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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on February 8, 2024. Claims 27-46 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 27 & 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,948,468. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed an apparatus for detecting and avoiding conflict alone a route of a robot based on determining a plurality of angles that describe the conflict. Claims 27 and 36 of the instant patent application appears to be a broader concept of the Patent claim 1 since it does not require a region centered on the robot is divided into sectors, and the first angle is evaluated to determine if the moving object is within one of the sectors. Furthermore, a combination of claims 27 or 36 with claim 39 of the instant application appears to be obvious variable of the patent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-, 34-38, 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2002/0152029 (“Sainthuile”).
Regarding claim(s) 27, 36. Sainthuile discloses an apparatus for detecting and avoiding conflict along a route of a robot, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to at least (para. 3-4, Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)):
access or determining trajectories of the robot and a moving object forward in time from respective positions of the robot and the moving object (para. 15-para. 19); detect a conflict between the robot and the moving object from a comparison of the trajectories (e.g. a first aircraft following a first route called an initial route, in order to resolve a conflict of traffic with a second aircraft following a second route that may be identical to the first route, on the basis of knowledge of a minimum safety distance S to be maintained between two aircraft, and of the positions X.sub.1 and X.sub.2 and of the horizontal speed vectors {right arrow over (V.sub.1)} and {right arrow over (V.sub.2)} of the two aircraft, said method comprising the following steps:);
select a maneuver to avoid the conflict (para. 15-24, the determining of at least one collision-risk avoidance path for the first aircraft comprising a first evasive path constituted by a rectilinear segment having the start-of-avoidance-maneuver point P.sub.SOM as its point of origin, one of the new values of heading angle .THETA..sub.1b or .THETA..sub.1c obtained at the previous step as its heading and having, as its end, a rotating point P.sub.T chosen beyond a point C.sub.PA1 where the separation distance between the two aircraft passes through a minimum value equal to a minimum safety distance S, and, beyond the rotating point P.sub.T, a second homing path to the initial route.), including:
determine a plurality of angles that describe the conflict, the plurality of angles including a first angle at which the robot observes the moving object, and the plurality of angles include either a second angle at which the moving object observes the robot or a third angle between the trajectories at a crossing point of the trajectories (fig. 1, fig. 2, para. 82-87, illustrates a plurality of angles and FIG. 2 is a geometrical figure illustrating the resolution of a case of collision risk with two possibilities of evasive heading, {right arrow over (.THETA..sub.1b)} and {right arrow over (.THETA..sub.1c)}, for the first aircraft, both possibilities leading the second aircraft to go outside the angle at which it perceives the circle of security C.sub.1 of the first aircraft, either to the side {right arrow over (X.sub.2b)} of the angle at which the second aircraft perceives the circle of protection C.sub.1 of the first aircraft, oriented most closely to its horizontal speed vector {right arrow over (V.sub.2)}, or to the side {right arrow over (X.sub.2c)} of the angle at which the second aircraft perceives the circle of protection C.sub.1 of the first aircraft oriented at the greatest distance from its horizontal speed vector {right arrow over (V.sub.2)}. ),
wherein a region centered on the robot is divided into sectors surrounding the robot (para. 77, The first aircraft is surrounded by a volume of protection whose section in the horizontal plane of FIG. 1 is a circle C.sub.1 3 3centered on X.sub.1, its radius being a minimum separation distance S for which it is sought to obtain compliance and which is chosen to be greater than or equal to the standard distance dictated by air traffic rules for the security of traffic when such a standard exists.);
evaluate the first angle to determine if the moving object is within one of the sectors; and
evaluate the plurality of angles to select the maneuver to avoid the conflict which includes applying at least one of a plurality of conditional statements (para. 116-123, Since the angles in the right-hand part of the above relationship can all be determined from the knowledge of the positions and horizontal speed vectors of the two aircraft, and from the minimum permissible separation distance between two aircraft, the angle {right arrow over (.phi..sub.b)} is determined too. Consequently, it is enough to make a trace-back to the previous relationships to be able to determine the value of the new heading {right arrow over (.THETA..sub.1b)} that the first aircraft must be made to adopt in order to eliminate the risks of collision by bringing the path of the second aircraft to the side {right arrow over (X.sub.2b)} of the angle at which it perceives the circle of protection of the first aircraft, this side {right arrow over (X.sub.2b)} being the closest in the orientation of its horizontal speed vector {right arrow over (V.sub.2)}. This value of the new heading {right arrow over (.THETA..sub.1b)} is determined through the simple knowledge of the positions and horizontal speed vectors of the aircraft and the minimum permissible separation distance between two aircraft.); and
output an indication of the maneuver for use in at least one of guidance, navigation or control of the robot to avoid the conflict (para. 146, FIG. 3 is a drawing illustrating an exemplary full avoidance path by which an aircraft 10, travelling through a rectilinear segment 11 of an, initially planned route, firstly resolves a risk of collision with another aircraft and secondly homes in on this rectilinear segment 11 of the initially planned route at the cost of a minimum detour. This avoidance path consists of two successive rectilinear segments, a first evasive rectilinear segment 12 and a second homing rectilinear segment 13.).
Regarding claim(s) 34. Sainthuile discloses wherein the conditional statements include a first conditional statement by which the first angle and the second angle are evaluated to determine if the trajectories cross, a second conditional statement evaluated when the first conditional statement is evaluated to true, and a third conditional statement evaluated when the first conditional statement is evaluated to false (FIG. 7 is a flow chart summarizing the main steps of the method that has just been described during its implementation on board an aircraft A.sub.1, for the resolution of traffic conflicts or medium-term risks of collision with other aircraft A.sub.2, . . . , A.sub.i, . . . , A.sub.n moving in the vicinity.).
Regarding claim(s) 35. Sainthuile discloses wherein the sectors into which the region is divided depend on evaluation of the first conditional statement, the region divided into fewer sectors when the first conditional statement is evaluated to false, and the first angle is evaluated by the third conditional statement, relative to when the first conditional statement is evaluated to true, and the first angle is evaluated by the second conditional statement (FIG. 7 is a flow chart summarizing the main steps of the method that has just been described during its implementation on board an aircraft A.sub.1, for the resolution of traffic conflicts or medium-term risks of collision with other aircraft A.sub.2, . . . , A.sub.i, . . . , A.sub.n moving in the vicinity.).
Regarding claim(s) 37. Sainthuile discloses wherein the conflict is of a first type in which a closest point of approach of the moving object and the robot is within a defined horizontal miss distance (MMD) threshold, and the plurality of angles includes the second angle, and wherein the apparatus is caused to evaluate the first angle and the second angle and apply the first angle and the second angle to an algorithm including conditional statements by which the first angle and the second angle are evaluated to select the maneuver to avoid the conflict ([0080] With the assumption commonly made for civilian aircraft having constant horizontal speed vectors in the medium and short terms, the second aircraft keeps the same horizontal speed vector {right arrow over (V.sub.rel)} relative to the first aircraft on a period of time sufficient to make it certain that, if nothing is done, it will follow a path that is the oriented straight line {right arrow over (X.sub.2.alpha.)} and will pass to a minimum distance CD, from the first aircraft, that is smaller than the stipulated minimum distance S. There is therefore a risk of collision greater than the risk that was acceptable when the minimum distance was set at the value S. To avoid this collision risk it is necessary, by a maneuver of the first aircraft, to bring the path of the second aircraft, relative to the first aircraft,).
Regarding claim(s) 38. Sainthuile discloses wherein the conditional statements include a first conditional statement by which the first angle and the second angle are evaluated to determine if the trajectories cross, a second conditional statement evaluated when the first conditional statement is evaluated to true, and a third conditional statement evaluated when the first conditional statement is evaluated to false (para. 106-128, [0128] The angles in the right-hand part of this angular relationship can all be determined from knowledge of the minimum permissible separation distance between two aircraft and of the positions and horizontal speed vectors of the two aircraft.).
Regarding claim(s) 43. Sainthuile discloses wherein the conflict is of a second type in which a closest point of approach of the moving object and the robot is outside a defined horizontal miss distance (HMD) threshold, and the plurality of angles includes the third angle, and wherein the apparatus is caused to evaluate the first angle and the third angle to determine the maneuver to avoid the conflict (para. 127-131, [0130] The oriented angle {right arrow over (.alpha..sub.c)}, existing between the oriented straight line {right arrow over (X.sub.2X.sub.1)} that links the position X.sub.2 of the second aircraft to the position X.sub.1 of the first aircraft and the horizontal speed vector {right arrow over (V.sub.rel.sup.c)} of the second aircraft relative to the first aircraft when the risks of collision are resolved and when the path of the second aircraft follows the oriented straight line {right arrow over (X.sub.2c)} that is indistinguishable from a side of the angle at which the second aircraft perceives the circle of protection C.sub.1 of the first aircraft, corresponds to the half-angle at which the second aircraft perceives the circle of protection C.sub.1 of the first aircraft. With regard to its direction of orientation, it has the following value: 13 c = arcsin ( S ; X 1 X 2 r; ) ( 7 )).
Regarding claim(s) 44. Sainthuile discloses wherein the conflict of the second type is detected from an estimation of the closest point of approach, wherein the first angle and the second angle are applied to an algorithm including conditional statements by which the first angle and the second angle are evaluated, wherein the conditional statements include a first conditional statement by which an uncertainty in the estimation is evaluated to determine if the uncertainty is less than a threshold uncertainty, and a second conditional statement evaluated when the first conditional statement is evaluated to true (para. 153-155, The point P.sub.T is chosen beyond the point C.sub.PA1 where the second aircraft passes to the minimum permissible distance S from the first aircraft, so that the second homing rectilinear segment (13 FIG. 3) whose heading is arbitrarily fixed at the value {right arrow over (.THETA.)}-2{right arrow over (.beta.)} is in keeping with the minimum permissible separation distance S from the second aircraft. Its position is indirectly accessible by means of the position of the fictitious rotating point P.sub.T' which is reached at the same time by the second aircraft. Indeed, this fictitious rotating point P.sub.T' is at a known relative distance D.sub.relPT from the point C'.sub.PA1 of the path of the second aircraft perceived from the first aircraft, corresponding to the minimum permissible separation distance between the two aircraft, travelled at a speed also known by the second aircraft.).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sainthuile et al. US2002/0152029 (“Sainthuile”) in view of Dupray et al. US2017/0069214 (“Dupray”).
Regarding claim(s) 28. Sainthuile does not disclose wherein the sectors are divided into a first set of sectors and a second set of sectors each centered on the robot.
Dupray teaches emergency object avoidance procedure of a UAV. Additionally, the sectors are divided into a first set of sectors and a second set of sectors each centered on the robot (fig. 2, para. 211-219, it is likely the other object would be in the immediate zone A and/or the operating zone B near the end of the landing (or another operating process) even though the speed of the UAV may have slowed enough that the zones would probably be small. In this case, the UAV may need to know that it expects a contact (or collision) and adjust or ignore rules regarding other objects being in the immediate zone A and/or the operating zone B accordingly. In an embodiment,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Sainthuile by incorporating the applied teaching of dividing a safety distance into multiple zones/sectors around the UAV as taught by Dupray to improve the risk of UAV collision and to improve UAV control maneuvers and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 29. Sainthuile in view of Dupray further teaches the first set of sectors are disposed closer to the robot than the second set of sectors (Dupray: fig. 2, zone A and B).
Regarding claim(s) 30. Sainthuile in view of Dupray further teaches wherein the sectors are divided into a third set of sectors centered on the robot, and wherein the second set of sectors are divided into more sectors than the third set of sectors (Dupray: Zone, A, B, C).
Regarding claim(s) 31. Sainthuile in view of Dupray further teaches wherein the third set of sectors are divided into less sectors than the first set of sectors and the second set of sectors (Dupray: Zone, A, B, C).
Regarding claim(s) 32. Sainthuile in view of Dupray the first set of sectors are disposed closer to the robot than the second set of sectors; and the second set of sectors are disposed closer to the robot that the third set of sectors such that the second set of sectors are disposed between the first set of sectors and the second set of sectors (Dupray: fig. 2, para. 211-219, it is likely the other object would be in the immediate zone A and/or the operating zone B near the end of the landing (or another operating process) even though the speed of the UAV may have slowed enough that the zones would probably be small. In this case, the UAV may need to know that it expects a contact (or collision) and adjust or ignore rules regarding other objects being in the immediate zone A and/or the operating zone B accordingly. In an embodiment).
Regarding claim(s) 33. Sainthuile in view of Dupray wherein the first set of sectors are divided into five sectors, the second set of sectors are divided into three sectors, and the third set of sectors are divided into two sectors (Dupray: fig. 2, para. 211-219, it is likely the other object would be in the immediate zone A and/or the operating zone B near the end of the landing (or another operating process) even though the speed of the UAV may have slowed enough that the zones would probably be small. In this case, the UAV may need to know that it expects a contact (or collision) and adjust or ignore rules regarding other objects being in the immediate zone A and/or the operating zone B accordingly. In an embodiment).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-42 and 45-46 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658