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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received a request for continued examination (RCE) in addition to remarks/arguments and claim amendments dated 11 December 2025 in response to the final rejection office action dated 08 October 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner has reviewed the amended claim set and verified that all noted informalities have been addressed and remedied; therefore, all outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner notes that language pertaining to “sufficient margin” has been removed. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, as a preliminary matter, the examiner notes that arguments presented pertaining to applicability of previously presented prior art claim rejections are moot, as applicant has amended the corresponding claim language. For clarity of record, applicant argues against the applicability of Liu et al. (US 2020/0026720 A1; hereinafter Liu) with regards to two primary points:
"Liu does not disclose 'determining a plurality of simulated UAV flight paths through the candidate flyable airspace, wherein each UAV flight path of the plurality of simulated UAV flight paths corresponds to a respective simulated UAV starting at a respective UAV nest of a plurality of UAV nests and delivering to a respective delivery location of a plurality of delivery locations.'" (see remarks pages [11-12])
"Liu does not disclose 'based on the validated candidate flyable airspace, determining flight paths for the fleet of UAVs.'" (see remarks page [15])
First, regarding A., the examiner notes that Liu does not explicitly disclose simulation of flight paths (as previously noted in the prior office action). However, Liu discloses determining a plurality of flight paths (Paragraph [0094] states "…a UAV can compare the height range with its current flying altitude to better determine its flight paths [examiner note: plural form of path, indicating multiple]" and paragraph [0112] "a UAV determines its flight paths [examiner note: again, plural]"), as previously stated. The examiner agrees that Liu does not explicitly disclose that the starting location pertains to a nest and the target location pertains to a delivery location, however the examiner finds that this is merely an obvious variant, as a generic "current location" (reasonably including a nest) and "target location" (reasonably including a delivery location) are explicitly disclosed. Merely disclosing a more specific starting and ending point does not reasonably delineate the invention of the instant application from the disclosure of Liu. Therefore, the examiner agrees that Liu does not, alone, explicitly disclose all of the elements of argument A., but determined that the differences are merely obvious distinctions.
Second, regarding B., the examiner notes that Liu states in paragraph [0073], for instance, "Systems and related methods are provided for building and maintaining elevation maps for a group of UAVs", paragraph [0112] states "a UAV determines its flight paths", and paragraph [0060] "The sharing of information by multiple UAVs may allow individual UAVs to navigate an environment". Even in the event that each UAV determines its own flight path, this reasonably constitutes determining flight paths for the fleet of UAVs; it is not explicitly required in the claims of the instant application for a centralized component to perform the determination for a plurality of UAVs. In the most limited of the independent claims with this in mind, claim 19 recites a computing device made up of one or more processors, and each UAV comprises a processor (see Liu Figure [4] and paragraph [0002]) to establish the flight path of note (the collection of UAVs and central server constituting a "computing device"). Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion of argument B.
When viewed individually and as a whole, Liu differs from the instant application independent claims in two primary ways: 1) explicitly disclosing simulated flight paths and 2) paths originating at nests and ending at delivery locations. The examiner considers both of the aforementioned differences to be obvious variants of the disclosure of Liu, supported by the secondary references (with reasonable rationale to combine) provided below. Therefore, all outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections are withdrawn in favor of the rejections provided below.
In an effort to promote compact prosecution, the examiner notes that it appears as though the instant application intends to perform a series of data analysis and simulation steps in a central location prior to sending commands to a fleet of UAVs (centralized control), which is contrary to the disclosure of the prior art of note, as Liu discloses that each UAV determines its own path based on a culmination of map data. Applicant is kindly invited to contact the examiner (preferably prior to a final rejection office action) with any comments or questions in the form of an interview, if so desired, to best promote compact prosecution.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 11 December 2025, received with RCE. Claims 1-10, 13-16, and 18-21 are pending and rejected, as described below. Claims 1 and 19-20 are independent claims. Claims 11-12 and 17 are canceled. Claim 21 is a new claim, dependent upon parent claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim language pertaining to “margin information” is interpreted broadly under the basis of understanding provided in paragraph [0148].
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: Claim 3 states "the margin information", but this term lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21: Claim 21 states "determining, based on the probability value for each grid cell, the probability value of the plurality of simulated UAV flight paths intersecting occupied volumes of the plurality of grid cells.", but since the step pertains to "determining the probability value of the plurality of simulated UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume of the plurality of grid cells", the examiner believes that the final limitation of claim 21 should instead recite "determining, based on the probability value for each grid cell, the probability value of the plurality of simulated UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume[[s]] of the plurality of grid cells."
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 3, 4, and 15 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 3, 4, and 15 recite a "margin". However, as applicant has removed (via amendment) the statement "a margin associated with the estimated surface altitude for each grid cell" from parent claim 1, the terms "margin" are no longer adequately supported by the parent claim. Each claim recites a (or "the") margin without disclosing what the margin is or pertains to. Therefore, the "margin" mentioned in these claims lacks an essential tie to understand the metes and bounds of the claim language. The term "margin" in claims 3, 4, and 15 renders the claims indefinite.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails 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.
In a best effort to promote compact prosecution, the examiner recommends re-adding the language “by a margin associated with the estimated surface altitude for each grid cell” to independent claims 1, 19, and 20 (but continuing to leave out the indefinite “sufficient margin” language previously noted).
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 1-10, 14-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0026720 A1; hereinafter Liu) in view of Moster et al. (US 2021/0358315 A1; hereinafter Moster) in further view of Prager et al. (US 2019/0197646 A1; published 27 Jun 2019, hereinafter Prager).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 19 (computing device apparatus), and 20 (non-transitory memory apparatus): Liu discloses A method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0058], Liu discloses a method) / A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and data storage including at least computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform functions comprising: (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0058, 0135-0144], Liu discloses a system containing a processor and memory) / A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform functions comprising: (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0058, 0135-0144], Liu discloses a system containing a tangible (non-transitory) computer readable memory)
determining an occupancy grid of an area for navigation for a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), wherein the occupancy grid comprises occupancy information and an estimated surface altitude for each grid cell of a plurality of grid cells in the area; (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0060, 0073, 0091, 0112] and Figure [10], Liu discloses building (determining) an elevation map from sensor data corresponding to surface heights of terrain. While the phraseology of “for navigation for a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) navigation” is intended use and isn’t afforded significant patentable weight, the disclosure of Liu is for UAV navigation. The examiner notes that the presence of terrain at heights within the grid constitutes an occupancy grid as the presence of terrain at a height is analogous to the space/grid being “occupied”, further each grid cell comprises data including the estimated surface altitude (see Fig. [10], for instance). Paragraph [0073] states "Systems and related methods are provided for building and maintaining elevation maps for a group of UAVs", paragraph [0112] states "a UAV determines its flight paths", and paragraph [0060] "The sharing of information by multiple UAVs may allow individual UAVs to navigate an environment". Reasonably, Liu discloses navigation for multiple/a group of/a fleet of UAVs)
determining, based on the occupancy grid, a candidate flyable airspace through which to permit the navigation for the fleet of UAVs, […]; (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0073] and Figure [11], Liu discloses building and maintaining elevation maps to keep track of objects in the airspace. The resulting airspace is considered “a candidate flyable airspace” as it provides an airspace for UAV navigation while avoiding objects. As noted above (and not repeated for brevity), this pertains to a plurality of UAVs)
determining a plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths through the candidate flyable airspace, wherein each UAV flight path of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths corresponds to a respective [simulated] UAV starting at a respective UAV [nest] of a plurality of UAV [nests] and [delivering] to a respective [delivery] location of a plurality of [delivery] locations; (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0093-0094, 0112], Liu discloses determining flight paths based on the elevation map. Liu discloses that each flight path pertains to navigation from a current location (a broader “nest”) to a target location (a broader “delivery location”))
determining, based on the occupancy grid, a probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting an occupied volume of the plurality of grid cells; (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0084-0086, 0093-0094, 0112], Liu discloses a confidence value (analogous to a probability value) associated with a risk of UAV crashing/colliding with an object of the cells and is used in the determination of flight paths)
determining whether the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume is below a threshold value; (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0084-0086], Liu discloses that a height estimate exceeds threshold value, indicating a low risk of collision)
based on determining that the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume is below the threshold value, validating the candidate flyable airspace for the fleet of UAVs; (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0068, 0073, 0084-0086, 0093, 0097], Liu discloses utilizing the threshold to avoid certain areas (such as the “red category” areas, thus “validating” a flight area that avoids the “red” areas). As the avoidance of low confidence areas is disclosed as being avoided, the resulting areas have a sufficient confidence (“margin”) for routing, ensuring safe and efficient operation)
based on the validated candidate flyable airspace, determining flight paths for the fleet of UAVs; and (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0002, 0059-0060, 0062, 0073, 0097, 0112], Liu discloses that the map is used to determine a flight path. Paragraph [0073] states "Systems and related methods are provided for building and maintaining elevation maps for a group of UAVs", paragraph [0112] states "a UAV determines its flight paths", and paragraph [0060] "The sharing of information by multiple UAVs may allow individual UAVs to navigate an environment". Thus, even in the event that each UAV determines its own flight path, this reasonably constitutes determining flight paths for the fleet of UAVs)
causing the fleet of UAVs to autonomously navigate the flight path. (per claims 1, 19-20) (Paragraph [0002, 0059-0060, 0062, 0073, 0097, 0112], Liu discloses that the map can be used to automatically determine a flight path and that the operation may be fully automated (autonomous) and as discussed above, discloses a plurality of UAVs performing navigation)
The difference between the invention disclosed by Liu and the invention claimed by the instant application therefore lies in the use of simulated flight paths and the addition of a more particular UAV nest (as a starting point) and delivery location (as a target ending point) to quantify the flight paths. The examiner submits that these two differences are obvious modifications of the disclosure of Liu.
First, regarding the simulated flight paths, Liu discloses that flight paths (plural) are determined and discloses estimating risks of collision (hypothetical scenarios based on predictive data, akin to a “simulation”). However, the determination of flight paths through simulation is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Moster, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches […] simulated UAV flight paths […] (Paragraph [0121], Moster teaches the simulation of UAV flight paths in an effort to reduce a likelihood of collision)
Liu and Moster are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Liu to include a step of simulation of flight paths (as taught by Moster). The explicit disclosure in Liu of establishing a risk of collision (Paragraph [0084], for instance) establishes a predictive element akin to a simulation. Put simply, establishing a “high risk of crashing” means that if the vehicle proceeds, collision may result (a predictive model akin to a simulation); explicitly utilizing a simulation is merely a more specific type of predictive model. The use of simulated flight paths is old and well-known; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a simulation element in order to reduce a likelihood of collision of the UAV with a physical object in reality (Paragraph [0121] of Moster).
Second, regarding a more particular UAV nest (as a starting point) and delivery location (as a target ending point) to quantify the flight paths, Liu discloses that each flight path has a generic “current location” and “target location” (corresponding to broader forms of “nests” and “delivery locations”, respectively). Merely changing the start and end point to be a more particular start and end point is an obvious modification of the disclosure of Liu.
However, Prager, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches UAV nests and delivery locations (Paragraph [0070, 0152], Prager teaches “navigate the UAV 200 to a target location (e.g., a delivery location)” (paragraph [0070]) and “a route from the UAV's starting location (e.g., a nest)” (paragraph [0152]). Thus, Prager teaches that a delivery location is merely a more specific “target location” and a nest is merely a more specific “starting location”)
Liu and Prager are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. 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 Liu to include more particular types of starting and ending locations, including nests and delivery locations, as taught by Prager, as these are merely obvious variants. Liu leaves the purpose of the UAVs and the starting and ending points generic so that they may be applicable to a wide array of situations. Merely applying the starting and ending points of Liu to a particular nest and delivery location, respectively, is an obvious variant of Liu with support shown from Prager that it was known in the art for an originating point of a UAV flight path to be a nest and a destination of a UAV flight path to be a delivery location. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found this to be an obvious variant of Liu in the interest of applying the general UAV disclosure of Liu to the more specific delivery UAV of Prager.
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the candidate flyable airspace comprises: determining, based on the occupancy grid, an estimated digital surface model comprising estimated altitudes. (Paragraph [0091-0092], The examiner is interpreting “estimated digital surface model” to include a digital model of estimate surface heights. Liu discloses creating a digital surface map/model of an environment)
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein the estimated digital surface model comprises one or more grid cells, wherein each cell is associated with an estimated altitude value at the grid cell, wherein each grid cell is associated with a margin value of the margin information. (Paragraph [0084, 0091-0092] and Figure [10-11], Liu discloses that the map comprises grid cells containing elevation data for each cell including the margin of error information)
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 3 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the probability value of [simulated] [examiner note: discussed in parent claim] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume comprises: (as discussed in the parent claim) determining, based on the occupancy grid, a probability value associated with each grid cell that an area at the grid cell is occupied at a height of the margin value above the estimated altitude value. (Paragraph [0084, 0091-0092, 0112] and Figure [10-11], Liu discloses that the map comprises grid cells containing elevation data for each cell including the margin of error information for detection at and above a terrain level)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the plurality of simulated UAV flight paths through the candidate flyable airspace (as discussed in the parent claim) is based on a plurality of starting areas and a plurality of delivery locations. (The examiner notes that “starting” and “delivery” areas are relative; a “starting” area may be a delivery area if the UAV is on its way back to a facility or to another delivery location. Thus, these terms are being interpreted broadly. Paragraph [0062, 0070, 0115-0116], Liu discloses a method of map building for guidance of a UAV through a plurality of paths; the flight paths contain a plurality of starting and target areas)
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses further comprising: based on determining that the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume is not below the threshold value, determining a new candidate flyable airspace and attempting to validate the new candidate flyable airspace; (Paragraph [0076, 0079, 0084-0086, 0095], Liu discloses that if the threshold indicates a higher risk of collision, that the UAV may avoid “red category” areas (thus, determining an airspace that no longer includes this area). Liu discloses that the process can be repeated)
determining a plurality of new [simulated] UAV flight paths through the candidate flyable airspace; (Paragraph [0076, 0079, 0093-0095, 0112], Liu discloses determining flight paths based on the elevation map and that the process can be repeated)
determining, based on the occupancy grid, a new probability value of the plurality of new [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting an occupied volume of the plurality of grid cells; (Paragraph [0076, 0079, 0093-0095, 0112], Liu discloses a confidence value (analogous to a probability value) associated with a risk of UAV crashing/colliding with an object of the cells and is used in the determination of flight paths and that the process can be repeated)
determining whether the new probability value of the plurality of new [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume is below a threshold value. (Paragraph [0076, 0079, 0084-0086, 0095], Liu discloses that a height estimate exceeds threshold value, indicating a low risk of collision and that the process can be repeated)
As noted in the parent claims, Liu discloses that flight paths (plural) are determined and discloses estimating risks of collision (hypothetical scenarios based on predictive data, akin to a “simulation”). However, the determination of flight paths through simulation is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Moster, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches […] simulated UAV flight paths […] (Paragraph [0121], Moster teaches the simulation of UAV flight paths in an effort to reduce a likelihood of collision)
Liu and Moster are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Liu to include a step of simulation of flight paths (as taught by Moster). The explicit disclosure in Liu of establishing a risk of collision (Paragraph [0084], for instance) establishes a predictive element akin to a simulation. Put simply, establishing a “high risk of crashing” means that if the vehicle proceeds, collision may result (a predictive model akin to a simulation); explicitly utilizing a simulation is merely a more specific type of predictive model. The use of simulated flight paths is old and well-known; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a simulation element in order to reduce a likelihood of collision of the UAV with a physical object in reality (Paragraph [0121] of Moster).
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] [examiner note: discussed in parent claim] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume (per the parent claim) is based on one or more probability values, wherein each probability value of the one or more probability values represents a probability that one or more grid cells in the area is occupied at a height below the occupied volume. (Paragraph [0084-0086, 0093], Liu discloses that confidence values impact the risk category of a certain area/grid (probability values pertaining to intersection with the ground or “crashing”))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume (per parent claims) comprises: determining one or more occupancy samples of the area; and (Paragraph [0059, 0084-0086, 0098, 0106-0108], Liu discloses that the area is sensed, the areas sensed are “samples”. As the UAV avoids “red category” areas, and the transmission of sensed data is continuous, the occupancy data pertaining to an area (a sample) is sent based on the probability values previously discussed)
determining the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume based on the one or more occupancy samples of the area. (Paragraph [0059, 0093-0094, 0112] and Claim [1], Liu discloses a confidence value (analogous to a probability value) associated with a risk of UAV crashing/colliding with an object of the cells based on collected data (occupancy samples) and is used in the determination of flight paths)
As noted in the parent claims, Liu discloses that flight paths (plural) are determined and discloses estimating risks of collision (hypothetical scenarios based on predictive data, akin to a “simulation”). However, the determination of flight paths through simulation is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Moster, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches […] simulated UAV flight paths […] (Paragraph [0121], Moster teaches the simulation of UAV flight paths in an effort to reduce a likelihood of collision)
Liu and Moster are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Liu to include a step of simulation of flight paths (as taught by Moster). The explicit disclosure in Liu of establishing a risk of collision (Paragraph [0084], for instance) establishes a predictive element akin to a simulation. Put simply, establishing a “high risk of crashing” means that if the vehicle proceeds, collision may result (a predictive model akin to a simulation); explicitly utilizing a simulation is merely a more specific type of predictive model. The use of simulated flight paths is old and well-known; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a simulation element in order to reduce a likelihood of collision of the UAV with a physical object in reality (Paragraph [0121] of Moster).
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 8 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein each occupancy sample of the one or more occupancy samples indicates whether an area of the occupancy sample is occupied. (Paragraph [0059, 0071], Liu discloses that the sensor detects objects (terrain); thus a detection indicates that an object (the ground) is present and that the area is then “occupied”)
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the probability value of the plurality of UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume is based on an assumption that an occupancy of a grid cell is independent of occupancy of other grid cells in the one or more grid cells. (The examiner notes that the claim terminology is unclear and that a best effort to determine meaning is made. Paragraph [0091-0092, 0096, 0101, 0106, 0111] and Figure [10-11], Liu discloses that grids pertain to specific unit areas and that regions may be distinct (non-overlapping). Thus, the unit areas are independent of the other unit areas)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the candidate flyable airspace comprises: determining an initial plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths through an initial candidate flyable airspace; (Paragraph [0076, 0079, 0093-0095, 0112], Liu discloses determining flight paths based on the elevation map and that the process can be repeated)
determining, based on the occupancy grid, an initial probability value of the initial plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume of the plurality of grid cells; (Paragraph [0076, 0079, 0093-0095, 0112], Liu discloses a confidence value (analogous to a probability value) associated with a risk of UAV crashing/colliding with an object of the cells and is used in the determination of flight paths and that the process can be repeated)
based on determining that the initial probability value of the initial plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume is above the threshold value, adjusting the initial candidate flyable airspace to be the candidate flyable airspace. (Paragraph [0074, 0076, 0079, 0084-0086, 0095, 0108, 0110], Liu discloses that if the threshold indicates a higher risk of collision, that the UAV may avoid “red category” areas (thus, adjusting the candidate airspace to no longer include this area). Further, data may be updated during flight (“The UAV can also update its maps for specific coordinates based on new data generated by it sensors or obtained from other sources at any time.”) to continue to avoid red areas)
As noted in the parent claims, Liu discloses that flight paths (plural) are determined and discloses estimating risks of collision (hypothetical scenarios based on predictive data, akin to a “simulation”). However, the determination of flight paths through simulation is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Moster, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches […] simulated UAV flight paths […] (Paragraph [0121], Moster teaches the simulation of UAV flight paths in an effort to reduce a likelihood of collision)
Liu and Moster are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Liu to include a step of simulation of flight paths (as taught by Moster). The explicit disclosure in Liu of establishing a risk of collision (Paragraph [0084], for instance) establishes a predictive element akin to a simulation. Put simply, establishing a “high risk of crashing” means that if the vehicle proceeds, collision may result (a predictive model akin to a simulation); explicitly utilizing a simulation is merely a more specific type of predictive model. The use of simulated flight paths is old and well-known; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a simulation element in order to reduce a likelihood of collision of the UAV with a physical object in reality (Paragraph [0121] of Moster).
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 14 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein the initial candidate flyable airspace is based on estimated altitude information and margin information, adjusting the initial candidate flyable airspace to be the candidate flyable airspace comprises adjusting the estimated altitude information or the margin information. (Paragraph [0070, 0084-0086, 0094], Liu discloses obtaining an altitude and corresponding confidence (estimated altitude) and margin of error. Further, Li discloses that if the threshold indicates a higher risk of collision, that the UAV may avoid “red category” areas (thus, adjusting the candidate airspace to no longer include this area))
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the plurality of [simulated] [examiner note: see parent claims] UAV flight paths through the candidate flyable airspace (per parent claims) comprises: verifying that the candidate flyable airspace was determined less than a threshold amount of time ago; and based on the verifying, determining the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths through the candidate flyable airspace. (Paragraph [0095, 0102-0106], Liu discloses including time decay as a consideration in data; the system may remove data from entries associated with old timestamps for navigation in accordance with the parent claim)
As noted in the parent claims, Liu discloses that flight paths (plural) are determined and discloses estimating risks of collision (hypothetical scenarios based on predictive data, akin to a “simulation”). However, the determination of flight paths through simulation is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Moster, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches […] simulated UAV flight paths […] (Paragraph [0121], Moster teaches the simulation of UAV flight paths in an effort to reduce a likelihood of collision)
Liu and Moster are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Liu to include a step of simulation of flight paths (as taught by Moster). The explicit disclosure in Liu of establishing a risk of collision (Paragraph [0084], for instance) establishes a predictive element akin to a simulation. Put simply, establishing a “high risk of crashing” means that if the vehicle proceeds, collision may result (a predictive model akin to a simulation); explicitly utilizing a simulation is merely a more specific type of predictive model. The use of simulated flight paths is old and well-known; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a simulation element in order to reduce a likelihood of collision of the UAV with a physical object in reality (Paragraph [0121] of Moster).
Regarding claim 18: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the occupancy grid of the area is based on sensor data from a fleet of UAVs. (Paragraph [0068, 0073-0075], Liu discloses that the map may include data collected by one or more UAVs)
Regarding claim 21: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as discussed above. Liu further discloses wherein determining the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume of the plurality of grid cells comprises: determining, for each grid cell of the plurality of grid cells and based on the occupancy grid, a probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting the occupied volume of the grid cell; and (Paragraph [0084-0086, 0091, 0093-0095] and Figure [10], Liu discloses establishing risk of collision (probability value) for each of the unit areas (each grid cell). “For each of the identified 2D coordinate, in steps 1320 and 1330, the UAV computes a surface height and assigns one or more confidence indicators corresponding to the surface height for the 2D coordinate” (paragraph [0095]). “the UAV can compute an estimate of the surface height for a 2D coordinate corresponding to each of the unit areas, such as 10.0 for the unit area 1012, and a category associated with the estimate of the surface height, such as a maximum value for the surface height” (paragraph [0091]). “This category generally signals the presence of an obstacle at the estimated surface height and possible at higher heights, and thus a high risk of crashing into an obstacle near the estimated surface height” (paragraph [0084]))
determining, based on the probability value for each grid cell, the probability value of the plurality of [simulated] UAV flight paths intersecting occupied volumes of the plurality of grid cells. (Paragraph [0084-0086, 0093-0094, 0112], Liu discloses a confidence value (analogous to a probability value) associated with a risk of UAV crashing/colliding with an object of the cells and is used in the determination of flight paths. The probability/risk of collision is based on analysis for each grid cell)
As noted in the parent claims, Liu discloses that flight paths (plural) are determined and discloses estimating risks of collision (hypothetical scenarios based on predictive data, akin to a “simulation”). However, the determination of flight paths through simulation is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Moster, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches […] simulated UAV flight paths […] (Paragraph [0121], Moster teaches the simulation of UAV flight paths in an effort to reduce a likelihood of collision)
Liu and Moster are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Liu to include a step of simulation of flight paths (as taught by Moster). The explicit disclosure in Liu of establishing a risk of collision (Paragraph [0084], for instance) establishes a predictive element akin to a simulation. Put simply, establishing a “high risk of crashing” means that if the vehicle proceeds, collision may result (a predictive model akin to a simulation); explicitly utilizing a simulation is merely a more specific type of predictive model. The use of simulated flight paths is old and well-known; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to utilize a simulation element in order to reduce a likelihood of collision of the UAV with a physical object in reality (Paragraph [0121] of Moster).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Moster in further view of Prager in further view of Graetz et al. (US 2019/0054937 A1; hereinafter Graetz).
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Moster, and Prager, as described above. Liu does not explicitly disclose utilizing a Monte-Carlo simulation to determine a probability of intersection.
However, Graetz, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation, teaches wherein determining, based on the occupancy grid, a probability value of the plurality of simulated UAV flight paths intersecting an occupied volume (per parent claims) is based on executing a Monte-Carlo simulation over the plurality of UAV flight paths. (Paragraph [0182], Graetz teaches use of a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate a probability of air collision)
Liu and Graetz are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV navigation. 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 Liu to utilize a Monte-Carlo simulation, as the use of a Monte-Carlo simulation is well known in the art, and may be used as a predictive tool to estimate a risk for mid-air collision (Paragraph [0182]).
Conclusion
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