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 the Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and/or Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of 20 February 2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claim 9 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections, rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and the Double Patenting rejection as set forth in the office action of 20 November 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections, rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) and the Double Patenting rejection as set forth in the office action of 20 November 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11-16 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 20 November 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The limitations “based on the airspace information and fused radar data generated from radar data obtained from the plurality of radars, generate one or more flight plans associated with the one or more geographic areas, the one or more flight plans comprising one or more respective paths for delivering a person to a destination via an air taxi and the one or more flight plans being generated using a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions, the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being based on the fixed object parameters, airspace regulations and future predicted airspace conditions, based on historical data, of the one or more geographic areas, wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same fixed object from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in an overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting fixed object parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data; ... and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service” are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of mental process as they recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected, obtained, etc. and determining information from the collected data. For example, a person can look at received information/data including airspace information (e.g. fixed object parameters) that’s been detected by two or more radars, integrated/fused radar data that’s been obtained from the two or more radars by removing duplicates of the same objects and de-conflicting available parameters based on confidence levels known/available, and a 3D model of airspace conditions and create, determine, generate a flight plan for an area by determining a path that an air taxi can use to deliver a person to a destination, then the person can also look at data collected from a data service and monitor/analyze flight conditions associated with the flight plan. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person looking at the obtained/received data could determine/generate/analyze the various information/data therefrom, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed in a system does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements in the claim “receive … and provide ...”, do not define the use of mental process concepts in such a manner that sufficiently limits the use of mental process into any practical application. Specifically, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action of sending/transmitting data using some of the previous steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements, such as a generic “A system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: ..., from a data service, ...", under broadest reasonable interpretation, merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment as they are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, amount to no more mere data gathering steps (which is a form of extra-solution activity) and insignificant extra-solution activity and/or mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 20 November 2025:
regarding the amended limitation of “wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same fixed object from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in an overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting fixed object parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data” have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
regarding the limitations recited in the previously represented claims and similarly argued by the Applicant in remarks of 03 November 2025, have been considered and are not persuasive. See Examiner’s response in the office action of 20 November 2025.
regarding the limitation “deploying a plurality of radars across one or more geographic areas by calculating respective coverage regions based on a respective radar detection range of each radar of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas, wherein at least a portion of the respective coverage regions overlap” incorporated into claim 1 from previously presented claim 9, now cancelled, have been considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to [0104] and specifically [0178]-[0181] of Halbert which explicitly teaches the argued limitations by reciting “a plurality of radar cells 1012 with each radar cell 1012 providing its own respective local geographic area of radar coverage. The radar cells 1012 are arranged (or ‘tiled’) generally adjacent one another to provide a total surveillance area comprising a much larger geographic area of radar coverage (albeit that the actual areas of coverage provided by the radar receivers/transmitters of each cell may, in reality, overlap partially with one another). Each radar cell 1012 is formed by a respective multi-static arrangement of static radar receivers (RX) and static radar transmitters (TX) with each receiver/transmitter being located at a different respective radar node 1014. The radar nodes 1014 of each cell are arranged in a polygonal arrangement with each radar node 1014 being located at a different respective vertex of the polygonal arrangement ... each radar node 1014 is located at a different respective corner of a quadrilateral (a square) and ... nine cells arranged in a regular three by three arrangement with each radar cell ...”. Therefore, Halbert teaches that radars are deployed/located across the area in particular arrangements/locations to provide a total surveillance area (respective coverage regions) based on radars’ respective coverage (range) and the surveillance area needed to be monitored in totality (coverage parameter).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments associated with the combination of Bry, Priest and Halbert, Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would look at the teachings of Priest and Halbert such as “[deploying a plurality of radars across one or more geographic areas by calculating respective coverage regions based on a respective radar detection range of each radar of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas]/[the plurality of radars being deployed across the one or more geographic areas based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas]; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the items being possibly people; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement” and “the plurality of radars being deployed based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas; the item(s) being possibly person/people; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to a flight of the air taxi to deliver the person to the destination; and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service” and find it obvious that such teachings may be incorporated in the disclosure of Bry since they are all directed to flying vehicle system(s) and/or airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Priest and Halbert would increase utility, accuracy and reliability of the overall system. The corresponding limitations in the claims as currently presented that Priest and Halbert are being used to teach, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not include any specific limitation/teaching that would indicate it as impossible/incorrect to incorporate into Bry’s disclosure when the goal is to increase utility, accuracy and reliability of the overall system. For example, 1) Bry discloses a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being based on various factors but does not also mention to make it based on airspace regulations but Priest teaches the importance of considering airspace regulations for the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions as well; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look at Bry including the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions and making it based on important factors affecting it and then look at Priest which also considers airspace regulations and realize that Bry’s three-dimensional model of airspace conditions would further benefit by being also based on airspace regulations to increase the accuracy of the generated three-dimensional model of airspace conditions and thereby increase reliability of the overall system. 2) Bry discloses the transport of items but does not mention that it could also apply to transport of people but Priest teaches that when considering air traffic control, it applies to transport of people as well; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look at Priest also including people to be transported and realize Bry’s disclosure could benefit by also including people in order to increase utility of the overall system. 3) Bry discloses generating a flight plan, providing the flight plan to an air taxi so that the air taxi autonomously moves based on the flight plan; however, Bry does not mention that such flight plan can be provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement and then monitoring flight conditions but Priest teaches such and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would look at Priest and realize that Bry’s flight plan could be provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement in order to increase applicability and safety of the overall system and that then the flight conditions of such flight could be monitored to increase utility and safety of the overall system. 4) Bry discloses a plurality of radars with an overlapping portion of respective coverage regions but does not go into detail of how such radars are deployed but Halbert teaches a beneficial way to deploy these plurality of radars across the areas in order to increase accuracy and efficiency of the overall system; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look at how the plurality of radars are deployed in Halbert and realize that since Bry discloses utilizing a plurality of radars in a similar way, then Bry could benefit from Halbert by incorporating the deployment way/teachings of Halbert for its plurality of radars in order to increase accuracy, reliability and efficiency of the overall system.
Incorporation of the teachings of Priest and Halbert benefit the overall system of Bry and does not teach away from Bry’s disclosure for the specific limitations they are being used to teach. Further see 35 USC 103 rejection below for a more limitation-based rejection and way of combination.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive, from a data service, airspace information, the airspace information comprising fixed object parameters detected by a plurality of radars deployed across one or more geographic areas, the plurality of radars being deployed based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas, the fixed object parameters being associated with fixed objects within the one or more geographic areas, wherein at least a portion of respective coverage regions of the plurality of radars overlap; based on the airspace information and fused radar data generated from radar data obtained from the plurality of radars, generate one or more flight plans associated with the one or more geographic areas, the one or more flight plans comprising one or more respective paths for delivering a person to a destination via an air taxi and the one or more flight plans being generated using a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions, the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being based on the fixed object parameters, airspace regulations and future predicted airspace conditions, based on historical data, of the one or more geographic areas, wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same fixed object from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in an overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting fixed object parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data; provide the one or more flight plans to the air taxi prior to a flight of the air taxi to deliver the person to the destination; and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generating flight plan(s) based on a model of airspace conditions generated based on various data, fused radar data being generated by deduplicating and reconciling, and monitoring flight conditions in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive, from a data service, airspace information, the airspace information comprising fixed object parameters detected by a plurality of radars deployed across one or more geographic areas, the plurality of radars being deployed based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas, the fixed object parameters being associated with fixed objects within the one or more geographic areas, wherein at least a portion of respective coverage regions of the plurality of radars overlap; based on the airspace information and fused radar data generated from radar data obtained from the plurality of radars, generate one or more flight plans associated with the one or more geographic areas, the one or more flight plans comprising one or more respective paths for delivering a person to a destination via an air taxi and the one or more flight plans being generated using a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions, the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being based on the fixed object parameters, airspace regulations and future predicted airspace conditions, based on historical data, of the one or more geographic areas, wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same fixed object from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in an overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting fixed object parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data; provide the one or more flight plans to the air taxi prior to a flight of the air taxi to deliver the person to the destination; and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving ... and providing ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending data from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 11 further recites “A system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: ..., from a data service, ... a plurality of radars deployed across one or more geographic areas ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of providing flight plan(s) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is providing flight plan(s) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 11.
Therefore, claims 11-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bry (US9417325B1) in view of Priest (US20190355262A1) in further view of Halbert (US20170285158A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bry discloses a method (see at least the abstract) comprising: wherein at least a portion of respective coverage regions of a plurality of radars overlap (see at least Figure 1 and lines 47-48 of Col. 6); collecting, via a data service system, radar data from the plurality of radars [deployed across one or more geographic areas], wherein the radar data comprises fixed object parameters associated with fixed objects within the one or more geographic areas (see at least lines 11-13/20-30 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12 of Col. 6); fusing the radar data to generate fused radar data (see at least lines 7-36 of Col. 3 and lines 37-48 of Col. 6); generating a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions for the one or more geographic areas based on the fixed object parameters detected by the plurality of radars, the fused radar data and future predicted airspace conditions of the one or more geographic areas to yield modeled airspace conditions (see at least lines 20-25/41-46 of Col. 3, lines 7-15&37-48 of Col. 6, line 65 of Col.6-line 1 of Col.7, lines 16-27 of Col. 7, and lines 34-41 of Col. 21); generating, based on a request and the modeled airspace conditions, a flight plan associated with a specific region within the one or more geographic areas, wherein the request comprises data about goods to be delivered via an air taxi to a destination (see at least lines 40-52 of Col.14, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21); and autonomously moving, based on the flight plan being provided to the air taxi, the air taxi in the specific region within the one or more geographic areas (see at least lines 51-55 of Col. 7, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21).
Bry does not explicitly disclose deploying a plurality of radars across one or more geographic areas by calculating respective coverage regions based on a respective radar detection range of each radar of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the items being possibly people; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement.
Priest teaches the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the items being possibly people; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement (see at least Figure 13, [0044], [0045], [0093], [0094], [0101], [0210], [0211] and [0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry to incorporate the teachings of Priest which teaches the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the items being possibly people; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement since they are both directed to flying vehicle systems and incorporation of the teachings of Priest would increase utility, accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Halbert teaches deploying the plurality of radars across one or more geographic areas by calculating the respective coverage regions based on a respective radar detection range of each radar of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, Figure 10, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0104], [0178]-[0181] and [0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches deploying the plurality of radars across one or more geographic areas by calculating the respective coverage regions based on a respective radar detection range of each radar of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose wherein the coverage parameter comprises at least one of a detection accuracy and a coverage preference, the detection accuracy being based on the respective radar detection range. However, Halbert teaches wherein the coverage parameter comprises at least one of a detection accuracy and a coverage preference, the detection accuracy being based on the respective radar detection range (see at least [0020], [0089], [0201], [0228], [0231], [0250], [0273], [0274], [0281], and [0288]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches wherein the coverage parameter comprises at least one of a detection accuracy and a coverage preference, the detection accuracy being based on the respective radar detection range since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 3, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose deploying the plurality of radars by determining the respective radar detection range of each of the plurality of radars and positioning the plurality of radars at relative locations across the one or more geographic areas based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas. However, Halbert teaches deploying the plurality of radars by determining the respective radar detection range of each of the plurality of radars and positioning the plurality of radars at relative locations across the one or more geographic areas based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas (see at least abstract, Figure 10, [0178]-[0181], [0185], [0231] and [0402]), the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas (see at least Figure 10, [0005], [0178]-[0181], [0185], [0231] and [0402]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches deploying the plurality of radars by determining the respective radar detection range of each of the plurality of radars and positioning the plurality of radars at relative locations across the one or more geographic areas based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 4, Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert discloses further comprising: deploying a plurality of sensor devices across the one or more geographic areas (see at least Bry Col. 1 lines 30-42, Col.3 lines 7-49 and Col.5 line 41-Col.6 line 15); and collecting, via the data service system, sensor data from the plurality of sensor devices (see at least Bry Col. 1 lines 30-42, Col.3 lines 7-49 and Col.5 line 41-Col.6 line 15), wherein generating the three-dimensional model of the airspace conditions for the one or more geographic areas is further based on the sensor data from the plurality of sensor devices (see at least Bry Figure 7A, Col. 1 lines 30-42, Col.3 lines 7-49, Col.5 line 41-Col.6 line 15, Col.21 line 62-Col.22 line 20 and Col.23 lines 19-32), the sensor data being incorporated with the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations based on a respective relevance to a same portion of the one or more geographic areas (see at least Bry Figure 7A, Col. 1 lines 30-42, Col.3 lines 7-49, Col.5 line 41-Col.6 line 15 and Col.21 line 62-Col.22 line 20; see claim 1 above regarding airspace conditions further including the airspace regulations).
Regarding claim 5, Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert discloses wherein the plurality of sensor devices comprises at least one of cameras, image devices, temperature sensors, humidity sensors, and speed sensors (see at least Bry Col. 1 lines 30-42, Col.3 lines 7-49, Col.5 line 41-Col.6 line 15 and Col.23 lines 28-32), and wherein the sensor data comprises at least one of video, images, temperature information, humidity information, and object velocity information (see at least Bry Col. 1 lines 30-42, Col.3 lines 7-49, Col.5 line 41-Col.6 line 15 and Col.23 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 6, Bry discloses wherein the fixed object parameters comprise at least one of an object presence, an object range, an object size, an object shape, and an object composition (see at least Bry lines 20-25 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12 of Col. 6).
Bry does not explicitly disclose wherein the airspace regulations are tracked. However, Priest teaches wherein the airspace regulations are tracked (see at least [0045], [0210] and [0211]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry to incorporate the teachings of Priest which teaches wherein the airspace regulations are tracked since they are both directed to flying vehicle systems and incorporation of the teachings of Priest would increase accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 7, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose further comprising: storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations based on one or more commonalities to yield stored data, wherein the one or more commonalities comprise at least one of a geographic area, one or more data sources, an airspace region, a detected condition, and a detected object. However, Halbert teaches further comprising: storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations based on one or more commonalities to yield stored data (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0019] and [0024]; see claim 1 above regarding the airspace regulations and the fixed object parameters as part of the airspace conditions), wherein the one or more commonalities comprise at least one of a geographic area, one or more data sources, an airspace region, a detected condition, and a detected object (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0019] and [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches further comprising: storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations based on one or more commonalities to yield stored data, wherein the one or more commonalities comprise at least one of a geographic area, one or more data sources, an airspace region, a detected condition, and a detected object since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 8, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose wherein storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations comprises aggregating portions of the stored data based on the one or more commonalities. However, Halbert teaches wherein storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations comprises aggregating portions of the stored data based on the one or more commonalities (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, [0019], [0024], [0083] and [0085]; see claim 1 above regarding the airspace regulations and the fixed object parameters as part of the airspace conditions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches wherein storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations comprises aggregating portions of the stored data based on the one or more commonalities since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 10, Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert discloses wherein the request further comprises security data regarding security for the air taxi traveling in the specific region (see at least Bry lines 40-52 of Col.14, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21).
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bry (US9417325B1) in view of Priest (US20190355262A1) in further view of Halbert (US20170285158A1) in yet further view of Esposito (US20180047294A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bry discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and at least one computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to (see at least abstract and Figure 8): receive, from a data service, airspace information, the airspace information comprising fixed object parameters detected by a plurality of radars deployed across one or more geographic areas, the fixed object parameters being associated with fixed objects within the one or more geographic areas (see at least lines 11-13/20-30 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12 of Col. 6), wherein at least a portion of respective coverage regions of the plurality of radars overlap (see at least Figure 1 and lines 47-48 of Col. 6); based on the airspace information and fused radar data generated from radar data obtained from the plurality of radars, generate one or more flight plans associated with the one or more geographic areas, the one or more flight plans comprising one or more respective paths for delivering an item to a destination via an air taxi and the one or more flight plans being generated using a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions (see at least lines 40-52 of Col.14, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21); the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being based on the fixed object parameters and future predicted airspace conditions, based on historical data, of the one or more geographic areas (see at least lines 20-25/41-46 of Col. 3, lines 7-12 of Col. 6, line 65 of Col.6-line 1 of Col.7, lines 16-27 of Col. 7, and lines 34-41 of Col. 21); provide the one or more flight plans to the air taxi (see at least lines 40-52 of Col.14, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21).
Bry does not explicitly disclose the plurality of radars being deployed based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas; the item(s) being possibly person/people; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to a flight of the air taxi to deliver the person to the destination; and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service.
Priest teaches the item(s) being possibly person/people; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to a flight of the air taxi to deliver the person to the destination; and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service (see at least Figures 8, 10, 13, [0044], [0045], [0093], [0094], [0101], [0210], [0211] and [0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry to incorporate the teachings of Priest which teaches the item(s) being possibly person/people; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to a flight of the air taxi to deliver the person to the destination; and monitor flight conditions associated with the one or more flight plans based on data collected from the data service since they are both directed to flying vehicle systems and incorporation of the teachings of Priest would increase utility, accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Halbert teaches the plurality of radars being deployed based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas (see at least abstract, Figure 10, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0178]-[0181] and [0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches the plurality of radars being deployed based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Bry discloses wherein the fused radar data is generated by detections of a fixed object as data from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in an overlapping portion, and includes fixed object parameters as data parameters (see at least Figure 1, lines 7-36 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12&37-48 of Col. 6). Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data. However, Esposito teaches wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same data from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting data parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data (see at least [0031], [0032], [0073] and [0080]-[0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert to incorporate the teachings of Esposito which teaches wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same data from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting data parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data since they are directed to air traffic data and incorporation of the teachings of Esposito would increase accuracy of the overall system by including a more detailed explanation of how radar data from a plurality of radars can be fused/aggregated, increase efficiency of the overall system by ensuring the overlapping portions including the same object/data gets deduplicated and increase reliability of the overall system by ensuring object/data parameters of the same object/data are more accurately determined using accuracy/confidence of the associated radar data.
Regarding claim 12, Bry discloses wherein the fixed object parameters comprise at least one of an object presence, an object range, an object size, an object shape, and an object composition (see at least Bry lines 20-25 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12 of Col. 6).
Bry does not explicitly disclose wherein the airspace information further comprises the airspace regulations being associated with the one or more geographic areas and wherein the airspace regulations are tracked. However, Priest teaches wherein the airspace information further comprises the airspace regulations being associated with the one or more geographic areas and wherein the airspace regulations are tracked (see at least [0045], [0210] and [0211]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry to incorporate the teachings of Priest which teaches wherein the airspace information further comprises the airspace regulations being associated with the one or more geographic areas and wherein the airspace regulations are tracked since they are both directed to flying vehicle systems and incorporation of the teachings of Priest would increase accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 13, Bry as modified by Priest, Halbert and Esposito discloses wherein the airspace information further comprises at least one of flight congestion associated with the one or more geographic areas, traffic patterns associated with the one or more geographic areas, and the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions associated with the one or more geographic areas (see at least Bry lines 20-25/41-46 of Col. 3, lines 7-12 of Col. 6, line 65 of Col.6-line 1 of Col.7, lines 16-27 of Col. 7, and lines 34-41 of Col. 21).
Regarding claim 14, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose wherein the coverage parameter comprises at least one of a detection accuracy and a coverage preference, the detection accuracy being based on the respective radar detection range. However, Halbert teaches wherein the coverage parameter comprises at least one of a detection accuracy and a coverage preference, the detection accuracy being based on the respective radar detection range (see at least [0020], [0089], [0201], [0228], [0231], [0250], [0273], [0274], [0281], and [0288]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches wherein the coverage parameter comprises at least one of a detection accuracy and a coverage preference, the detection accuracy being based on the respective radar detection range since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 15, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose wherein the fixed object parameters detected by the plurality of radars are associated with relative locations of the plurality of radars across the one or more geographic areas, the relative locations being based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas. However, Halbert teaches wherein the fixed object parameters detected by the plurality of radars are associated with relative locations of the plurality of radars across the one or more geographic areas, the relative locations being based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas (see at least Figure 10, [0005], [0178]-[0181], [0185], [0231] and [0402]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches wherein the fixed object parameters detected by the plurality of radars are associated with relative locations of the plurality of radars across the one or more geographic areas, the relative locations being based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 16, Bry discloses wherein the air taxi comprises an unmanned air taxi (see at least Figures 1-5).
Bry does not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring of the flight conditions comprises tracking the unmanned air taxi during the flight.
Priest teaches wherein the monitoring of the flight conditions comprises tracking the unmanned air taxi during the flight (see at least Figures 8, 10, 13, [0044], [0045], [0093], [0094], [0101], [0210], [0211] and [0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry to incorporate the teachings of Priest which teaches wherein the monitoring of the flight conditions comprises tracking the unmanned air taxi during the flight since they are both directed to flying vehicle systems and incorporation of the teachings of Priest would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 17, Bry discloses a method (see at least the abstract) comprising: collecting, via a data service system, radar data from a plurality of radars deployed across one or more geographic areas, wherein the radar data comprises fixed object parameters within the respective radar detection range, the fixed object parameters being associated with fixed objects within the one or more geographic areas (see at least Figure 1, lines 11-13/20-30 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12 of Col. 6), wherein at least a portion of respective coverage regions of the plurality of radars overlap (see at least Figure 1 and lines 47-48 of Col. 6); fusing the radar data to generate fused radar data (see at least lines 7-36 of Col. 3 and lines 37-48 of Col. 6); generating a three-dimensional model of airspace conditions for the one or more geographic areas based on the fixed object parameters, the fused radar data and future predicted airspace conditions, based on historical data, of the one or more geographic areas to yield modeled airspace conditions (see at least lines 20-25/41-46 of Col. 3, lines 7-12 of Col. 6, line 65 of Col.6-line 1 of Col.7, lines 16-27 of Col. 7, and lines 34-41 of Col. 21); generating, based on a request and the modeled airspace conditions, a flight plan associated with a specific region within the one or more geographic areas, wherein the request comprises data about people or goods to be delivered via an air taxi to a destination and wherein the flight plan comprises security data for delivering the people or the goods to the destination (see at least lines 40-52 of Col.14, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21); and autonomously moving, based on the modeled airspace conditions and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi, the air taxi in the specific region within the one or more geographic areas (see at least lines 51-55 of Col. 7, lines 63-64 of Col. 19, line 67 of Col. 19-line 7 of Col. 20 and lines 30-49 of Col. 21).
Bry does not explicitly disclose the plurality of radars being deployed across the one or more geographic areas based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas; the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement.
Priest teaches the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement (see at least Figure 13, [0045], [0101], [0210], [0211] and [0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry to incorporate the teachings of Priest which teaches the three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; and the flight plan being provided to the air taxi prior to starting its movement since they are both directed to flying vehicle systems and incorporation of the teachings of Priest would increase utility, accuracy and reliability of the overall system.
Halbert teaches the plurality of radars being deployed across the one or more geographic areas based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas (see at least abstract, Figure 10, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0178]-[0181] and [0185]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches the plurality of radars being deployed across the one or more geographic areas based on a respective radar detection range of the plurality of radars and a coverage parameter for the one or more geographic areas since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Bry discloses wherein the fused radar data is generated by detections of a fixed object as data from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in an overlapping portion, and includes fixed object parameters as data parameters (see at least Figure 1, lines 7-36 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12&37-48 of Col. 6). Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data. However, Esposito teaches wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same data from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting data parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data (see at least [0031], [0032], [0073] and [0080]-[0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest and Halbert to incorporate the teachings of Esposito which teaches wherein the fused radar data is generated by (1) deduplicating multiple detections of a same data from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion, and (2) reconciling conflicting data parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data since they are directed to air traffic data and incorporation of the teachings of Esposito would increase accuracy of the overall system by including a more detailed explanation of how radar data from a plurality of radars can be fused/aggregated, increase efficiency of the overall system by ensuring the overlapping portions including the same object/data gets deduplicated and increase reliability of the overall system by ensuring object/data parameters of the same object/data are more accurately determined using accuracy/confidence of the associated radar data.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is commensurate in scope with claims 12 and 14. See above for rejection of claims 12 and 14.
Regarding claim 19, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose determining the respective radar detection range of each of the plurality of radars and positioning the plurality of radars at relative locations across the one or more geographic areas based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas. However, Halbert teaches determining the respective radar detection range of each of the plurality of radars and positioning the plurality of radars at relative locations across the one or more geographic areas based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas (see at least abstract, Figure 10, [0178]-[0181], [0185], [0231] and [0402), the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas (see at least Figure 10, [0005], [0178]-[0181], [0185], [0231] and [0402]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches determining the respective radar detection range of each of the plurality of radars and positioning the plurality of radars at relative locations across the one or more geographic areas based on the respective radar detection range and an area of coverage within the one or more geographic areas, the area of coverage being based on at least one of the coverage parameter and a size of the one or more geographic areas since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 20, Bry as modified by Priest does not explicitly disclose storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations to yield stored data; and aggregating portions of the stored data based on one or more commonalities, wherein the one or more commonalities comprise at least one of a geographic area, one or more data sources, an airspace region, a detected condition, and a detected object. However, Halbert teaches storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations to yield stored data (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0019] and [0024]; see claim 1 above regarding the airspace regulations and the fixed object parameters as part of the airspace conditions); and aggregating portions of the stored data based on one or more commonalities (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, [0019], [0024], [0083] and [0085]), wherein the one or more commonalities comprise at least one of a geographic area, one or more data sources, an airspace region, a detected condition, and a detected object (see at least abstract, Figure 7A, [0005], [0008]-[0010], [0019] and [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bry as modified by Priest to incorporate the teachings of Halbert which teaches storing the fixed object parameters and the airspace regulations to yield stored data; and aggregating portions of the stored data based on one or more commonalities, wherein the one or more commonalities comprise at least one of a geographic area, one or more data sources, an airspace region, a detected condition, and a detected object since they are directed to airspace conditions and incorporation of the teachings of Halbert would increase accuracy and thereby utility and reliability of the overall system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667