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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 2, 4-9, 11, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (2020/0290742) in view of Ferrier (11,509,154).
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing a performance reserve requirement associated with aerial operations within an airspace (“Operating rules library: Defines operating priorities for the powertrain, required by safety or based on operator preference. These constrain the Hybrid energy planner and Hybrid power manager…”, see P[0446], also see P[0442]-P[0445], P[0447]-P[0450], and P[0554] and (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]);
accessing data indicative of one or more battery conditions for one or more batteries onboard an electric aircraft (“Key metrics communicated to POCS may include the following: on-off, RPM, power/status for each motor; battery capacity…”, see P[0401] and “Performance models, look-up tables and performance constraints to enable optimization of power distribution across the rechargeable stored energy units and generators, based on power requested, current state of charge, environmental conditions”, see P[0550], also see P[0549] and P[0551]-P[0554]);
accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode;
based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete [[a]] the future flight within the airspace (“…flights over ranges longer than the electric-only range should deplete the lower cost energy storage units to a minimum permissible level determined by safety or battery life considerations”, see P[0427] and “Optimization constraints. May include one or several constraints on the powertrain for performance and safety including maximum discharge rate of stored energy, minimum state of charge at any point during the flight…”, see P[0599] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]) given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode;
based on the reserve state of charge, computing one or more battery charging parameters for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Preference data (as described with reference to FIG. 20) may then be considered to determine the allocation of total energy required for the next leg or segment between stored (e.g., battery) and generated (e.g., based on the use of fuel). If such preferences exist (as suggested by the “Yes” branch of step or stage 358), then such preferences or conditions/constraints are used to determine the recharge and/or refuel requirements (stage or step 360)”, see P[0288]);
computing an action associated with the electric aircraft based on the one or more battery charging parameters, wherein the action comprises at least one of: (i) a confirmation of the electric aircraft's ability to perform the future flight (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Preference data (as described with reference to FIG. 20) may then be considered to determine the allocation of total energy required for the next leg or segment between stored (e.g., battery) and generated (e.g., based on the use of fuel). If such preferences exist (as suggested by the “Yes” branch of step or stage 358), then such preferences or conditions/constraints are used to determine the recharge and/or refuel requirements (stage or step 360)”, see P[0288]); (ii) a downtime adjustment to a preflight activity; or (iii) a flight adjustment to the future flight; and
transmitting[[,]] over a network, instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft, to at least one of: an aircraft computing device, a pilot computing device, an aerial facility computing device, or a facility operator computing device (“Based on the preferences and/or the pilot's decision(s), the recharge and/or refueling requirements are communicated to an appropriate service provider 367 (stage or step 366)”, see P[0289]).
Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode;
based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight within the airspace given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode.
However, Ferrier (11,509,154) teaches determining a required power-consumption which is equivalent to determining “performance reserve requirements” as clearly a required power-consumption can be interpreted as an amount of reserved or stored power, and renders obvious “accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode” (Ferrier; “…controller 116 may store in its memory projected power-consumption needed to perform a scheduled landing according to a landing protocol called for in flight plan, a likely energy cost of traveling a particular distance while cruising, and the like”, see col.10 particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19, and “A projected power-consumption need for performing a given flight plan may be stored in memory accessible to controller 116. Flight plan may include, without limitation, the geospatial location of the landing site, the calculated distance to the landing site, the time required to reach the landing site, the landing methods” (emphasis added), see col.10, particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19), where cruising is distinct from a hovering operation, and where clearly the distance to the landing site in the flight plan will be traveled by movement such as cruising and noy by hovering or moving vertically.
Ferrier further renders obvious “and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode”, where Ferrier determines a hover support time based on power consumption during a hover operation, and further teaches determining if an energy source is capable of providing a specific amount of power for a specific flight plan that includes a hover operation, where a flight plan may be modified if a power-production capability is not sufficient for the projected power-consumption of the flight plan that includes the hover operation, where determining that a flight plan includes a hover operation is equivalent to determining an “estimated amount of time” an aircraft will operate in a “hover mode”, as the “estimated amount of time” encompasses any non-zero amount of hover time that is required by a flight plan, (Ferrier; “…power-production capability may be expressed in terms of hover support time. Hover support time, as described herein, is defined as a period of time for which an energy source 104 is capable of outputting sufficient power to permit electric aircraft to hover” (emphasis added), see col.13, particularly lines 17-44, and “A projected power-consumption need for performing a given flight plan may be stored in memory accessible to controller 116. Flight plan may include, without limitation, the geospatial location of the landing site, the calculated distance to the landing site, the time required to reach the landing site, the landing methods” (emphasis added), see col.10, particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19, and “Still referring to FIG. 3, controller 116 may determine that the power-production capability is not sufficient for the projected power-consumption needs and modifying the flight plan as a function of the power-production capability…modifying the flight plan further comprises replacing the first landing protocol with a second landing protocol…the first landing protocol may be a hovering landing…an energy source 104 must have enough capacity to power the aircraft and satisfy the load demand of the plurality of propulsors to execute a safe and accurate landing. In a non-limiting example, if the projected power-consumption need of the first flight plan exceeds the remaining capacity of the energy source 104 at a given time during flight, a second landing protocol may be chosen by the controller 116…Second flight plan may include, without limitation, a different landing protocol at the same location as the first flight plan”, see col.12, particularly lines 15-53 and “…power-production capability may be expressed in terms of hover support time. Hover support time, as described herein, is defined as a period of time for which an energy source 104 is capable of outputting sufficient power to permit electric aircraft to hover”, see col.13, particularly lines 17-44 and “…controller 116 may store in its memory projected power-consumption needed to perform a scheduled landing according to a landing protocol called for in flight plan, a likely energy cost of traveling a particular distance while cruising, and the like”, see col.10 particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19), where a person would find it obvious in view of Ferrier to determine that a flight plan includes an amount of time in a hover mode that is greater than the hover support time when determining that the flight plan should be modified by merely viewing the teachings of Ferrier as a whole. Furthermore, Ferrier teaches that the process of modifying a flight plan based on the hover operation energy consumption as detailed above may be performed by a remote device that transmits information to a controller (Ferrier; see col.12, particularly lines 15-53), which then renders obvious performing the step of “transmitting[[,]] over a network, instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft, to at least one of: an aircraft computing device, a pilot computing device, an aerial facility computing device, or a facility operator computing device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Ferrier, and accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode, based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight within the airspace given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode, as rendered obvious by Ferrier, in order to “determine whether power-production capability is sufficient for a projected power-consumption need” (Ferrier; see col.11, particularly lines 51-53).
Regarding Claim 2, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more battery conditions are indicative of a capacity of the one or more batteries (“Key metrics communicated to POCS may include the following: on-off, RPM, power/status for each motor; battery capacity…”, see P[0401]), wherein the reserve state of charge is based on the performance reserve requirements and the capacity of the one or more batteries (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more battery conditions are indicative of a current state of charge or a future predicted state of charge of the one or more batteries onboard the electric aircraft (“Key metrics communicated to POCS may include the following: on-off, RPM, power/status for each motor; battery capacity…”, see P[0401] and “Performance models, look-up tables and performance constraints to enable optimization of power distribution across the rechargeable stored energy units and generators, based on power requested, current state of charge, environmental conditions”, see P[0550], also see P[0549] and P[0551]-P[0554], and see “…accessing data regarding the total amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft…”, see P[0187] and “…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the preflight activity comprises a charging activity for increasing a state of charge of the one or more batteries onboard the electric aircraft; and
wherein providing the instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft comprises:
providing data indicative of the one or more battery charging parameters for increasing the state of charge of the one or more batteries onboard the electric aircraft (“Based on the preferences and/or the pilot's decision(s), the recharge and/or refueling requirements are communicated to an appropriate service provider 367 (stage or step 366)”, see P[0289]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing data indicative of a route for the future flight (“…accessing data regarding the total amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft…”, see P[0187] and “…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]);
computing a flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight (“…accessing data regarding the total amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft…”, see P[0187] and “…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]); and
wherein computing the one or more battery charging parameters for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight further comprises computing the one or more battery charging parameters for the electric aircraft based on the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight (“…accessing data regarding the total amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft…”, see P[0187] and “…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188] and “Based on the preferences and/or the pilot's decision(s), the recharge and/or refueling requirements are communicated to an appropriate service provider 367 (stage or step 366)”, see P[0289]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the future flight is associated with a flight itinerary indicative of a payload for the future flight, wherein computing the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight is based on the payload for the future flight (“…tailoring the stored energy capacity to payload, adding stored energy units on low payload flights for improved energy efficiency, or removing units on flights where additional payload is required”, see P[0277]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing data indicative of one or more flight maneuvers for the future flight (“…the total reserve energy required is calculated using simulation and is the sum of: a) energy required to reach the airport over a gradual drift-down profile at best range speed+b) energy to fly the runaway approach pattern and land+c) energy to execute a missed approach, circle back around, and execute a second landing to a full stop. It is assumed that the batteries will be depleted to their minimum voltage during the maneuver, below typical operations”, see P[0085]);
computing a buffer state of charge for performing the one or more flight maneuvers for the future flight (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]); and
wherein computing the one or more battery charging parameters for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight further comprises computing the one or more battery charging parameters for the electric aircraft based on the buffer state of charge for performing the one or more flight maneuvers for the future flight (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the electric aircraft is an electric vertical take-off and lift vehicle comprising rotors that are configured to adjust from a first position to a second position, wherein the first position of the rotors is configured for the hover mode, wherein the second position of the rotors is configured for the cruise mode (see P[0101] and “…Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft”, see P[0102]), wherein the reserve state of charge is computed based on an energy efficiency of the electric aircraft while the rotors are in the second position, and wherein the buffer state of charge is computed based on an energy efficiency of the electric aircraft while the rotors are in the first position (“…the constraints imposed on the optimization space:…2) the very high power requirements for hover in takeoff and landing always require stored energy in addition to the generation, resulting in a stored energy emergency reserve even on hybrid systems”, see P[0104]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electric aircraft is performing a current flight before the future flight (“…cost of the next flight”, see P[0273] and “…platform 304 determines the range of the aircraft given the remaining energy onboard and the additional energy required for the next leg”, see P[0277]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed One or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
accessing a performance reserve requirement associated with aerial operations within an airspace (“Operating rules library: Defines operating priorities for the powertrain, required by safety or based on operator preference. These constrain the Hybrid energy planner and Hybrid power manager…”, see P[0446], also see P[0442]-P[0445], P[0447]-P[0450], and P[0554] and (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]);
accessing data indicative of one or more battery conditions for one or more batteries onboard an electric aircraft (“Key metrics communicated to POCS may include the following: on-off, RPM, power/status for each motor; battery capacity…”, see P[0401] and “Performance models, look-up tables and performance constraints to enable optimization of power distribution across the rechargeable stored energy units and generators, based on power requested, current state of charge, environmental conditions”, see P[0550], also see P[0549] and P[0551]-P[0554]);
accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode;
based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete [[a]] the future flight within the airspace (“…flights over ranges longer than the electric-only range should deplete the lower cost energy storage units to a minimum permissible level determined by safety or battery life considerations”, see P[0427] and “Optimization constraints. May include one or several constraints on the powertrain for performance and safety including maximum discharge rate of stored energy, minimum state of charge at any point during the flight…”, see P[0599] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]) given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode;
determining an action associated with the electric aircraft based on the reserve state of charge (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Preference data (as described with reference to FIG. 20) may then be considered to determine the allocation of total energy required for the next leg or segment between stored (e.g., battery) and generated (e.g., based on the use of fuel). If such preferences exist (as suggested by the “Yes” branch of step or stage 358), then such preferences or conditions/constraints are used to determine the recharge and/or refuel requirements (stage or step 360)”, see P[0288]), wherein the action comprises at least one of: (i) a confirmation of the electric aircraft's ability to perform of the future flight (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Preference data (as described with reference to FIG. 20) may then be considered to determine the allocation of total energy required for the next leg or segment between stored (e.g., battery) and generated (e.g., based on the use of fuel). If such preferences exist (as suggested by the “Yes” branch of step or stage 358), then such preferences or conditions/constraints are used to determine the recharge and/or refuel requirements (stage or step 360)”, see P[0288]), (ii) a downtime adjustment to a preflight activity; or (iii) a flight adjustment to the future flight; and
providing, instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft, to at least one of: an aircraft computing device, a pilot computing device, an aerial facility computing device, or a facility operator computing device (“Based on the preferences and/or the pilot's decision(s), the recharge and/or refueling requirements are communicated to an appropriate service provider 367 (stage or step 366)”, see P[0289]).
Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode;
based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight within the airspace given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode.
However, Ferrier (11,509,154) teaches determining a required power-consumption which is equivalent to determining “performance reserve requirements” as clearly a required power-consumption can be interpreted as an amount of reserved or stored power, and renders obvious “accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode” (Ferrier; “…controller 116 may store in its memory projected power-consumption needed to perform a scheduled landing according to a landing protocol called for in flight plan, a likely energy cost of traveling a particular distance while cruising, and the like”, see col.10 particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19, and “A projected power-consumption need for performing a given flight plan may be stored in memory accessible to controller 116. Flight plan may include, without limitation, the geospatial location of the landing site, the calculated distance to the landing site, the time required to reach the landing site, the landing methods” (emphasis added), see col.10, particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19), where cruising is distinct from a hovering operation, and where clearly the distance to the landing site in the flight plan will be traveled by movement such as cruising and noy by hovering or moving vertically.
Ferrier further renders obvious “and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode” where Ferrier determines a hover support time based on power consumption during a hover operation, and further teaches determining if an energy source is capable of providing a specific amount of power for a specific flight plan that includes a hover operation, where a flight plan may be modified if a power-production capability is not sufficient for the projected power-consumption of the flight plan that includes the hover operation, where determining that a flight plan includes a hover operation is equivalent to determining an “estimated amount of time” an aircraft will operate in a “hover mode”, as the “estimated amount of time” encompasses any non-zero amount of hover time that is required by a flight plan, (Ferrier; “…power-production capability may be expressed in terms of hover support time. Hover support time, as described herein, is defined as a period of time for which an energy source 104 is capable of outputting sufficient power to permit electric aircraft to hover” (emphasis added), see col.13, particularly lines 17-44, and “A projected power-consumption need for performing a given flight plan may be stored in memory accessible to controller 116. Flight plan may include, without limitation, the geospatial location of the landing site, the calculated distance to the landing site, the time required to reach the landing site, the landing methods” (emphasis added), see col.10, particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19, and “Still referring to FIG. 3, controller 116 may determine that the power-production capability is not sufficient for the projected power-consumption needs and modifying the flight plan as a function of the power-production capability…modifying the flight plan further comprises replacing the first landing protocol with a second landing protocol…the first landing protocol may be a hovering landing…an energy source 104 must have enough capacity to power the aircraft and satisfy the load demand of the plurality of propulsors to execute a safe and accurate landing. In a non-limiting example, if the projected power-consumption need of the first flight plan exceeds the remaining capacity of the energy source 104 at a given time during flight, a second landing protocol may be chosen by the controller 116…Second flight plan may include, without limitation, a different landing protocol at the same location as the first flight plan”, see col.12, particularly lines 15-53 and “…power-production capability may be expressed in terms of hover support time. Hover support time, as described herein, is defined as a period of time for which an energy source 104 is capable of outputting sufficient power to permit electric aircraft to hover”, see col.13, particularly lines 17-44 and “…controller 116 may store in its memory projected power-consumption needed to perform a scheduled landing according to a landing protocol called for in flight plan, a likely energy cost of traveling a particular distance while cruising, and the like”, see col.10 particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19), where a person would find it obvious in view of Ferrier to determine that a flight plan includes an amount of time in a hover mode that is greater than the hover support time when determining that the flight plan should be modified by merely viewing the teachings of Ferrier as a whole. Furthermore, Ferrier teaches that the process of modifying a flight plan based on the hover operation energy consumption as detailed above may be performed by a remote device that transmits information to a controller (Ferrier; see col.12, particularly lines 15-53), which then renders obvious performing the step of “providing, instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft, to at least one of: an aircraft computing device, a pilot computing device, an aerial facility computing device, or a facility operator computing device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Ferrier, and accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode; based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight within the airspace given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode, as rendered obvious by Ferrier, in order to “determine whether power-production capability is sufficient for a projected power-consumption need” (Ferrier; see col.11, particularly lines 51-53).
Regarding Claim 14, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the one or more battery conditions are indicative of a current state of charge or a future predicted state of charge of the one or more batteries onboard the electric aircraft and “Performance models, look-up tables and performance constraints to enable optimization of power distribution across the rechargeable stored energy units and generators, based on power requested, current state of charge, environmental conditions”, see P[0550] and “…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]); and
wherein the action associated with the electric aircraft is based on the current state of charge or the future predicted state of charge of the one or more batteries onboard the electric aircraft (“Based on the preferences and/or the pilot's decision(s), the recharge and/or refueling requirements are communicated to an appropriate service provider 367 (stage or step 366)”, see P[0289]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise:
accessing data indicative of a route for the future flight (“…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]);
computing a flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight (“…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]); and
(“…if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is insufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination, then planning a route to an intermediate destination, wherein planning a route to an intermediate destination further includes”, see P[0191] and “determining one or more possible energy and/or fuel providers”, see P[0192]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the future flight is associated with a flight itinerary indicative of a payload for the future flight (“…these include payload and energy requirements of the route leg…”, see P[0276]); and
wherein computing the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight comprises computing the flight state of charge for traversing the route based on the payload (“…tailoring the stored energy capacity to payload, adding stored energy units on low payload flights for improved energy efficiency, or removing units on flights where additional payload is required”, see P[0277]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computing system comprising:
one or more processors (see P[0181], P[0186] and P[0229]); and
one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors (see P[0181], P[0186] and P[0229]) to cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
accessing a performance reserve requirement associated with aerial operations within an airspace (“Operating rules library: Defines operating priorities for the powertrain, required by safety or based on operator preference. These constrain the Hybrid energy planner and Hybrid power manager…”, see P[0446], also see P[0442]-P[0445], P[0447]-P[0450], and P[0554] and (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]);
accessing one or more battery conditions for one or more batteries onboard an electric aircraft (“Key metrics communicated to POCS may include the following: on-off, RPM, power/status for each motor; battery capacity…”, see P[0401] and “Performance models, look-up tables and performance constraints to enable optimization of power distribution across the rechargeable stored energy units and generators, based on power requested, current state of charge, environmental conditions”, see P[0550], also see P[0549] and P[0551]-P[0554]);
accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode;
based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete [[a]] the future flight within the airspace (“…flights over ranges longer than the electric-only range should deplete the lower cost energy storage units to a minimum permissible level determined by safety or battery life considerations”, see P[0427] and “Optimization constraints. May include one or several constraints on the powertrain for performance and safety including maximum discharge rate of stored energy, minimum state of charge at any point during the flight…”, see P[0599] and “Constraints Check (element or process 1406 of FIG. 31) checks the results of the optimized flight path against required end of flight energy reserves or other constraints which may be used to shape the optimization space”, see P[0603]) given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode;
computing a reserve state of charge for the aircraft based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, wherein the reserve state of charge indicates a reserve battery charge level for completing a future flight within the airspace (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Preference data (as described with reference to FIG. 20) may then be considered to determine the allocation of total energy required for the next leg or segment between stored (e.g., battery) and generated (e.g., based on the use of fuel). If such preferences exist (as suggested by the “Yes” branch of step or stage 358), then such preferences or conditions/constraints are used to determine the recharge and/or refuel requirements (stage or step 360)”, see P[0288]);
based on the reserve state of charge, computing one or more battery charging parameters for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight (“…accessing data regarding the total amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft…”, see P[0187] and “…determining if the amount of stored electrical energy and generator fuel presently available to the aircraft is sufficient to enable the aircraft to reach its intended destination…”, see P[0188]);
determining an action associated with the electric aircraft based on the one or more battery charging parameters (“…stored energy units at 20% of capacity…”, see P[0447] and “Preference data (as described with reference to FIG. 20) may then be considered to determine the allocation of total energy required for the next leg or segment between stored (e.g., battery) and generated (e.g., based on the use of fuel). If such preferences exist (as suggested by the “Yes” branch of step or stage 358), then such preferences or conditions/constraints are used to determine the recharge and/or refuel requirements (stage or step 360)”, see P[0288]); and
providing, instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft, to at least one of: an aircraft computing device, a pilot computing device, an aerial facility computing device, or a facility operator computing device (“Based on the preferences and/or the pilot's decision(s), the recharge and/or refueling requirements are communicated to an appropriate service provider 367 (stage or step 366)”, see P[0289]).
Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode;
based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight within the airspace given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode.
However, Ferrier (11,509,154) teaches determining a required power-consumption which is equivalent to determining “performance reserve requirements” as clearly a required power-consumption can be interpreted as an amount of reserved or stored power, and renders obvious “accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode” (Ferrier; “…controller 116 may store in its memory projected power-consumption needed to perform a scheduled landing according to a landing protocol called for in flight plan, a likely energy cost of traveling a particular distance while cruising, and the like”, see col.10 particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19, and “A projected power-consumption need for performing a given flight plan may be stored in memory accessible to controller 116. Flight plan may include, without limitation, the geospatial location of the landing site, the calculated distance to the landing site, the time required to reach the landing site, the landing methods” (emphasis added), see col.10, particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19), where cruising is distinct from a hovering operation, and where clearly the distance to the landing site in the flight plan will be traveled by movement such as cruising and noy by hovering or moving vertically.
Ferrier further renders obvious “and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode” where Ferrier determines a hover support time based on power consumption during a hover operation, and further teaches determining if an energy source is capable of providing a specific amount of power for a specific flight plan that includes a hover operation, where a flight plan may be modified if a power-production capability is not sufficient for the projected power-consumption of the flight plan that includes the hover operation, where determining that a flight plan includes a hover operation is equivalent to determining an “estimated amount of time” an aircraft will operate in a “hover mode”, as the “estimated amount of time” encompasses any non-zero amount of hover time that is required by a flight plan, (Ferrier; “…power-production capability may be expressed in terms of hover support time. Hover support time, as described herein, is defined as a period of time for which an energy source 104 is capable of outputting sufficient power to permit electric aircraft to hover” (emphasis added), see col.13, particularly lines 17-44, and “A projected power-consumption need for performing a given flight plan may be stored in memory accessible to controller 116. Flight plan may include, without limitation, the geospatial location of the landing site, the calculated distance to the landing site, the time required to reach the landing site, the landing methods” (emphasis added), see col.10, particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19, and “Still referring to FIG. 3, controller 116 may determine that the power-production capability is not sufficient for the projected power-consumption needs and modifying the flight plan as a function of the power-production capability…modifying the flight plan further comprises replacing the first landing protocol with a second landing protocol…the first landing protocol may be a hovering landing…an energy source 104 must have enough capacity to power the aircraft and satisfy the load demand of the plurality of propulsors to execute a safe and accurate landing. In a non-limiting example, if the projected power-consumption need of the first flight plan exceeds the remaining capacity of the energy source 104 at a given time during flight, a second landing protocol may be chosen by the controller 116…Second flight plan may include, without limitation, a different landing protocol at the same location as the first flight plan”, see col.12, particularly lines 15-53 and “…power-production capability may be expressed in terms of hover support time. Hover support time, as described herein, is defined as a period of time for which an energy source 104 is capable of outputting sufficient power to permit electric aircraft to hover”, see col.13, particularly lines 17-44 and “…controller 116 may store in its memory projected power-consumption needed to perform a scheduled landing according to a landing protocol called for in flight plan, a likely energy cost of traveling a particular distance while cruising, and the like”, see col.10 particularly lines 56-67 and col.11, particularly lines 1-19), where a person would find it obvious in view of Ferrier to determine that a flight plan includes an amount of time in a hover mode that is greater than the hover support time when determining that the flight plan should be modified by merely viewing the teachings of Ferrier as a whole. Furthermore, Ferrier teaches that the process of modifying a flight plan based on the hover operation energy consumption as detailed above may be performed by a remote device that transmits information to a controller (Ferrier; see col.12, particularly lines 15-53), which then renders obvious performing the step of “providing, instructions indicative of the action associated with the electric aircraft, to at least one of: an aircraft computing device, a pilot computing device, an aerial facility computing device, or a facility operator computing device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Ferrier, and accessing data indicative of a future flight, wherein the data indicative of the future flight comprises an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a cruise mode and an estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in a hover mode; based on the performance reserve requirements and the one or more battery conditions, computing a reserve state of charge for the electric aircraft to complete the future flight within the airspace given the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the cruise mode and the estimated amount of time or distance that the electric aircraft will operate in the hover mode, as rendered obvious by Ferrier, in order to “determine whether power-production capability is sufficient for a projected power-consumption need” (Ferrier; see col.11, particularly lines 51-53).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (2020/0290742) in view of Ferrier (11,509,154) further in view of Lacaux et al. (2023/0361590).
Regarding Claim 3, Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the capacity of the one or more batteries is based on an age or a usage history of the one or more batteries.
However, Lacaux et al. (2023/0361590) teaches determining a battery capacity based on an age or life of the battery (Lacaux et al.; see P[0042]-P[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Lacaux et al., and wherein the capacity of the one or more batteries is based on an age or a usage history of the one or more batteries, as rendered obvious by Lacaux et al., in order to “take into account aging of the battery without impacting the energy requirements of the battery module” (Lacaux et al.; see P[0047]) and in order to provide for “enhancing battery system design, safety, and performance by dynamic control of battery end-of-charge voltage over a service life of the battery” (Lacaux et al.; see P[0001]).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (2020/0290742) in view of Ferrier (11,509,154) further in view of Moore et al. (2019/0315471).
Regarding Claim 10, Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the future flight is an intermediate transportation leg of a multi-modal transportation service.
However, Moore et al. (2019/0315471) teaches a flight as an intermediate transportation leg of a multi-modal transportation service (Moore et al.; “…the transport services coordination system 115 treats a journey involving a VTOL aircraft 120 as having three legs: (1) from the rider's initial location to a first hub; (2) from the first hub to a second hub in a VTOL; and (3) from the second hub to the rider's destination. The first and third legs may be walking or provided by ground transportation, such as a ride-sharing service”, see P[0023]). The Examiner also notes that the claim is not directed to a method step, but is directed to defining some “service”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Moore et al., and wherein the future flight is an intermediate transportation leg of a multi-modal transportation service, as rendered obvious by Moore et al., in order to “increase transportation efficiency” (Moore et al.; see Abstract) and “provide opportunities to incorporate aerial transportation into transport networks for cities and metropolitan areas” (Moore et al.; see P[0005]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the claimed one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 16, wherein the flight adjustment to the future flight comprises a modification to the flight itinerary, wherein the modification comprises adjusting the payload of the aircraft for the future flight based on the one or more battery charging parameters.
However, Moore et al. (2019/0315471) teaches assigning itineraries to aircraft based on a state of charge and/or state of power, where an assigned itinerary may be rejected based on a payload of the itinerary (Moore et al.; see P[0044]-P[0049]), which renders obvious steps to a “modification” of a “flight itinerary” or an adjustment of a “payload of the aircraft”, such as by modifying an aircraft itinerary from the assigned itinerary to either no itinerary or a different itinerary matching the aircraft state of charge and/or state of power.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Moore et al., and wherein the flight adjustment to the future flight comprises a modification to the flight itinerary, wherein the modification comprises adjusting the payload of the aircraft for the future flight based on the one or more battery charging parameters, as rendered obvious by Moore et al., in order to “increase transportation efficiency” (Moore et al.; see Abstract) and “provide opportunities to incorporate aerial transportation into transport networks for cities and metropolitan areas” (Moore et al.; see P[0005]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (2020/0290742) in view of Ferrier (11,509,154) further in view of Tian et al. (2021/0241234), further in view of Chang et al. (2018/0273211).
Regarding Claim 12, Kumar et al. teaches the claimed computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein computing the action associated with the electric aircraft comprises:
accessing data indicative of a progress of a ground transportation service for a user currently assigned to the future flight; and
computing the action of the electric aircraft based on the data indicative of the progress of the ground transportation service.
However, Tian et al. (2021/0241234) teaches data indicative of progress of a transportation service, including a user progress such as a user being picked up by a service provider or dropped off by a service provider (Tian et al.; see P[0080).
Furthermore, Chang et al. (2018/0273211) teaches performing actions based on a user device approaching an airport and aircraft (Chang et al.; “…a geofence (e.g., a virtual GPS boundary) may be used to determine when mobile device 301 is within a certain distance of the airport such that the aircraft automatically begins preflight readiness routines when the user of mobile device 301 is approaching the airport. The preprogrammed commands may be used to turn on the aircraft including one or more subsystems of the aircraft and to initiate programs or protocols of the one or more subsystems…”, see P[0062]), where a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the user device approach or “progress” may also be indicative of a “ground transportation service” progress, as clearly the device may be onboard a ground vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Tian et al. and Chang et al., and wherein computing the action associated with the electric aircraft comprises accessing data indicative of a progress of a ground transportation service for a user currently assigned to the future flight, and computing the action of the electric aircraft based on the data indicative of the progress of the ground transportation service, as rendered obvious by Tian et al. and Chang et al., in order to provide for “facilitating a multi-modal transportation service” (Tian et al.; see Abstract), and in order to provide an “expedited preflight readiness system for aircraft” (Chang et al.; see Abstract).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (2020/0290742) in view of Ferrier (11,509,154) further in view of Moore et al. (2019/0315471) further in view of Chase et al. (2020/0388167).
Regarding Claim 18, Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the claimed one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein adjusting the payload of the aircraft comprises:
decreasing the payload in response to the state of charge being below the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight; or
increasing the payload in response to the state of charge exceeding the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight.
However, Chase et al. (2020/0388167) teaches rejecting or accepting an itinerary for a specific payload based on a state of charge or state of power after an aerial vehicle completes the itinerary (Chase et al.; see P[0072] and P[0081]), and teaches rejecting an itinerary if a state of power cannot service a weight of the payload (Chase et al.; see P[0046]-P[0047]), which renders obvious “decreasing” a payload by rejecting an itinerary for the payload if a state of charge or state of power after a flight with the payload is unacceptable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Chase et al., and wherein adjusting the payload of the aircraft comprises decreasing the payload in response to the state of charge being below the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight, or increasing the payload in response to the state of charge exceeding the flight state of charge for traversing the route for the future flight, as rendered obvious by Chase et al., so that a “payload is assigned to a route and an associated aerial vehicle, thereby generating an itinerary”, and “the itinerary is validated by the aerial vehicle to ensure that the aerial vehicle is capable of traveling the route with the payload” (Chase et al.; see Abstract).
Examiner’s Note:
The Examiner notes for the record that because the “decreasing the payload” option is selected for Claim 18, Claim 19 is not required to be taught by the prior art, however, a prior art rejection is applied to Claim 19 in support of compact prosecution.
Regarding Claim 19, Kumar et al. does not expressly recite the claimed one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein increasing the payload comprises adding a user to the flight itinerary.
However, Chase et al. (2020/0388167) teaches rejecting or accepting an itinerary for a specific payload based on a state of charge or state of power after an aerial vehicle completes the itinerary (Chase et al.; see P[0072] and P[0081]), and teaches rejecting an itinerary if a state of power cannot service a weight of the payload (Chase et al.; see P[0046]-P[0047]), which renders obvious “increasing” a payload by accepting an itinerary for the payload if a state of charge or state of power after a flight with the payload is acceptable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar et al. with the teachings of Chase et al., and wherein increasing the payload comprises adding a user to the flight itinerary, as rendered obvious by Chase et al., so that a “payload is assigned to a route and an associated aerial vehicle, thereby generating an itinerary”, and “the itinerary is validated by the aerial vehicle to ensure that the aerial vehicle is capable of traveling the route with the payload” (Chase et al.; see Abstract).
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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662