DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-098571, filed on 06/20/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2024 and 04/02/2025 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 01/18/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niihata et al. (US 11756436 B2), and herein after will be referred to as Niihata, in view of De la Cruz et al. (US 20220005361 A1), herein after will be referred to as De la Cruz.
Regarding Claim 1, Niihata teaches a flight management system for a plurality of aerial vehicles, the flight management system comprising (see at least Niihata, Col 3 lines 51-55; A flight management system (flight control system) managing a plurality of aerial vehicles):
a management apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to manage operation authorizations to operate the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 3 lines 55-59: “Server device 20 functions as a control device that controls the operating modes of aerial vehicles…”; The management apparatus (server device) manages the operation authorization (operating modes) of aerial vehicles); and
an operation terminal comprising: an operation interface operable by an operator; and processing circuitry connected to the operation interface (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0054]: “…the operation by an operator of a maneuvering terminal (not illustrated) (that is, manual control flight)…”; The maneuvering terminal for manual control flight by an operator inherently requires an interface and processing circuitry),
wherein based on an authorization grant request signal obtained based on a flight state of each aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 12 lines 48-52; see at least Niihata, Col 8-9 lines 64-2; Niihata explicitly teaches a switch of control from automatic control to manual control based on the condition of possible flight deviation (flight state) of the aerial vehicle).
wherein the processing circuitry of the operation terminal is configured to remotely control the particular aerial vehicle while being granted the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle (see at least Niihata, Col 3 lines 63-66, Niihata explicitly states that in manual control, the vehicle operates under manual control flight via operator’s maneuvering terminal; see at least Niihata, Col 8-9 lines 48-52, Niihata teaches a condition being satisfied (granted operation authorization) and the setting unit modifies the operating mode (automatic or manual)).
Niihata does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry of the management apparatus is configured to generate an authorization grant command to grant the operation terminal an operation authorization, among the operation authorizations, that is to operate a particular aerial vehicle among the plurality of aerial vehicles
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches a management apparatus (cloud system) generates authorization information (an authorization grand command) and provides it to the operation terminal (ground control system) to operate the aerial vehicle (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0028]; see at least De la Cruz, Para [0043]).
Niihata and De la Cruz are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle fleet management and control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to include the management apparatus generating an authorization grant command to grant the operation terminal an operation authorization, among the operation authorizations to operate a particular aerial vehicle among the plurality of aerial vehicles. This provides the benefit of enhancing the security of the control system and operation safety of the aerial vehicles.
Regarding Claim 2, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Niihata does not explicitly teach the management apparatus further comprises a user interface to input an instruction, and wherein the processing circuitry of the management apparatus is configured to generate the authorization grant request signal upon selection of the particular aerial vehicle at the user interface.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches the management apparatus (cloud system) generates user interfaces to preference information on a user device such as a laptop or tablet (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0026]) and a user selecting a particular UAV which triggers the management apparatus to determine authorization (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to provide a user interface to input instructions and generate the authorization grant request signal upon selection of the aerial vehicle at the user interface. This provides the benefit of allowing the operator to control the aerial vehicle proactively rather than relying on automated triggers or alters when an issue arises.
Regarding Claim 3, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 1. Niihata further teaches the management apparatus further comprises a communication interface to receive flight data indicating the flight state of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 5 lines 11-13; see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-13; Niihata explicitly teaches the server device receives flight data indicating the flight state from the aerial vehicles),
based on the flight data, the processing circuitry of the management apparatus is configured to determine whether the flight state of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles satisfies a predetermined flight condition (see at least Niihata, Col 10 lines 34-42; The setting unit determines if the flight data satisfies a predetermined flight condition where the fault is equal to or greater than a threshold value), and
the processing circuitry of the management apparatus is configured to generate the authorization grant request signal upon determining that the flight state of the particular aerial vehicle that is flying while the management apparatus is holding the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle satisfies the predetermined flight condition (see at least Niihata, Col 12 lines 48-62; Niihata teaches that when the determination of the flight condition is satisfied (satisfies the predetermined flight condition), the setting unit from the server device (management apparatus) will switch (authorizing a grant request signal) the control from automatic control to manual control).
Regarding Claim 4, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 1. Niihata further teaches the management apparatus further comprises an output interface to output information (see at least Niihata, Col 6 lines 5-8; see at least Niihata, Col 5 lines 34-36; Niihata’s management apparatus (server device) explicitly comprises an output device such as a display, for outputting information).
Niihata does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry of the management apparatus is configured to output notification information to the output interface, the notification information indicating the particular aerial vehicle in the flight state satisfying the predetermined flight condition.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches outputting notification information by presenting to the user the Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR), a type of predetermined flight condition, while the UAV is actively flighting or post-flight data capturing the “flight state” (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0021]; see at least De la Cruz, Para [0033]; see at least De la Cruz, Para [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to provide a user interface that outputs notification information to an operator when a particular aerial vehicle satisfies a flight condition. This provides the benefit of situational awareness to the operator to be kept informed of critical events and enhancing the operational safety of the aerial vehicles.
Regarding Claim 5, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 5. Niihata further teaches the flight data comprises position data of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-31; Niihata explicitly teaches that the management apparatus (server device) acquires flight data that includes the position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles),
the flight state comprises a flight position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-18; Niihata explicitly teaches that the flight status (the state) of the vehicle includes position data), and
the flight condition comprises a fact that the flight position of the particular aerial vehicle is deviating from a planned flight route of the particular aerial vehicle (see at least Niihata, Col 8-9 lines 63-2; Niihata explicitly teaches the flight condition indicating the possibility of deviation from the flight plan (planned flight route) information).
Regarding Claim 6, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 3. Niihata further teaches the flight data comprises position data of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-31; Niihata explicitly teaches that the management apparatus (server device) acquires flight data that includes the position of the aerial vehicle and information acquired by other aerial vehicles from other aerial vehicles),
the flight state comprises a flight position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-18; Niihata explicitly teaches that the flight status (the state) of the vehicle includes position data), and
the flight condition comprises a fact that the flight position of a proximate aerial vehicle, among the plurality of aerial vehicles, that is most proximate to the particular aerial vehicle and the flight position of the particular aerial vehicle satisfy a predetermined proximity condition (see at least Niihata, Col 11 lines 45-51; Niihata teaches the flight condition can be an obstacle such as a flying object in a proximate to the particular aerial vehicle, giving an example of a flying object in the flight space thereof).
Regarding Claim 7, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 1. Niihata further teaches each of the plurality of aerial vehicles is configured to fly in a mode that is either a plural-management mode or an individual operation mode (see at least Niihata, Col 3-4 lines 63-3; Niihata explicitly teaches that the aerial vehicles can operate in an automatic (plural-management) or manual (individual operation) mode),
in the plural-management mode, each of the plurality of aerial vehicles is configured to fly based on flight plan information provided from the management apparatus (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 33-39; Niihata teaches the management apparatus (server device) provides the flight plan information that the vehicles follow in the automatic mode),
in the individual operation mode, each of the plurality of aerial vehicles is configured to fly based on the flight plan information provided from the operation terminal or based on an input provided from the operation terminal regarding a flight speed, a flight altitude, and a flight direction (see at least Niihata, Col 3 lines 63-66; Niihata explicitly teaches that in “manual control flight”, the vehicle flies based on the “operation by an operator of a maneuvering terminal”), and
in granting the operation terminal the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle, the management apparatus is configured to generate a mode switch command to shift the mode of the particular aerial vehicle from the plural-management mode to the individual operation mode (see at least Niihata, Col 11 lines 1-7; see at least Niihata, Col 12 lines 48-7; Niihata explicitly teaches that the management apparatus determines a condition is satisfied to “switching of the control” from automatic to manual flight mode).
Regarding Claim 8, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Niihata does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry of the management apparatus or the processing circuitry of the operation terminal is configured to generate a command to return the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle from the operation terminal to the management apparatus, upon a predetermined authorization return condition being satisfied for the particular aerial vehicle flying while the operation terminal is being granted the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches the removal of the operation authorization to implement a flight plan while navigating and a predetermined condition (component becoming unauthorized) is satisfied while the vehicle is navigating (flying) (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to provide the command to return the operation authorization from the terminal to the management apparatus upon a predetermined condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the return authorization to the management apparatus to create a closed-loop control system as taught in De la Cruz. This provides the benefit of allowing the aerial vehicle to switch between the autonomous or manual operator mode.
Regarding Claim 9, Niihata teaches determining whether an authorization grant request signal has been received while a management apparatus is holding an operation authorization, the authorization grant request signal being obtained based on a flight state of each aerial vehicle of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 12 lines 48-52; see at least Niihata, Col 8-9 lines 48-52; Niihata explicitly teaches the management apparatus determining if a “condition of possible deviation (the signal based on flight state) has occurred)
remotely controlling the particular aerial vehicle while the operation terminal is being granted the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle (see at least Niihata, Col 3 lines 63-66, Niihata explicitly states that in manual control, the vehicle operates under manual control flight via operator’s maneuvering terminal; see at least Niihata, Col 8-9 lines 48-52, Niihata teaches a condition being satisfied (granted operation authorization) and the setting unit modifies the operating mode).
Niihata does not explicitly teach upon receipt of the authorization grant request signal, granting an operation terminal the operation authorization to operate a particular aerial vehicle.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches the authorization information (an authorization grand command) and provides it to the operation terminal (ground control system) to operate the aerial vehicle (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0028]; see at least De la Cruz, Para [0043]).
Niihata and De la Cruz are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of unmanned aerial vehicle fleet management and control systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base invention of Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz’s the authorization grant signal to allow the operation terminal to operate a particular aerial vehicle. This provides the benefit of enhancing the security of the control system and operation safety of the aerial vehicles.
Regarding Claim 10, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 9. Niihata further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a flight management program for causing at least one processor to execute the flight management method (see at least Niihata, Col 4 lines 46-52; Niihata explicitly teaches a control program stored in memory and executed by a processor).
Regarding Claim 11, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 9.
Niihata does not explicitly teach receiving an instruction from a user; and
generating the authorization grant request signal upon receiving the instruction which includes a selection of the particular aerial vehicle.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches the cloud system can generate user interfaces to receive succinct user input describing the flight plan (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0026]) and a user can identify a particular UAV that will be utilized, which in turn causes the system to determine whether the particular UAV would be authorized (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to allow the operator to select a particular aerial vehicle via an interface to initiate the authorization process. This provides the benefit of allowing the operator to proactively trigger a control handover rather than waiting for an automated alert, thus improving the control system’s protocol.
Regarding Claim 12, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 9. Niihata further teaches receiving flight data indicating the flight state of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-23; Niihata explicitly teaches the server device acquiring (receiving) data indicating the vehicle’s flight status)
determining whether the flight state of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles satisfies a predetermined flight condition (see at least Niihata, Col 10 lines 28-33; Niihata explicitly teaches the setting unit determines if the flight state satisfies a predetermined condition (deviation condition)); and
generating the authorization grant request signal upon determining that the flight state of the particular aerial vehicle that is flying while the management apparatus is holding the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle satisfies the predetermined flight condition (see at least Niihata, Col 10 lines 28-33; Niihata explicitly teaches the flight condition is satisfied triggering the process to modify the operating mode (the authorization)).
Regarding Claim 13, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 12.
Niihata does not explicitly teach outputting notification information which indicates the particular aerial vehicle in the flight state satisfying the predetermined flight condition.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches the cloud system (management apparatus) monitors vehicle states and provide notifications to the user regarding the vehicle’s status (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0033]). Furthermore, De la Cruz provides a notification to the ground station notifying the operator of a TFR (predetermined flight condition) while the vehicle is actively flying (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to provide a notification to the operator when the particular aerial vehicle in the flight state satisfies a predetermined flight condition. This provides the benefit of keeping the operator informed of any critical in-flight events during vehicle operations.
Regarding Claim 14, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 12. Niihata further teaches the flight data comprises position data of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-31; Niihata explicitly teaches that the management apparatus (server device) acquires flight data that includes the position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles),
the flight state comprises a flight position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-18; Niihata explicitly teaches that the flight status (the state) of the vehicle includes position data), and
the flight condition comprises a fact that the flight position of the particular aerial vehicle is deviating from a planned flight route of the particular aerial vehicle (see at least Niihata, Col 8-9 lines 63-2; Niihata explicitly teaches the flight condition indicating the possibility of deviation from the flight plan (planned flight route) information).
Regarding Claim 15, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 12. Niihata further teaches the flight data comprises position data of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-31; Niihata explicitly teaches that the management apparatus (server device) acquires flight data that includes the position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles),
the flight state comprises a flight position of each of the plurality of aerial vehicles (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 13-18; Niihata explicitly teaches that the flight status (the state) of the vehicle includes position data), and
the flight condition comprises a fact that the flight position of a proximate aerial vehicle, among the plurality of aerial vehicles, that is most proximate to the particular aerial vehicle and the flight position of the particular aerial vehicle satisfy a predetermined proximity condition (see at least Niihata, Col 11 lines 45-51; Niihata teaches the flight condition can be an obstacle such as a flying object in a proximate to the particular aerial vehicle, giving an example of a flying object in the flight space thereof).
Regarding Claim 16, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 12. Niihata further teaches each of the plurality of aerial vehicles is configured to fly in a mode that is either a plural-management mode or an individual operation mode (see at least Niihata, Col 3-4 lines 63-3; Niihata explicitly teaches that the aerial vehicles can operate in an automatic (plural-management) or manual (individual operation) mode),
in the plural-management mode, each of the plurality of aerial vehicles is configured to fly based on flight plan information provided from the management apparatus (see at least Niihata, Col 7 lines 33-39; Niihata teaches the management apparatus (server device) provides the flight plan information that the vehicles follow in the automatic mode), and
in the individual operation mode, each of the plurality of aerial vehicles is configured to fly based on the flight plan information provided from the operation terminal or based on an input provided from the operation terminal regarding a flight speed, a flight altitude, and a flight direction (see at least Niihata, Col 3 lines 63-66; Niihata explicitly teaches that in “manual control flight”, the vehicle flies based on the “operation by an operator of a maneuvering terminal”),
the flight management method further comprising generating a mode switch command to shift the mode of the particular aerial vehicle from the plural-management mode to the individual operation mode in granting the operation terminal the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle (see at least Niihata, Col 11 lines 1-7; see at least Niihata, Col 12 lines 48-7; Niihata explicitly teaches that the management apparatus (setting unit) generates a notification (command) that causes the vehicle to switch its mode).
Regarding Claim 17, Niihata and De la Cruz remains as applied above in Claim 9. Niihata does not explicitly teach generating a command to return the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle from the operation terminal to the management apparatus, upon a predetermined authorization return condition being satisfied for the particular aerial vehicle flying while the operation terminal is being granted the operation authorization to operate the particular aerial vehicle.
However, De la Cruz, in the same field of endeavor teaches the removal of the operation authorization from the ground control system (operational terminal) to implement a flight plan and a predetermined condition (component becoming unauthorized) is satisfied while the vehicle is navigating (flying) (see at least De la Cruz, Para [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Niihata to incorporate the teachings of De la Cruz to provide the command to return the operation authorization from the terminal to the management apparatus upon a predetermined condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the method of returning the authorization to the management apparatus for a complete closed-loop control system as taught by De la Cruz. This provides the benefit of allowing the aerial vehicle to switch between the autonomous or manual operator mode during a single operation.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US 20250150832 A1)
Naini (US 11816995 B2)
Faccin (US 20230102300 A1)
Bonawitz (US 20200277038 A1)
Enke (US 20160313734 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663