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 FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 06 July 2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
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 03 April 2026 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Regarding the previously recited limitations of claim 11 and Applicant’s similar arguments to before, see Examiner’s Response to Arguments and 35 USC 101 rejections in the previous office actions. Regarding the new limitations of “a plurality of deployed radars” and “adding, to the deduplicated data for the same fixed object, a fixed-object detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar”, Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. The system comprising a plurality of deployed radars is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps. 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 limitation “adding, to the deduplicated data for the same fixed object, a fixed-object detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar” similar to the other steps of fused radar data being generated, under broadest reasonable interpretation, 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. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected (e.g. the radar data detected/collected by the plurality of deployed radars and received) and determining information from the collected data. For example, a person can look at various radar data and identify an object that’s the same in the received data; therefore, a person can determine and/or draw that same object as one object identified in the received data (deduplicate), the person can identify conflicted parameters about that object and analyze the conflicted data to reconcile/de-conflict based on known confidence levels and the person can identify a new detail from one set of received/collected data that’s not included in the other set of received/collected data and make sure to determine and/or draw that new detail as part of the data pertaining to the object. See 35 USC 101 rejection below for the analysis of the claim as a whole.
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 03 April 2026 have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to Esposito not further disclosing “adding, to the deduplicated data for the same fixed object, a fixed-object detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar” as part of the fused radar data generation. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Esposito’s disclosure is specifically directed to “aggregating” data sets (air traffic data sets, etc.) received from various different radar sources. Esposito teaches that when data sets are received from various different radar sources, duplicate data sets are discarded (at least [0082]; associated with deduplicating), conflicted data sets are de-conflicted (at least [0033], [0082]; associated with reconciling conflicting parameters) and when the data sets are not conflicted and instead are mutually consistent then the aggregated data sets include the mutually consistent data sets (at least [0033], [0034], [0090]; associated with adding a detail reported by one radar source but not another radar source). Therefore, Esposito teaches that a data set detail reported by one radar source and not reported by another radar source would be added to the deduplicated data for the same data set since Esposito’s disclosure specifically teaches aggregation (e.g. combination of individual data) of data by aggregating data sets received from different radar sources that can include information about the same data that can be discarded when duplicative and can need de-conflicting or not need de-conflicting when the data sets can be mutually consistent (e.g. exist/be true at the same time) and the purpose of Esposito’s disclosure is to get as much awareness of the air traffic as possible using various data sources reporting their respective data sets about the air traffic. Therefore, “adding, to the deduplicated data for the same fixed object, a fixed-object detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar”, under BRI, is taught by Esposito as explained above and as can be seen from the 35 USC 103 rejection 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 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: a plurality of deployed radars; 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 the 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; 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 a flying vehicle 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 to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting fixed object parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same fixed object, a fixed-object detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar; provide the one or more flight plans to the flying vehicle prior to a flight of the flying vehicle to deliver the item 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, reconciling and adding, 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: a plurality of deployed radars; 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 the 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; 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 a flying vehicle 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 to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting fixed object parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same fixed object, a fixed-object detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar; provide the one or more flight plans to the flying vehicle prior to a flight of the flying vehicle to deliver the item 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: a plurality of deployed radars; 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 10-20 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 1, Bry discloses a method (see at least the abstract) comprising: 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 (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 flying vehicle, the flying vehicle 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; 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, [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; 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.
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, includes fixed object parameters as data parameters and a fixed object detail as a data detail (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 fusing the radar data is by deduplicating multiple detections of a same [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars in an overlapping portion of the respective coverage regions to obtain deduplicated data, and adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar. However, Esposito teaches wherein fusing the radar data is by deduplicating multiple detections of a same [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars in an overlapping portion of the respective coverage regions to obtain deduplicated data, and adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar (see at least [0031]-[0034], [0073], [0080]-[0085] and [0090]). 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 fusing the radar data is by deduplicating multiple detections of a same [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars in an overlapping portion of the respective coverage regions to obtain deduplicated data, and adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar 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 details of the same object/data are more accurately determined/included.
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, Halbert and Esposito 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, Halbert and Esposito 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, Halbert and Esposito discloses wherein the request further comprises security data regarding security for the flying vehicle 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).
Regarding claim 11, Bry discloses a system (see at least abstract and Figure 8) comprising: a plurality of deployed radars (see at least lines 11-13/20-30 of Col. 3 and lines 7-12 of Col. 6); one or more processors (see at least abstract and Figure 8); 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 the 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); 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 a flying vehicle 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 flying vehicle (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 three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the flying vehicle prior to a flight of the flying vehicle to deliver the item 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 three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the flying vehicle prior to a flight of the flying vehicle to deliver the item 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 three-dimensional model of airspace conditions being further based on airspace regulations; the flight plan being provided to the flying vehicle prior to a flight of the flying vehicle to deliver the item 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, includes fixed object parameters as data parameters, and fixed object detail as a data detail (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 to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar. However, Esposito teaches 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 to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar (see at least [0031]-[0034], [0073], [0080]-[0085] and [0090]). 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 [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar 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, 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, and increase reliability of the overall system by ensuring object/data details of the same object/data are more accurately determined/included.
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 flying vehicle 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, includes fixed object parameters as data parameters and a fixed object detail as a data detail (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 to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data, and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar. However, Esposito teaches 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 to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data, and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar (see at least [0031]-[0034], [0073], [0080]-[0085] and [0090]). 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 [fixed object]/[data] from at least two radars of the plurality of radars in the overlapping portion to obtain deduplicated data, (2) reconciling conflicting [fixed object]/[data] parameters based on confidence levels associated with the radar data, and (3) adding, to the deduplicated data for the same [fixed object]/[data], a [fixed object]/[data] detail reported by one radar and not reported by another radar 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights