, and the like are usually set by the integrated flight management system 500.”) size, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050], FIG. 3; “It should be noted that for each airspace, the position, size, time period, and the number of UASs allowed to be operated in the airspace, and the like are usually set by the integrated flight management system 500.”) information on adjacent airspace segments, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0127]; “...the integrated flight management system 500 may include not only airspaces through which the route indicated in the flight plan passes but also adjacent airspaces in associating flight plans and airspaces.”) information on AAM being located therein at the time when the metadata is generated, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050]; “It should be noted that for each airspace, the position, size, time period, and the number of UASs allowed to be operated in the airspace, and the like are usually set by the integrated flight management system 500.”) and information on airspace segments through which the AAM is scheduled to pass during operation, (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050]; “...the airspace information may further include information such as the number of UASs that can fly in the airspace and the successful bid price of the airspace.”) for each of the plurality of airspace segments; (Nakadai: Paragraph [0050])
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the route management method of Butler with the airspace segment metadata of Nakadai, for the benefit of making efficient route plans for various moving bodies without conflict. (Nakadai: Paragraph [0009])
Butler, in view of Nakadai, does not explicitly teach sending messages between AAM operators in order to approve an exclusive lock for an airspace segment.
However in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches
...
in response to determining a second AAM is scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment, generating and transmitting an exclusive lock request message for requesting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment to a second AAM scheduled to enter into the first airspace segment to the second AAM, (Johnson: Paragraph [0060]) wherein the exclusive lock request message includes the identifier of the first AAM requesting the exclusive lock and the type of requesting the exclusive lock; (Butler: Paragraph [0038]; “The initially filed flight plan comprises an identity of the drone 50 (e.g., corresponding unique identifier),...”)
in response to receiving, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock approval message for approving the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment, and setting the exclusive lock in the first airspace segment; (Johnson: Paragraph [0063])
in response to receiving, from the second AAM, an exclusive lock rejection message for rejecting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment, comparing the type of requesting the exclusive lock with the type of rejecting the exclusive lock, wherein the exclusive lock rejection message includes an identifier of the second AAM rejecting the exclusive lock and a type of rejecting the exclusive lock; (Johnson: Paragraph [0052]; “If the airspace required by the flight plan(s) is a high risk or crowded airspace, airspace management system 350 might require a UAV pilot with more experience or a different rating and may reject flight authorization request 314 based on the pilot's experience and/or ratings.” The system compares the qualifications of the UAV and/or operator to the specifications that are required by the requested airspace. If the qualifications and requirements do not match then the system rejects the flight plan and grants it to a UAV which does match the requirements.) and
determining whether to set the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment according to the comparison result. (Johnson: Paragraph [0052]; “If the airspace required by the flight plan(s) is a high risk or crowded airspace, airspace management system 350 might require a UAV pilot with more experience or a different rating and may reject flight authorization request 314 based on the pilot's experience and/or ratings.” The system compares the qualifications of the UAV and/or operator to the specifications that are required by the requested airspace. If the qualifications and requirements do not match then the system rejects the flight plan and grants it to a UAV which does match the requirements.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the route management method of Butler, in view of Nakadai, with the message communication of Johnson for the benefit of efficiently reserving airspace for safe UAV operations. (Johnson: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 2,
Butler, in view of Nakadai, and further in view of Johnson, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
setting the plurality of airspace segments within the route; (Butler: Paragraph [0029]; "The
method further comprises constructing a modified flight plan for the drone based on
the flight plan request, wherein the modified flight plan represents an approved, congestion reducing,
and executable flight plan for the drone, and the modified flight plan comprises a sequence of four-
dimensional (4D) cells representing a planned flight path for the drone.") and
determining the first airspace segment among the plurality of airspace segments. (Butler: Paragraph [0038]; "The planned flight path comprises a sequence of 4D cells, such as an approved
departure cell and a sequence of approved arrival cells." The system is aware of every 4D cell in
sequential order present in the flight plan of the UAV.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Butler, in view of Nakadai, and further in view of Johnson, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the type for requesting the exclusive lock includes at least one of:
occurrence of a passenger emergency situation in the first AAM,
occurrence of an internal abnormal situation in the first AAM, (Butler: Paragraph [0064])
occurrence of an external obstacle situation in the first airspace segment, (Butler: Paragraph [0081])
occurrence of an external emergency situation in the first airspace segment, and
occurrence of an overtaking restriction situation in the first airspace segment.
Regarding Claim 6,
Butler, in view of Nakadai, and further in view of Johnson, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a second airspace segment to be set the exclusive lock with the first airspace segment on the basis of the metadata for the first airspace segment and the route of the first AAM, (Butler: Paragraph [0040]; “In one embodiment, each 4D cell included in the modified flight plan satisfies the following condition: some point of the 4D cell is within a pre-specified distance of a path defined by an original 2D location of the drone 50 and segments between 4D cells of the modified flight plan.”)
wherein the setting of the exclusive lock includes setting the exclusive lock for the first airspace segment and the second airspace segment. (Butler: Paragraph [0041])
Regarding Claim 7,
Butler, in view of Nakadai, and further in view of Johnson, teaches
The method of claim 6, wherein the metadata includes information on airspace segments adjacent to the first airspace segment, and
wherein the determining of the second airspace segment includes checking an airspace segment included in the route of the first AAM among the airspace segments adjacent to the first airspace segment on the basis of the information on the airspace segments adjacent to the first airspace segment and the route of the first AAM, and determining the checked airspace segment as the second airspace segment. (Butler: Paragraph [0040]; “In one embodiment, each 4D cell included in the modified flight plan satisfies the following condition: some point of the 4D cell is within a pre-specified distance of a path defined by an original 2D location of the drone 50 and segments between 4D cells of the modified flight plan.”)
Regarding Claim 9,
Butler, in view of Nakadai, and further in view of Johnson, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the type of rejecting the exclusive lock includes at least one of:
occurrence of a passenger emergency situation in the second AAM,
occurrence of an internal abnormal situation in the second AAM, (Butler: Paragraph [0064])
occurrence of an external obstacle situation in a second airspace segment in which the second AAM is moving, (Butler: Paragraph [0081]) and
occurrence of an external emergency situation in the second airspace segment.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A route management device (Butler: Paragraph [0033]; System 200) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive a request for an exclusive locking for a first airspace segment among a plurality of airspace segments within a route from a first AAM operating within the route; (Butler: Paragraph [0163]; Communication Interface 324)
a memory storing one or more instructions; (Butler: Paragraph [0161]; Main Memory 310 and Secondary Memory 312) and
a processor controlling the transceiver and executing the one or more instructions stored in the memory, (Butler: Paragraph [0160]; Processing System 300) wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to,
...
Therefore Claim 14 is rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is analogous to Claim 2 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights