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 .
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.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the claim set and remarks dated 24 July 2025 in response to non-final rejection office action dated 25 April 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, or the like) and interview dated 11 July 2025.
Regarding the "Remarks" section on page 1 of the remarks file, the examiner wishes to note for the record that Claims 1-20 were also previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 (prior art rejections), claims 1-20 were all rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (not just claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20), and that claims 8 and 18 were not merely objected to; the examiner did not indicate allowable subject matter (ASM) in the non-final rejection office action dated 25 April 2025. This appears to be a mistake, but the examiner would like to put the above statement on record for clarity.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as signals per se (claim 8), the examiner notes that the claim now specifies non-transitory memory. Therefore, this 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for the claimed invention being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, the examiner reviewed the applicant's arguments in view of MPEP 2106.04(d) as noted and found the arguments to be persuasive in conjunction with the amendments made. Due to persuasive argument and amendment, the examiner withdraws all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner notes that the independent claims are no longer anticipated by the primary prior art of record, and therefore the outstanding rejections are withdrawn. However, an additional search was performed and art which read upon claims was located. Therefore, new grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, are presented below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 24 July 2025. Claims 4, 6, 11, and 13 are cancelled. Claims 21-24 are new. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-24 are pending and rejected, as further described below.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 contains a list of alternatives but does not conclude the list with a comma prior to the final alternative. The examiner recommends rewording the claim to “an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or a military entity." to remove ambiguity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 (all independent claims) in addition to claims 22-24 recite an entity “type”. Per MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E., the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). The examiner performed a review of the specification and was unable to find a definitive/explicit redefinition to the word “type” and thus questions what the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter may be. For example, “type” can refer to a helicopter versus a fixed wing aircraft, or a particular manufacturer of an aircraft versus another, or one having a smaller wingspan versus a larger wingspan, etc. As the basis for understanding what may constitute a “type” of aircraft/entity is not provided, the claims are rendered indefinite.
While Claim 24 attempts to describe the entity types, the list includes an equally ambiguous term through “military entity”. This leads the examiner to an additional matter of indefiniteness.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the first entity type comprises one of … or a military entity.” The examiner is unsure of the metes and bounds of the claim language pertaining to “a military entity”. What is considered a “military entity”? Is an aircraft that performs deliveries for civilians and military applications considered a “military entity” if the craft is not owned by the military or operated solely by the military, but performs support operations for the military? The definition of this term is unclear, allowing an unknown type/number/etc. of aircraft to fall under the term “military entity”, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 24 does not resolve the deficiency noted in claims 1, 8, and 15, and instead introduces another source of ambiguity.
Finally, claim 21 recites “uncontrolled airspace”. The examiner notes that the specification does not define the term. The examiner notes that U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines Glass G airspace (uncontrolled) as airspace that is not designated as Classes A-E (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap3_section_3.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
187
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While the FAA defines uncontrolled airspace as that above, the examiner ultimately has determined that the term does not have a universal/widely-accepted meaning in the art, leading to unclear metes and bounds of claim language. Thus, the examiner notes that reference to an airspace as merely “uncontrolled” does not provide the requisite knowledge to one having ordinary skill in the art to understand what is claimed.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and none of the dependent claims resolve the noted issues, all dependent claims are rejected by dependency. Therefore, all pending claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-19, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US 2023/0386347 A1; filed 04 Jun 2021, hereinafter Parker) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 115810087 A; published 17 March 2023, English Translation PDF filed with this office action, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 1 (method), 8 (apparatus), and 15 (system):
Parker discloses Parker discloses A method of monitoring for conflicts between different types of entities operating in a volume of navigable space, the method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0072, 0088, 0103-0105], Parker discloses a method of flight traffic orchestration in a plurality of airspace regions (the regions are three-dimensional, thus a “volume”) serving a purpose of collision detection/prevention and resolution) / A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing system, cause the processing system to: (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0047, 0192, 0194, 0197], Parker discloses that methods of the disclosure may be implemented in a computer readable medium) / A system comprising: a database to maintain registered airspace usage data and conflict data for a volume of navigable airspace; and a conflict management server coupled to the database and a communications network to provide an airspace management service configurable to: (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0071-0072, 0088, 0103-0105, 0126, 0129-130, 0133] and Figure [2a], Parker discloses a system of flight traffic orchestration in a plurality of airspace regions (the regions are three-dimensional, thus a “volume”) serving a purpose of collision detection/prevention and resolution. A plurality of systems/computers/databases interface with one another to communicate current status of aircraft including location)
obtaining, from a client over a network, usage information associated with a first entity, wherein the usage information is indicative of an operating region for the first entity; (per claim 1) / obtain, from a client over a network, usage information associated with a first entity, wherein the usage information is indicative of an operating region for the first entity within a volume of navigable space; (per claim 8) / receive, from a client over the communications network, a reservation request comprising airspace usage information associated with a first entity, wherein the airspace usage information is indicative of an operating region for the first entity within the volume of navigable airspace; (per claim 15) (The examiner notes that “usage information” is interpreted broadly in light of the specification paragraphs [0019, 0021], for instance. Further, a “request” is interpreted broadly to include information being sent over a communications network. Specifically, a “reservation request” is interpreted to merely be a position of the aircraft per paragraph [0039]. Due to this interpretation, the above claim limitations among the independent claims are interpreted to be analogous. Paragraph [0012, 0074], Parker discloses that flight data information associated with an aircraft includes position information. Flight data may be received (obtained/”requested”) over a communication network for processing)
converting the usage information from a spatial reference domain to [a subset of partitions in a partitioned domain comprising a plurality of partitions] corresponding the volume of navigable space subdivided into discrete nonoverlapping partitions, the [subset of partitions comprising a sequence of partitions encompassing the operating region anticipated for the first entity] based at least in part on a first entity type associated with the first entity, wherein each partition [of the subset of partitions] comprises a nonoverlapping three-dimensional volume of the navigable space; (per claim 1) / convert the usage information from a spatial reference domain to [a subset of partitions in a partitioned domain comprising a plurality of partitions] corresponding the volume of navigable space subdivided into discrete nonoverlapping partitions, the [subset of partitions comprising a sequence of partitions encompassing the operating region anticipated for the first entity based at least in part on a first entity type associated with the first entity], wherein each partition [of the subset of partitions] comprises a nonoverlapping three-dimensional volume of the navigable space; (per claim 8) / convert the airspace usage information from a spatial reference domain to [a subset of airspace partitions in a partitioned domain comprising a plurality of airspace partitions] corresponding to the volume of navigable airspace subdivided into discrete nonoverlapping airspace partitions, the [subset of airspace partitions comprising a sequence of airspace partitions encompassing the operating region anticipated for the first entity] based at least in part on a first entity type associated with the first entity, wherein each airspace partition [of the subset of airspace partitions] comprises a nonoverlapping three-dimensional volume of the navigable airspace; (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0014, 0071-0072, 0074, 0090-0091, 0094-0095, 0098] and Figure [1b, 1d, 1e], Parker discloses that aircraft are mapped to the airspace regions and zones based on received flight data information, wherein flight data includes position information. Further, Parker discloses that the flight data (including geospatial information) associated with the aircraft/entity may also include information for identifying the relevant airspace zone that the aircraft may be transiting/traversing. The airspace is divided into a plurality of three-dimensional zones, shown and describe as being optionally overlapping or otherwise, as seen in Figure [1b], for example. Regarding “based at least in part on a first entity type”, the examiner notes that paragraph [0095] states that flight data associated with the aircraft may include type of aircraft)
updating registered usage data associated with the [subset of] partitions to maintain an association between the [subset of] partitions and the first entity; (per claim 1) / update registered usage data associated with the [subset of] partitions to maintain an association between the [subset of] partitions and the first entity; (per claim 8) / update the registered airspace usage data associated with the [subset of] airspace partitions to maintain an association between the [subset of] airspace partitions and the first entity; (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0014, 0019, 0074-0075, 0078, 0087, 0095, 0098] and Figure [2b, 3a], Parker discloses updating airspace states based on received flight data (including position information))
detecting a concurrent usage conflict associated with a first partition of the [subset of] partitions after updating the registered usage data associated with the first partition based at least in part on a second association between the first partition and a second entity different from the first entity when a second time period associated with presence of the second entity within the first partition overlaps a first time period associated with presence of the first entity within the first partition, the second entity comprising a second entity type different from the first entity type; and (per claim 1) / detect a concurrent usage conflict associated with a first partition of the [subset of] partitions after updating the registered usage data associated with the first partition based at least in part on a second association between the first partition and a second entity different from the first entity when a second time period associated with presence of the second entity within the first partition overlaps a first time period associated with presence of the first entity within the first partition, the second entity comprising a second entity type different from the first entity type; and (per claim 8) / detect a concurrent usage conflict associated with a first airspace partition of the [subset of] airspace partitions after updating the registered airspace usage data associated with the first airspace partition based at least in part on a second association between the first airspace partition and a second entity different from the first entity when a second time period associated with presence of the second entity within the first airspace partition overlaps a first time period associated with presence of the first entity within the first airspace partition, the second entity comprising a second entity type different from the first entity type; and (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0038, 0071, 0074, 0082-0083, 0095, 0101-0102, 0112-0116, 0119, 0121, 0148, 0163, 0184-0185], Parker discloses real time conflict detection and analysis, identifying a particular conflict associated with an airspace zone. Upon detection of a conflict, the resolution will be received by the appropriate controller/pilot/aircraft. Conflicts are detected within an airspace zone (partition) between a plurality of entities (multiple aircraft). The system/method/apparatus is configured to detect a transition of an entity from one zone to another, and updating the zone’s status accordingly. The system/method/apparatus performs conflict detection in relation to each entities of the corresponding airspace zone. The airspace is analyzed for conflict between entities in a snapshot/concurrent manner. Regarding “entity type”, the examiner notes that paragraph [0095] states that flight data associated with the aircraft may include type of aircraft and further in paragraph [0071] that a plurality of aircraft includes unmanned and manned aircraft, for instance. Regarding time intervals, detection of conflicts within an airspace zone is performed at time intervals (Paragraph [0114, 0184]). Parker discloses detecting a conflict between entities in a same zone (concurrent usage conflict) based upon position and time interval (spatial and temporal) information)
in response to detecting the concurrent usage conflict: updating conflict data to include an indication of the concurrent usage conflict associated with the first entity and the first partition; (per claim 1) / in response to detecting the concurrent usage conflict: update conflict data to include an indication of the concurrent usage conflict associated with the first entity and the first partition; (per claim 8) / in response to detecting the concurrent usage conflict: update the conflict data to include an indication of the concurrent usage conflict associated with the first entity and the first airspace partition; (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0114, 0163] and Figure [3a], Parker discloses that detected conflicts trigger a conflict resolution action. Conflict resolution includes sending information to entities for correction, such as notifications, commands, and instructions. Thus, “conflict data” is updated to indicate a conflict and is sent to entities to indicate the conflict pertaining to the transiting within the airspace zone for avoidance)
analyzing subscription data using an identifier associated with the first partition to identify a subscribing client subscribed to monitoring the first partition in response to updating the conflict data; and (per claim 1) / analyze subscription data using an identifier associated with the first partition to identify a subscribing client subscribed to monitoring the first partition in response to updating the conflict data; and (per claim 8) / analyze subscription data using an identifier associated with the first airspace partition to identify a subscribing client subscribed to monitoring the first airspace partition in response to updating the conflict data; and (per claim 15) (Per the above claim interpretation section, "Subscription data" is interpreted to mean an association between identifying information of a client and other particular identifying information about the client, the operating region of interest, the time period of interest, and/or the like, as described in paragraph [0036]. Generally, subscription data may be interpreted under plain meaning (data regarding a "subscriber"), or data associating the client with an airspace partition (such as that described in paragraphs [0036, 0051]). Paragraph [0074, 0122, 0185], Parker discloses that the operator or flight controller may have a subscription to the conflict resolution service (pertaining to a first meaning that “subscription” refers to a subscribing entity under plain meaning). Further, Parker discloses that flight data including position information is used to associate the entity with the currently inhabited partition)
providing, over the network, notification of the concurrent usage conflict associated with the first entity and the first partition to the subscribing client in response to identifying the subscribing client associated with the first partition based on the subscription data. (per claim 1) / provide, over the network, notification of the concurrent usage conflict associated with the first entity and the first partition to the subscribing client in response to identifying the subscribing client associated with the first partition based on the subscription data. (per claim 8) / provide, over the network, notification of the concurrent usage conflict associated with the first entity and the first airspace partition to the subscribing client in response to identifying the subscribing client associated with the first airspace partition based on the subscription data. (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0114, 0163] and Figure [3a], Parker discloses that detected conflicts trigger a conflict resolution action. Conflict resolution includes sending information to entities for correction, such as notifications, commands, and instructions. As the examiner notes in the previous claim interpretation that “subscription” is a generic term that may have multiple interpretations in light of plain meaning and of the specification, notification is provided to a client in the particular zone in response to a determination of conflict with another entity)
The difference between the claims of the instant application and the disclosure of Parker then pertains to comparing a subset of partitions pertaining to a sequence traversed by an aircraft’s predicted flight path in order to identify conflicts. Parker implicitly discloses this possibility as well, as Paragraph [0095], for instance states “In addition, the flight data associated with each of the aircraft 106a-106k of airspace region 102a may also include information for identifying the relevant airspace zone of the airspace zones 108a-108e that said each of the aircraft 106a-106k may be transitioning and/or traversing.” Further, Parker states in paragraph [0074], “any other flight data associated with the aircraft 1060a for use in determining, forecasting and/or predicting where the aircraft 1060a is within the airspace 1020, airspace region 1020a and/or airspace zone 1080a.”
However, Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic management, teaches converting the usage information from a spatial reference domain to a subset of partitions in a partitioned domain comprising a plurality of partitions corresponding the volume of navigable space subdivided into discrete nonoverlapping partitions, the subset of partitions comprising a sequence of partitions encompassing the operating region anticipated for the first entity based at least in part on a first entity type associated with the first entity, wherein each partition of the subset of partitions comprises a nonoverlapping three-dimensional volume of the navigable space; (per claim 1) / convert the usage information from a spatial reference domain to a subset of partitions in a partitioned domain comprising a plurality of partitions corresponding the volume of navigable space subdivided into discrete nonoverlapping partitions, the subset of partitions comprising a sequence of partitions encompassing the operating region anticipated for the first entity based at least in part on a first entity type associated with the first entity, wherein each partition of the subset of partitions comprises a nonoverlapping three-dimensional volume of the navigable space; (per claim 8) / convert the airspace usage information from a spatial reference domain to a subset of airspace partitions in a partitioned domain comprising a plurality of airspace partitions corresponding to the volume of navigable airspace subdivided into discrete nonoverlapping airspace partitions, the subset of airspace partitions comprising a sequence of airspace partitions encompassing the operating region anticipated for the first entity based at least in part on a first entity type associated with the first entity, wherein each airspace partition of the subset of airspace partitions comprises a nonoverlapping three-dimensional volume of the navigable airspace; (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0011-0012, 0047-0048, 0050-0054] and Figure [1-3], Zhang teaches discretizing an airspace into a grid of volumetric, non-overlapping (as seen in Figures [1-3]) squares. The position and path of the aircraft in the airspace is converted from cartesian coordinates to the spatial grid position. Regarding “type”, Zhang teaches that the size of the aircraft (and thus a “type” as in big vs small) is taken into account) including subset of partitions/subset of airspace partitions as noted above and further,
detecting a concurrent usage conflict associated with a first partition of the [subset of] partitions after updating the registered usage data associated with the first partition based at least in part on a second association between the first partition and a second entity different from the first entity when a second time period associated with presence of the second entity within the first partition overlaps a first time period associated with presence of the first entity within the first partition, the second entity comprising a second entity type different from the first entity type; and (per claim 1) / detect a concurrent usage conflict associated with a first partition of the [subset of] partitions after updating the registered usage data associated with the first partition based at least in part on a second association between the first partition and a second entity different from the first entity when a second time period associated with presence of the second entity within the first partition overlaps a first time period associated with presence of the first entity within the first partition, the second entity comprising a second entity type different from the first entity type; and (per claim 8) / detect a concurrent usage conflict associated with a first airspace partition of the [subset of] airspace partitions after updating the registered airspace usage data associated with the first airspace partition based at least in part on a second association between the first airspace partition and a second entity different from the first entity when a second time period associated with presence of the second entity within the first airspace partition overlaps a first time period associated with presence of the first entity within the first airspace partition, the second entity comprising a second entity type different from the first entity type; and (per claim 15) (Paragraph [0055-0057, 0060-0063, 0066-0068] and Figure [3-5], Zhang teaches comparison of the trajectories of multiple aircraft including any potential time difference. If it is determined that two aircraft occupy the same grid space at the same time (within a safety time window), then a positive output of conflict is provided)
Parker and Zhang are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Parker to include a comparison of projected paths as taught by Zhang. Parker discloses a process/system of organizing an airspace to identify and resolve conflict based on position of aircraft within a discretized grid. However, Parker only implicitly discloses the effect of predictive elements in the aircraft paths in order to identify conflict (see above, Paragraph [0074, 0095] of Parker, for instance). Zhang is another disclosure in an analogous art attempting to solve an analogous problem of air traffic management to prevent conflict by discretizing the airspace into a grid (in a similar manner as Parker) but taking into account the future trajectory of each aircraft (Zhang, Paragraph [0055], for instance). The benefit and rationale to utilize the teachings of Zhang in the disclosure of Parker lies in providing high-efficiency and high-precision conflict detection (Zhang, Paragraph [0008/n0005]) using spatiotemporal information of the airspace to effectively detect the location and time of airspace use conflict in order to reduce the misjudgment of conflict rate (Zhang, Paragraph [0033/n0012]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 17: Parker further discloses wherein: the usage information comprises geospatial information indicative of a location associated with the first entity in a geographic coordinate system; and (per claims 2 and 17) / the usage information comprising geospatial information indicative of a location associated with the first entity in a geographic coordinate system, (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0094], Parker discloses that flight data includes receiving information from an entity pertaining to the location such as latitude, longitude, and altitude (geospatial information of a location in a geographic coordinate system))
converting the usage information comprises mapping the location in the geographic coordinate system to the first partition encompassing the location. (per claim 2) / wherein the computer-executable instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to map the location in the geographic coordinate system to the first partition encompassing the location. (per claim 9) / the airspace management service is configurable to convert the location from the geographic coordinate system to the first airspace partition encompassing the location. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0014, 0094-0095], Parker discloses that the flight data (including geospatial information) associated with the aircraft/entity may also include information for identifying the relevant airspace zone that the aircraft may be transiting/traversing (associating/converting geospatial information with a particular zone))
Regarding claims 3 and 10: Parker further discloses wherein: the usage information comprises data indicative of an anticipated operating state of the first entity in the future; and (per claim 3) / the usage information comprising data indicative of an anticipated operating state of the first entity, (per claim 10) (Paragraph [0074, 0146-0148], Parker discloses that flight data comprises data indicative of an aircraft within an airspace zone including data for use in forecasting and/or predicting where the aircraft is in the airspace, for estimating future flight data)
converting the usage information comprises: determining an anticipated location of the first entity based at least in part on the anticipated operating state; and (per claim 3) / wherein the computer-executable instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to: determine an anticipated location of the first entity based at least in part on the anticipated operating state; and (per claim 10) (Paragraph [0074, 0146-0148], Parker discloses estimation/projection of an entity’s future position over time)
mapping the anticipated location to the first partition of the plurality of partitions, wherein the first partition encompasses the anticipated location. (per claim 3) / map the anticipated location to the first partition of the plurality of partitions, wherein the first partition encompasses the anticipated location. (per claim 10) (Paragraph [0074, 0146-0148], Parker discloses that flight data comprises data indicative of an aircraft within an airspace zone including data for use in forecasting and/or predicting where the aircraft is in the airspace, for estimating future flight data)
Regarding claims 5 and 12: Parker further discloses wherein the registered usage data associated with the first partition comprises first indicia of the first entity and the first time period associated with the first entity and second indicia of the second entity and the second time period associated with the second entity, wherein detecting the concurrent usage conflict comprises: (per claim 5) / wherein the registered usage data associated with the first partition comprises first indicia of the first entity and the first time period associated with the first entity and second indicia of the second entity and the second time period associated with the second entity, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to: (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0074, 0114, 0184-0185] and Figure [4a], Parker discloses that a snapshot at one moment/time interval (a first time period) is obtained and analyzed for conflicts between a plurality of entities (first and second entities) in a particular zone based on received flight data from the entities (the flight data comprising location data, at least pertaining to “indicia”))
identifying a spatial conflict between the first entity and the second entity associated with the first partition based on the registered usage data associated with the first partition including the first indicia of the first entity and the second indicia of the second entity; (per claim 5) / identify a spatial conflict between the first entity and the second entity associated with the first partition based on the registered usage data associated with the first partition including the first indicia of the first entity and the second indicia of the second entity; (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0038, 0074, 0082-0083, 0101-0102, 0112-0116, 0119, 0121, 0148, 0163, 0184-0185], Parker discloses real time conflict detection and analysis, identifying a particular conflict associated with an airspace zone based upon position (indicia) of multiple entities (first and second entities))
after identifying the spatial conflict, identifying a temporal conflict between the first entity and the second entity associated with the first partition when the first time period and the second time period overlap; and (per claim 5) / after identifying the spatial conflict, identify a temporal conflict between the first entity and the second entity associated with the first partition when the first time period and the second time period overlap; and (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0074, 0140, 0184-0185], Parker discloses real time conflict detection and analysis, identifying a particular conflict associated with an airspace zone based upon position (indicia) of multiple entities (first and second entities). Further, the detection of conflict is dependent upon a time interval pertaining to the state of the airspace (a temporal element to the identified conflict))
detecting the concurrent usage conflict when the spatial conflict and the temporal conflict associated with the first partition concurrently exist between the first entity and the second entity. (per claim 5) / detect the concurrent usage conflict when the spatial conflict and the temporal conflict associated with the first partition concurrently exist between the first entity and the second entity. (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0074, 0184-0185], Parker discloses detecting a conflict between entities in a same zone (concurrent usage conflict) based upon position and time interval (spatial and temporal) information)
Regarding claims 7 and 14: Parker further discloses further comprising determining anticipated usage information corresponding to an anticipated operating region for the first entity in the future based at least in part on the usage information, wherein: (per claim 7) / wherein the computer-executable instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to determine anticipated usage information corresponding to an anticipated operating region for the first entity based at least in part on the usage information; (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0074, 0146-0148], Parker discloses that flight data comprises data indicative of an aircraft within an airspace zone including data for use in forecasting and/or predicting where the aircraft is in the airspace, for estimating future flight data including the future position (anticipated “usage information”))
converting the usage information comprises mapping the anticipated usage information to the first partition encompassing the anticipated operating region; and (per claim 7) / map the anticipated usage information to the first partition encompassing the anticipated operating region; and (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0184-0185] and Figure [4a], Parker discloses mapping the anticipated/projected flight vector within an airspace zone)
updating the registered usage data comprises updating the registered usage data to maintain the association between the first partition and the first entity. (per claim 7) / update the registered usage data to maintain the association between the first partition and the first entity. (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0116, 0130], Parker discloses that the updates to the airspace model are continuous; continuously receiving flight information from the data sources (the entities/aircraft), handing off aircraft from one airspace zone monitor to another (updating the positional relationship between the aircraft and the zone))
Regarding claim 16: Parker further discloses wherein the database comprises subscription data including a subscription associated with at least one of the first entity, the second entity and the first airspace partition, wherein the airspace management service is configurable to automatically identify the subscription matching the concurrent usage conflict after updating the conflict data and automatically provide a conflict notification over the communications network to a subscribed client associated with the subscription. (Per the above claim interpretation section, "Subscription data" is interpreted to mean an association between identifying information of a client and other particular identifying information about the client, the operating region of interest, the time period of interest, and/or the like, as described in paragraph [0036]. Generally, subscription data may be interpreted under plain meaning (data regarding a "subscriber"), or data associating the client with an airspace partition (such as that described in paragraphs [0036, 0051]). Paragraph [0074, 0089-0090, 0122, 0153, 0185, 0195], Parker discloses flight information localizing a plurality of entities (a first and second entity) to a certain zone. The system monitors the position automatically and provides notification of conflict without user input (“The embodiments described above are fully automatic.”))
Regarding claim 18: Parker further discloses wherein: the airspace usage information comprises a flight plan indicative of a planned route for the first entity; and (Paragraph [0026, 0074, 0079, 0145-0146, 0184], Parker discloses that flight data includes data such as position and forecasted/predicted location)
the airspace management service is configurable to map the flight plan to the [subset of] airspace partitions encompassing the planned route for the first entity. (Paragraph [0095, 0129, 0184-0185] and Figure [4a], Parker discloses mapping the anticipated/projected flight vector within an airspace zone)
Regarding subset of airspace partitions, the examiner notes that parent claim 15 (independent) discusses the obviousness rationale to implement a subset of partitions versus a single partition and will not be repeated here in the interest of brevity.
Regarding claim 19: Parker further discloses wherein: the airspace usage information comprises data characterizing a current operating state of the first entity; and (Paragraph [0074-0075], Parker discloses that flight data includes position of the aircraft and that airspace data comprises flight plan information of each entity (any of which constitutes an “operating state” of a first aircraft/entity))
the airspace management service is configurable to determine an anticipated location of the first entity in the future based at least in part on the data characterizing the current operating state and map the anticipated location to the first airspace partition encompassing the anticipated location. (Paragraph [0074, 0146-0148], Parker discloses that flight data comprises data indicative of an aircraft within an airspace zone including data for use in forecasting and/or predicting where the aircraft is in the airspace, for estimating future flight data including the future position)
Regarding claim 21: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Parker in view of Zhang, as noted above. Parker further discloses wherein the first partition comprises uncontrolled airspace. (Paragraph [0071, 0077], Parker discloses that partitions may be uncontrolled airspace)
Regarding claim 22: Parent claim 21 is unpatentable over Parker in view of Zhang, as noted above. Parker further discloses wherein: the second entity comprises an aircraft having a flight plan associated therewith; and (Paragraph [0078, 0079, 0081, 0095], Parker discloses that aircraft data includes flight plan data)
the first entity type is not encompassed by flight plan filing. (Paragraph [0024, 0119], Parker discloses monitoring of unknown aircraft/entities (aircraft that have not submitted data including flight plans). Alternatively, a first entity is not necessarily encompassed by a second entity’s flight plan filing)
Regarding claim 23: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Parker in view of Zhang, as noted above. Parker further discloses wherein: the second entity comprises an aircraft having a flight plan associated therewith; and (Paragraph [0078, 0079, 0081, 0095], Parker discloses that aircraft data includes flight plan data)
the first entity type is not encompassed by flight plan filing. (Paragraph [0024, 0119], Parker discloses monitoring of unknown aircraft/entities (aircraft that have not submitted data including flight plans). Alternatively, a first entity is not necessarily encompassed by a second entity’s flight plan filing)
Regarding claim 24: Parent claim 23 is unpatentable over Parker in view of Zhang, as noted above. Parker further discloses wherein the first entity type comprises one of an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or a military entity. (Paragraph [0071], the aircraft include unmanned aircraft (UAV))
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Zhang in further view of Berstis et al. (US 6,275,771 B1; date of patent 14 Aug 2001, hereinafter Berstis).
Regarding claim 20: Parker discloses that the shape of the airspace zones is not particularly limited (Parker, Paragraph [0072, 0090]). However, Parker does not explicit disclose that the partitions are substantially cubic and are non-overlapping.
However, Berstis, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic management, teaches wherein the plurality of airspace partitions comprise a plurality of substantially cubic partitions comprising respective discrete nonoverlapping portions of the volume of navigable airspace. (Column [3] Lines [45-50] and Figure [1], Berstis teaches that cells dividing a volume of airspace are cubic and shows in Figure [1] that the cubes do not overlap)
Parker and Berstis are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the air traffic management disclosure of Parker to include a certain shape of the zones as taught by Berstis, as both Parker and Berstis describe that the choice of shape is not particularly limited to classify volumes of airspace (Parker, Paragraph [0072,0090] and Berstis, Column [3] Lines [45-50]) and may be modified as preferred. Parker explicitly states that any shape may be used; Berstis is provided as a reference that also does not limit the shape of an air cell but specifically discloses cubes that do not overlap. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would recognize that the shape of the air space is merely an obvious matter of design choice, and may be chosen depending upon preference.
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658