DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22204470.3, filed on 10/28/2022.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/15/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant: (i) Claims 1-2 and 5-13 are amended; (ii) Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are cancelled; and (iii) Claims 16-24 are new. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 16-24 are pending examination, in which Claims 1, 16 and 22 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-2, 5-13 and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended Claim 1 to include the additional underlined limitations: " step b) pre-planning a flight trajectory to a first entry point of the at least one entry point and pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site…step g) if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site.";;
“In the interest of advancing prosecution and without conceding the propriety of the rejection, claim 1 is amended to recite "pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site" and "if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site." Support for this amendment can be found throughout Applicant's application including original claims 1, 3, and 4, FIG. 1 of the drawings, and paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0035], and [0042] through [0045] of the specification... It is respectfully submitted that neither the cited portions of Canoy and Bosworth, nor elsewhere in these references, discloses, teaches, or in any way suggests the subject matter of amended claim 1.”;
“Neither of these cited portions of Bosworth is the same as "pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site" and "if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Bosworth does not disclose, teach, or in any way suggest the subject matter of claim 1, particularly as amended.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Canoy (US 10,061,328 B2), henceforth Canoy, and Ortlieb (DE 102020126689 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Canoy recites the limitations: a method of controlling an aircraft, said aircraft operating in a network of landing platforms {“methods for controlling landings of a UAV in a landing zone including a plurality of landing bays”, Abstract, and 110a-f, Fig. 1}, the method comprising: step a) defining an alternate landing area {704, Fig. 7: “detecting an alternative target landing bay”, and “performing the exception-handling operations may include detecting an alternative target landing bay from the plurality of landing bays within the landing zone that is available for landing based on the continuous real-time sensor data…performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} having at least one entry point and at least one exit point {with regard to Fig. 3C, the top and bottom perimeters of landing bay 330b can be considered as an entry and exit, respectively, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; step b) pre-planning {“automated re-routing routines”, Col., 25, Lns. 53-54} a flight trajectory to a first entry point of the at least one entry point {“calculating an alternative orientation and alternative position coordinates for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the continuous real-time sensor data,”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48}; step c) automatically steering the aircraft {controlled landing of autonomous UAV: “Various embodiments provide methods, devices, systems, and non-transitory process-readable storage media for safely controlling landing of an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in a landing zone including a plurality of landing bays”, Col. 1, Lns. 35-39} along the flight trajectory {“adjusting the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the alternative orientation, the alternative position coordinates, and the current orientation and position of the UAV”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48}; step d) performing a landing procedure at the alternate landing area {“performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} by transferring control of the aircraft to an online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software: “the processor 230 may be configured to monitor and control various functionalities of the UAV 130a, such as any combination of modules, software, instructions, circuitry, hardware, etc. related to propulsion, navigation, power management, exception-detection/handling, sensor management, and/or stability management.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37} upon reaching the first entry point {420, Fig. 4: “At target landing bay?”}; step e) automatically scanning the one of the alternate landing area and searching the alternate landing area for a suitable landing site for the aircraft {“detecting an alternative target landing bay from the plurality of landing bays within the landing zone that is available for landing based on the continuous real-time sensor data, calculating an alternative orientation and alternative position coordinates for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the continuous real-time sensor data,”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} using active sensors {“receiving continuous real-time sensor data from a transceiver and from sensors onboard the UAV”, Abstract; variety of sensors: Col. 11, Lns. 50-67}; step f) if the suitable landing site or the aircraft is identified {detecting alternative landing bay, 704 - Fig. 7, or receiving new landing bay assignment from server, 716 - Fig. 7 (via online assistance 710 & 712)}, automatically carrying out the landing procedure of the aircraft at the suitable landing site {landing steps 420, 422 and 424, Fig. 4} by the online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37}.
Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site; and step g) if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site.
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitations: pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site {“FIG. 4 shows a graphical representation of a mission planning for an aerial vehicle with nominal starting and target sites NP with an associated nominal trajectory NT, which connects the mentioned starting and target sites NP. Also shown are emergency or contingency trajectories CT to alternate landing sites AP, only some of which contingency trajectories CT are denoted in FIG. 4.”, Pg. 25, Lns. 7-10}; and step g) if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site {the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below corresponds to the aircraft heading towards a target site (NP) changing trajectory to head to a first alternate landing site (AP), but entering and then leaving that landing area, and proceeding to a second alternate landing site via a
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contingency trajectory (CT)}.
Canoy and Ortlieb are analogous art because they both deal with controlling the flight of drone-type vehicles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Canoy and Ortlieb before them, to modify the teachings of Canoy to include the teachings of Ortlieb to facilitate landing a drone-type vehicle during an emergency {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Canoy explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein obstacles in a vicinity of or within the alternate landing area are detected by the active sensors and automatically avoided {“identifying the exception condition based on the continuous real-time sensor data may include determining that the target landing bay is obstructed based on the continuous real-time sensor data, and wherein halting performance of the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay in response to identifying the exception condition may include halting the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay in response to determining that the target landing bay is obstructed”, Col. 2, Ln. 61 to Col. 3 Ln. 2}.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Canoy explicitly discloses the limitation: further comprising performing the step g) if one or more of [:] during the searching no landing site is found and a remaining flight time of the aircraft falls below a critical value {the ability to land at an alternative landing sites (i.e., landing bay) is represented by 704 in Fig. 7, and to do so in the case of an emergency is described in Col. 17, Lns. 8-16: “”in some scenarios, due to emergency landings or an “open reservation policy” of the multi-bay landing zone (e.g., first-come, first-server), UAVs may be required to perform searching for open/available landing bays in order to land after a mission has been completed. In such cases (e.g., when there is no assigned landing bay associated with the UAV), the detection operations may include selecting one of a plurality of landing bays depicted within the continuous real-time sensor data.”}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the exit point is a nearest exit point to the alternate landing site than other exit points of the alternate landing area.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the exit point is a nearest exit point to the alternate landing site than other exit points of the alternate landing area {with regard to the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below, the flight path leaves the first alternate landing site (AP) soon after entering, but one skilled in the art will appreciate that the exit point from this first alternate landing spot - before heading to the second alternate landing spot - could be on the opposite side of the landing site, for example, to give the aircraft more flight time within the alternate landing area}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Canoy further explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising monitoring an operation of the aircraft {“identifying the exception condition based on the continuous real-time sensor data and the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay may include continuously monitoring positions and flight vectors”, Col. 3, Lns. 13-16} at least during step e) through the step g) during an online planning phase in a vicinity of or within the alternate landing area by a person on board the aircraft or by a remote operator controlling the aircraft from a ground-based control station, said ground-based control station {remote server 150, Fig. 1} communicating with the aircraft via a data link{network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1}, and the person or the remote operator acts as pilot-in-command of the aircraft {remote support by a human operator: “the UAV may generate an exception causing an exception-handling system to route an assistance request message to a remote support source. For example, the UAV may send a help request to a human operator (i.e., a remote pilot) to take over a landing”, Col. 7, Lns. 21-26}.
Regarding Claim 16, Canoy recites the limitations: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions {types of suitable hardware and software in Col. 28, Lns. 3-52} , that when executed, cause at least one device to control an aircraft operating in a network of landing platforms {“methods for controlling landings of a UAV in a landing zone including a plurality of landing bays”, Abstract, and 110a-f, Fig. 1} by performing operations including: defining an alternate landing area {704, Fig. 7: “detecting an alternative target landing bay”, and “performing the exception-handling operations may include detecting an alternative target landing bay from the plurality of landing bays within the landing zone that is available for landing based on the continuous real-time sensor data…performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} having at least one entry point and at least one exit point {with regard to Fig. 3C, the top and bottom perimeters of landing bay 330b can be considered as an entry and exit, respectively, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; pre-planning {“automated re-routing routines”, Col., 25, Lns. 53-54} a flight trajectory to the entry point of the alternate landing area {“calculating an alternative orientation and alternative position coordinates for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the continuous real-time sensor data,”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48}; automatically steering the aircraft {controlled landing of autonomous UAV: “Various embodiments provide methods, devices, systems, and non-transitory process-readable storage media for safely controlling landing of an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in a landing zone including a plurality of landing bays”, Col. 1, Lns. 35-39} along the flight trajectory {“adjusting the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the alternative orientation, the alternative position coordinates, and the current orientation and position of the UAV”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48}; performing a landing procedure at the alternate landing area {“performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} by transferring control of the aircraft to an online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software: “the processor 230 may be configured to monitor and control various functionalities of the UAV 130a, such as any combination of modules, software, instructions, circuitry, hardware, etc. related to propulsion, navigation, power management, exception-detection/handling, sensor management, and/or stability management.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37} upon reaching the first entry point {420, Fig. 4: “At target landing bay?”}; automatically scanning the one of the alternate landing area and searching the alternate landing area for a suitable landing site for the aircraft {“detecting an alternative target landing bay from the plurality of landing bays within the landing zone that is available for landing based on the continuous real-time sensor data, calculating an alternative orientation and alternative position coordinates for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the continuous real-time sensor data,”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} using active sensors {“receiving continuous real-time sensor data from a transceiver and from sensors onboard the UAV”, Abstract; variety of sensors: Col. 11, Lns. 50-67}; if the suitable landing site or the aircraft is identified {detecting alternative landing bay, 704 - Fig. 7, or receiving new landing bay assignment from server, 716 - Fig. 7 (via online assistance 710 & 712)}, automatically carrying out the landing procedure of the aircraft at the suitable landing site {landing steps 420, 422 and 424, Fig. 4} by the online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37}.
Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site; and if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the exit point towards the alternate landing site.
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitations: pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site {“Fig. 4 shows a graphical representation of a mission plan for an aircraft with nominal starting and target locations NP with an associated nominal trajectory NT, which connects the named starting and target locations NP. Also shown are emergency or contingency trajectories CT to alternate landing sites AP, which contingency trajectories CT in Fig. 4 are only partially indicated.”, Pg. 25, Lns. 7-10}; and if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the exit point towards the alternate landing site {the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below corresponds to the aircraft heading towards a target site (NP) changing trajectory to head to a first alternate landing site (AP), but entering and then leaving that landing area, and proceeding to a second alternate landing site via a contingency trajectory (CT)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein the exit point is selected from a plurality of exit points of the alternate landing area when pre-planning the emergency flight trajectory based on the exit point being a nearest exit point to the alternate landing site than other exit points from the plurality of exit points.
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the exit point is selected from a plurality of exit points of the alternate landing area when pre-planning the emergency flight trajectory based on the exit point being a nearest exit point to the alternate landing site than other exit points from the plurality of exit points {with regard to the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below, the flight path leaves the first alternate landing site (AP) soon after entering, but one skilled in the art will appreciate that the exit point from this first alternate landing spot - before heading to the second alternate landing spot - could be on the opposite side of the landing site (i.e., the perimeter of the first alternate landing site provides a plurality of exit points); to, for example, give the aircraft more flight time within the alternate landing area}.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Canoy explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein the exit point is different than the entry point {with regard to Fig. 3C, the top and bottom perimeters of landing bay 330b can be considered as an entry and exit, respectively, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Canoy explicitly discloses the limitation: the operations further comprising: automatically steering the aircraft to the exit point of the alternate landing area if one or more of during the searching[:] no landing site is found and a remaining flight time of the aircraft falls below a critical value {the ability to land at an alternative landing sites (i.e., landing bay) is represented by 704 in Fig. 7, and to do so in the case of an emergency is described in Col. 17, Lns. 8-16: “”in some scenarios, due to emergency landings or an “open reservation policy” of the multi-bay landing zone (e.g., first-come, first-server), UAVs may be required to perform searching for open/available landing bays in order to land after a mission has been completed. In such cases (e.g., when there is no assigned landing bay associated with the UAV), the detection operations may include selecting one of a plurality of landing bays depicted within the continuous real-time sensor data.”}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: the operations further comprising: after automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically landing the aircraft at the alternate landing site.
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitations: operations further comprising: after automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically landing the aircraft at the alternate landing site {the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below corresponds to the aircraft heading towards a target site (NP) changing trajectory to head to a first alternate landing site (AP), but entering and then leaving that landing area, and proceeding to a second alternate landing site via a contingency trajectory (CT)}.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Canoy explicitly discloses the limitation: wherein obstacles in a vicinity of or within the alternate landing area are detected by the active sensors and automatically avoided {“identifying the exception condition based on the continuous real-time sensor data may include determining that the target landing bay is obstructed based on the continuous real-time sensor data, and wherein halting performance of the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay in response to identifying the exception condition may include halting the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay in response to determining that the target landing bay is obstructed”, Col. 2, Ln. 61 to Col. 3 Ln. 2}.
Regarding Claim 22, Canoy recites the limitations: a flight control system for an aircraft operating in a network of landing platforms {“methods for controlling landings of a UAV in a landing zone including a plurality of landing bays”, Abstract, and 110a-f, Fig. 1}, the flight control system including an online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software: “the processor 230 may be configured to monitor and control various functionalities of the UAV 130a, such as any combination of modules, software, instructions, circuitry, hardware, etc. related to propulsion, navigation, power management, exception-detection/handling, sensor management, and/or stability management.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37} and active sensors {“receiving continuous real-time sensor data from a transceiver and from sensors onboard the UAV”, Abstract; variety of sensors: Col. 11, Lns. 50-67}, and operable to perform operations {types of suitable hardware and software in Col. 28, Lns. 3-52} including: step a) defining an alternate landing area {704, Fig. 7: “detecting an alternative target landing bay”, and “performing the exception-handling operations may include detecting an alternative target landing bay from the plurality of landing bays within the landing zone that is available for landing based on the continuous real-time sensor data…performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} having at least one entry point and at least one exit point {with regard to Fig. 3C, the top and bottom perimeters of landing bay 330b can be considered as an entry and exit, respectively, as will be appreciated by one skilled in the art}; step b) pre-planning {“automated re-routing routines”, Col., 25, Lns. 53-54} a flight trajectory to a first entry point of the at least one entry point {“calculating an alternative orientation and alternative position coordinates for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the continuous real-time sensor data,”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48}; step c) automatically steering the aircraft {controlled landing of autonomous UAV: “Various embodiments provide methods, devices, systems, and non-transitory process-readable storage media for safely controlling landing of an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in a landing zone including a plurality of landing bays”, Col. 1, Lns. 35-39} along the flight trajectory {“adjusting the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the alternative orientation, the alternative position coordinates, and the current orientation and position of the UAV”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48}; step d) performing a landing procedure at the alternate landing area {“performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} by transferring control of the aircraft to an online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software: “the processor 230 may be configured to monitor and control various functionalities of the UAV 130a, such as any combination of modules, software, instructions, circuitry, hardware, etc. related to propulsion, navigation, power management, exception-detection/handling, sensor management, and/or stability management.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37} upon reaching the first entry point {420, Fig. 4: “At target landing bay?”}; step e) automatically scanning the one of the alternate landing area and searching the alternate landing area for a suitable landing site for the aircraft {“detecting an alternative target landing bay from the plurality of landing bays within the landing zone that is available for landing based on the continuous real-time sensor data, calculating an alternative orientation and alternative position coordinates for landing in the alternative target landing bay based on the continuous real-time sensor data,”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} using active sensors {“receiving continuous real-time sensor data from a transceiver and from sensors onboard the UAV”, Abstract; variety of sensors: Col. 11, Lns. 50-67}; step f) if the suitable landing site or the aircraft is identified {detecting alternative landing bay, 704 - Fig. 7, or receiving new landing bay assignment from server, 716 - Fig. 7 (via online assistance 710 & 712)}, automatically carrying out the landing procedure of the aircraft at the suitable landing site {landing steps 420, 422 and 424, Fig. 4} by the online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37}.
Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site; and step g) if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site.
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitations: pre-planning an emergency flight trajectory from a first exit point of the at least one exit point to an alternate landing site {“Fig. 4 shows a graphical representation of a mission plan for an aircraft with nominal starting and target locations NP with an associated nominal trajectory NT, which connects the named starting and target locations NP. Also shown are emergency or contingency trajectories CT to alternate landing sites AP, which contingency trajectories CT in Fig. 4 are only partially indicated.”, Pg. 25, Lns. 7-10}; and step g) if the suitable landing site is not identified, automatically steering the aircraft to the first exit point by automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory by exiting the alternate landing area from the first exit point towards the alternate landing site {the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below corresponds to the aircraft heading towards a target site (NP) changing trajectory to head to a first alternate landing site (AP), but entering and then leaving that landing area, and proceeding to a second alternate landing site via a
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
contingency trajectory (CT)}.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 22, as discussed supra. In addition, Canoy explicitly discloses the limitation: further including: a pre-planning device adapted to perform the step a) and the step b); and a flight controller adapted to perform the step c) and the step d), wherein the online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1} is configured to perform the step e), the step f), and the step g) {as described in Col. 11, Lns. 28-41 and Col. 12, Lns. 7-18 (and represented in Fig. 2) UAV 130 includes multiple processors and modules “configured to monitor and control the various functionalities, subsystems, and/or other components of the UAV 130….such as any combination of modules, software, instructions, circuitry, hardware, etc. related to propulsion, navigation, power management, exception-detection/handling, sensor management, and/or stability management”; one skilled in the art will appreciate that the use of different processors/modules/control-units to carry out different (but complementary) sets of instructions/algorithms is well known in the art.}
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 22, as discussed supra. Canoy does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the exit point is selected from a plurality of exit points of the alternate landing area when pre-planning the emergency flight trajectory based on the exit point being a nearest exit point to the alternate landing site than other exit points from the plurality of exit points, and the exit point is different than the entry point.
However, Ortlieb explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the exit point is selected from a plurality of exit points of the alternate landing area when pre-planning the emergency flight trajectory based on the exit point being a nearest exit point to the alternate landing site than other exit points from the plurality of exit points, and the exit point is different than the entry point {with regard to the red flight path added to Fig. 4 below, the flight path leaves the first alternate landing site (AP) soon after entering, but one skilled in the art will appreciate that the exit point from this first alternate landing spot - before heading to the second alternate landing spot - could be on the opposite side of the landing site, for example, to give the aircraft more flight time within the alternate landing area}.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Canoy, Ortlieb and Bosworth (US 10,599,138 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 7, as discussed supra. The combination of Canoy, Ortlieb does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein in an event of a malfunction of the aircraft, the method further includes automatically performing the step g) in response to the pilot-in-command terminating the landing procedure to indicate the suitable landing site is not identified.
However, Bosworth explicitly recites the limitations: wherein in an event of a malfunction of the aircraft, the method further includes automatically {controlled landing of autonomous UAV, Col. 1, Lns. 35-39} performing the step g) in response to the pilot-in-command terminating the landing procedure to indicate the suitable landing site {with regard to Fig. 3b, the determination of alternative landing zones 228, 306 and 308 when zone 304 is unsafe for landing} is not identified automatically steering the aircraft along the emergency flight trajectory to the alternate landing site {with regard to Figs. 3a-3b, landing within zone 302 can be aborted and the aircraft can proceed to 228: “If the operator chooses to abort the mission (explicitly or by failure to act), the aircraft 102 may be directed to a hold-off point 228, or an egress point 310, which will ultimately direct the aircraft 102 to navigate to a predetermined point, such as the initial point 220”, Col. 12, Lns. 59-64}.
The combination of references Canoy and Ortlieb along with Bosworth are analogous art because they involve identifying alternative landing sites for aircraft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Canoy, Ortlieb and Bosworth before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb to include the teachings of Bosworth to provide multiple alternative landing spots within an alternative landing area {Fig. 3b}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Canoy, Ortlieb and Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 8, as discussed supra. The combination of Canoy and Ortlieb does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: wherein, in an event of surveillance by a person on board the aircraft, effecting termination by actuation of a dedicated human-machine interface on board the aircraft.
However, Bosworth explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, in an event of surveillance by a person on board the aircraft, effecting termination by actuation of a dedicated human-machine interface on board the aircraft {since the aircraft 102 includes a “piloted flight mode” in addition to autonomous and supervisory flight modes, Col. 11, Lns. 12-14, the flight trajectory options in Figs. 3a-3c can all be performed by the pilot, including aborting landing in the unprepared zone}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Canoy and Ortlieb discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Canoy and Ortlieb does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising determining a further alternate landing area by an unmanned aerial vehicle or by a ground crew and transmitting the further alternate landing area as suitable data to the aircraft.
However, Bosworth explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising determining a further alternate landing area by an unmanned aerial vehicle or by a ground crew {ground station and ground crew: “monitored and supervised through a ground control station with mission planning capabilities from a remote operations center”, Col. 10, Lns. 40-44, and communication/management system: “The mission manager 808 may be configured to send data reflecting the mission payload 830, countermeasures 832, and/or other data to a ground crew 834 (e.g., a HSI device 514, a cargo system, auxiliary system, etc.), or another system 836 (e.g., a medical system). Similarly, the mission manager 808 may be configured to receive data from sensors indicating a ground threat 820, or a casualty 818.”, Col. 20, Lns. 26-36} and transmitting the further alternate landing area as suitable data to the aircraft {landing zone 308, in Fig. 3a, is chosen by a flight operator, which given the aircraft is semi- or fully autonomous, Col. 1, Lns. 35-39, the flight operator can be ground station personnel or the ground crew 834}.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Canoy, Ortlieb and Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 10, as discussed supra. Canoy further explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising, with the aircraft already on approach in accordance with the step c), executing an approach to a respective entry point of the further alternate landing area {“performing the flight plan for landing in the alternative target landing bay.”, Col. 2, Lns. 36-48} by the online planning device {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1, and flight control hardware and software, Col. 11, Lns. 32-37; also, detection of alternative landing bay 704, Fig. 7}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Canoy, Ortlieb and Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. Canoy further explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising monitoring an operation of the aircraft at least during the step e) through the step g) during an online planning phase in a vicinity of or within the alternate landing area {landing in either a planned spot or alternative spot always involves monitoring the spot to identify other aircraft or obstacles: “identifying the exception condition based on the continuous real-time sensor data may include determining that the target landing bay is obstructed based on the continuous real-time sensor data”, Col. 2, Lns. 61-65} by a person on board the aircraft or by a remote operator controlling the aircraft from a ground-based control station, said ground-based control station {remote operator: “the UAV may change a related flight path, halt the execution of a flight plan, and/or signal for pilot assistance and await remote pilot commands. By using a system that provides versatility in identifying position and orientation of landing bays, executing real-time adjustments, and performing fallback procedures in exception conditions,.”, Col. 5, Ln. 66 to Col. 6, Ln. 4} communicating with the aircraft via a data link {network 115 and remote server 150 are in wireless communication 131 with UAV 130a in Fig. 1}, and the person or the remote operator acts as pilot-in-command of the aircraft, and surveillance by the pilot-in-command is extended to an approach to the respective entry point of the further alternate landing area {remote operator and operation: “the UAV may generate an exception causing an exception-handling system to route an assistance request message to a remote support source. For example, the UAV may send a help request to a human operator (i.e., a remote pilot) to take over a landing”, Col. 7, Lns. 21-26}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Canoy, Ortlieb and Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 12, as discussed supra. The combination of Canoy and Ortlieb does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising the ground crew determining additional on-site information on topography and condition of the alternate landing area and transmitting said additional on-site information to the aircraft as suitable data to facilitate the searching the alternate landing area for the suitable landing site.
However, Bosworth explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising the ground crew determining additional on-site information on topography and condition of the alternate landing area {ground station and ground crew: “monitored and supervised through a ground control station with mission planning capabilities from a remote operations center”, Col. 10, Lns. 40-44, and communication/management system: “The mission manager 808 may be configured to send data reflecting the mission payload 830, countermeasures 832, and/or other data to a ground crew 834 (e.g., a HSI device 514, a cargo system, auxiliary system, etc.), or another system 836 (e.g., a medical system). Similarly, the mission manager 808 may be configured to receive data from sensors indicating a ground threat 820, or a casualty 818.”, Col. 20, Lns. 26-36} and transmitting said additional on-site information to the aircraft as suitable data to facilitate the searching the alternate landing area for the suitable landing site {landing zone 308, in Fig. 3a, is chosen by a flight operator, which given the aircraft is semi- or fully autonomous, Col. 1, Lns. 35-39, the flight operator can be ground station personnel or the ground crew 834}.
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 RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665