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.
Response to Amendment/Remarks/Arguments
The examiner received amendments to the specification (including drawings) and claims with corresponding arguments/remarks on 05 September 2025 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 05 June 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding specification objections, the examiner notes that amendments have corrected the noted informalities. All outstanding objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the examiner notes that the applicant has amended the claim terminology per the examiner’s suggestion. The claim is now definite; all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner notes that the claims positively recite control of the UAV, at least amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
The examiner greatly appreciates the above-noted corrections and efforts to advance case prosecution.
Regarding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot due to amendments made to the claims. The examiner performed additional search and consideration and ultimately determined that the amended limitations of the independent claims merely recite an obvious design choice variation of the primary art of note. As previously discussed in the interview dated 16 July 2025, the examiner appreciates that further clarifying information was provided regarding the determination of the particular form of the volume, but mere reliance upon a generic aircraft parameter allows other art of note to continue to read upon the claim set, furthering the examiner’s determination that not only is the shape of the zone an obvious design choice, but a choice that was also known in the art at the time of effective filing. While the examiner agrees that the claims are no longer anticipated (alone) by prior art of note (35 U.S.C. 102), the arguments are not found persuasive as the examiner has determined that the amended claims are obvious/unpatentable over the prior art noted below. New grounds of rejections, necessitated by claim amendment, can be found below.
Additionally, the examiner notes that further consideration was given to the claim set and notes that the examiner currently believes that the “aircraft type” is generally known, but may also fall into the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).III. terminology. Consideration by the applicant moving forward is respectfully requested.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 05 September 2025. Claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-22 are pending. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 4-22 are rejected for the reasons provided below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
"Aircraft parameter" is described in paragraph [0032] in merely an exemplary manner. "The at least one aircraft parameter may include dynamic information (e.g., information that may change while in the airspace) about the aircraft, such as velocity, heading, and/or altitude, and/or static information (e.g., information that may remain constraint while in the airspace) about the aircraft, such as aircraft identifiers, aircraft type/configuration, tail number, and/or flight history." Therefore, unless specifically described in another manner, the examiner is interpreting this phrase broadly to include any information regarding the aircraft, including its position.
“Initial volume” is described in an exemplary manner in paragraph [0032, 0123] as a volume representing a zone of uncertainty regarding the position of the aircraft around the current position of the aircraft, or in paragraph [0117] as merely having dimensions within which a traffic conflict would be defined. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting this term broadly to include any volume of 3D space.
“Extended volume” is described in paragraph [0032] in merely an exemplary manner. “The extended volume may represent a zone around the predicted future trajectory that allots for a level of uncertainty of an aircraft's position while flying in the airspace.” Therefore, unless described explicitly in another manner, the examiner is interpreting this term broadly to include any volume of 3D space.
“Composite extended volume” is described in paragraph [0032] in merely an exemplary manner. “Each of the extended volumes may be compiled to form a composite extended volume space that accounts for the predicted future trajectory of each aircraft operating within the airspace.” As noted in the specification and claims, the composite space pertains to one or more aircraft. Therefore, in the event that only one aircraft is present, the examiner is interpreting the “extended volume” to also be the “composite extended volume”.
Regarding “reservation time”, the examiner notes that “reservation” is described in an exemplary manner in paragraph [0132] as merely a time-dependent/temporal element to the volumes. By description in paragraph [0133], particularly through “If the planned flight path of the UAV intersects with one or more temporary airspace reservations (e.g., at least one extended volume space), a predicted traffic encounter (e.g., a conflict) may be determined.”, the examiner is merely interpreting “reservation time” to merely recite that the volumes contain a temporal aspect and that any time-based establishment/removal reads upon the claim language.
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, 11, 15-16, 19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller et al. (US 2018/0308370 A1; hereinafter Buchmueller) in view of Coulmeau et al. (US 2010/0100308 A1; hereinafter Coulmeau).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 21 (system), and 22 (non-transitory memory): Buchmueller discloses A method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0089-0094], Figure [9], and Claim [1], Buchmueller discloses a process/method) / A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory data storage storing program instructions executable by the processor to carry out operations comprising: (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0043-0044], Figure [3], and Claim [15], Buchmueller discloses a system comprising a processor and memory containing instructions) / A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions executable by a processor of a device to cause the device to carry out operations comprising: (per claim 22) (Paragraph [0021, 0043-0044], Figure [3], and Claim [8, 15], Buchmueller discloses memory containing instructions)
receiving data for one or more aircraft currently flying within an airspace, wherein the received data comprises, for each of the one or more aircraft, a current position and at least one aircraft parameter; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (The examiner notes that recitation of “one or more” indicates that only one is necessary to read upon the claim language. Additionally, “at least one aircraft parameter” is broad per the above claim interpretation; unless the claim is specific as to what constitutes the “parameter”, any data may read upon this claim, including position, as position may reasonably be an “aircraft parameter”. Paragraph [0020, 0023, 0049, 0053, 0060] and Figure [9], Buchmueller discloses obtaining information regarding object characteristics, including position, trajectory, speed, type of aircraft, orientation, etc.)
determining, based on the current position and the at least one aircraft parameter, an initial volume for each of the one or more aircraft; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0026, 0049, 0053, 0055-0057], Buchmueller discloses determining an initial trajectory envelope, characterized as a scalable volume, based on the position, object performance parameters, and anticipated trajectory of the object)
determining, based on the current position and the at least one aircraft parameter, a predicted future trajectory for each of the one or more aircraft, [wherein the initial volume is in a cylinder shape having a horizontal area represented by a circle around the aircraft]; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0018, 0020, 0023, 0040, 0042, 0053, 0056, 0061, 0067] and Claim [1], Buchmueller discloses determining a predicted trajectory and/or trajectory envelope (also considered a trajectory) of the object based on the object’s operating characteristics, speed, location, etc.)
determining, based on the predicted future trajectory and the initial volume, an extended volume for each of the one or more aircraft, [wherein the extended volume comprises cylinders of increasing radius, wherein the increasing radius is based on the at least one aircraft parameter]; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (The examiner notes that an “extended volume” is not explicitly limited, as noted in the claim interpretation section. As such, a modification to the initial volume is reasonably interpreted to read upon the claim language. Paragraph [0053, 0056-0059], Figure [4, 5], and Claim [17-18], Buchmueller discloses establishing a scaled trajectory envelope using the scalable volume/initial trajectory envelope, the scaled trajectory envelope reasonably constituting an “extended volume”)
determining, based on the extended volume determined for each of the one or more aircraft, a composite extended volume space; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0031, 0053, 0056-0059, 0072, 0091], Figure [2, 4, 5, 7], and Claim [17-18], Buchmueller discloses establishing a scaled trajectory envelope using the scalable volume/initial trajectory envelope, the scaled trajectory envelope reasonably constituting an “extended volume”. The examiner notes that in the event that only one aircraft is present, the “extended volume” is the “composite extended volume”, thus by disclosure of the extended volume, the composite extended volume is also disclosed. However, Buchmueller also discloses tracking/mapping of a plurality of objects)
planning a flight path for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) through the airspace to avoid the one or more aircraft based on the composite extended volume space; and (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0017-0019, 0045, 0057, 0087, 0095, 0102] and Claim [9], Buchmueller discloses updating a flight plan for a UAV based on the scaled trajectory envelope in order to avoid collision/minimize chance of collision, avoiding objects (such as other aircraft) through their trajectory envelope in the flight)
controlling the UAV to navigate through the airspace using the planned flight path. (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0030, 0035, 0063, 0087], Buchmueller discloses autonomous navigation of the UAV through the flight plan)
Regarding the additional elements of wherein the initial volume is in a cylinder shape having a horizontal area represented by a circle around the aircraft and wherein the extended volume comprises cylinders of increasing radius, wherein the increasing radius is based on the at least one aircraft parameter, the examiner considered the limitations alone and as a whole and found them to be an obvious modification of the disclosure of Buchmueller. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the shape of the volume may be altered as needed based on design choice using the teachings of Buchmueller in Figure [4] and Paragraph [0055], for instance.
However, Coulmeau, in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management and prohibited area avoidance, teaches wherein the initial volume is in a cylinder shape having a horizontal area represented by a circle around the aircraft (Paragraph [0050-0052, 0113-0118] and Figure [3-5], Coulmeau teaches that the detection volume is a cylinder shape having a horizontal cross sectional area represented by a circle around the position of the aircraft) and
wherein the extended volume comprises cylinders of increasing radius, wherein the increasing radius is based on the at least one aircraft parameter (Paragraph [0050-0052, 0113-0118] and Figure [3-5], Coulmeau teaches that the prohibited zone may be classified by a succession of cylinders whose centers correspond to the position of the moving objects (aircraft, for instance) on the basis of speed, separated by a time interval, “calculating prohibited zones and their evolution over time 103 on the basis of the parameters characterizing the aircraft”)
Buchmueller and Coulmeau are in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management and prohibited area avoidance. 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 Buchmueller with the particular shape of the prohibited zones taught by Coulmeau, as this is a matter of design choice. Buchmueller discloses in Figure [4] and Paragraph [0055] instances where the shape of the detection zone may change depending upon a variety of factors. Coulmeau is relied upon as art that explicitly uses a succession of cylinders as recited in the claims of the instant application. Coulmeau also states that the volume parameter can be any three-dimensional volume (Paragraph [0116]) but explicitly states the use of successive cylinders in order to provide sufficient safety margines over a span of time to avoid obstructions (Paragraph [0024]). Thus, while the examiner submits that merely differentiating the claim of the instant application from Buchmueller is merely that of an obvious design choice, the examiner also submits the teachings of Coulmeau to also showcase its presence in the art prior to the time of effective filing, with a reasonable rationale to implement.
Regarding claim 11: Buchmueller discloses wherein the at least one aircraft parameter comprises at least one of a current speed of the aircraft, a type of aircraft, or a heading of the aircraft. (The examiner notes that “at least one of” indicates that only one is necessary to read on the claim language. Paragraph [0026, 0049, 0055-0059], Buchmueller discloses that aircraft speed, aircraft type, and direction are considerations in the method described to establish the trajectory envelopes)
Regarding claim 15: Buchmueller discloses further comprising: receiving current airspace restriction data within an airspace; and (Paragraph [0031, 0053, 0056-0059, 0072, 0091], Figure [2, 4, 5, 7], and Claim [17-18], Buchmueller discloses establishing a scaled trajectory envelope using the scalable volume/initial trajectory envelope, the scaled trajectory envelope reasonably constituting “airspace restriction data”, as the UAV is configured to avoid the area)
determining, based on the current airspace restriction data and the composite extended volume space, the planned flight path of the UAV. (Paragraph [0087, 0095, 0102] and Claim [9], Buchmueller discloses updating a flight plan for a UAV based on the scaled trajectory envelope in order to avoid collision/minimize chance of collision)
Regarding claim 16: Buchmueller discloses further comprising: validating whether a planned flight path for a second UAV intersects with at least one extended volume space. (Paragraph [0028, 0068-0069, 0071-0074, 0104-0106], Buchmueller discloses that a plurality of UAVs may share information regarding the tracked objects for avoidance)
Regarding claim 19: Buchmueller discloses wherein the received data on current positions of one or more aircraft is from a sensor located at ground level, a sensor located on an airborne aircraft, or a third-party provider. (The examiner notes that through recitation of “or”, only one is necessary to read upon the claim language. Paragraph [0017, 0020, 0023, 0104-0106], Buchmueller discloses a sensor mounted to the UAV (on an airborne aircraft) to collect data on the current position of the aircraft)
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller, in view of Coulmeau, in further view of Lepere et al. (US 6,088,654; hereinafter Lepere).
Regarding claim 4: Buchmueller discloses wherein determining the extended volume for an aircraft further comprises: determining for each of a plurality of points in time along the predicted future trajectory a minimum horizontal distance and a minimum vertical distance from the aircraft; […] (Paragraph [0024, 0026, 0046, 0056, 0060, 0090] and Figure [4-5, 9], Buchmueller discloses establishing a trajectory envelope that captures predicted positions along predicted trajectories within a certain time period, the envelope having dimensions comprising horizontal and vertical components)
Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose that a 3D volume is determined at successive points in time, forming the extended volume.
However, Lepere, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches determining for each of a plurality of points in time along the predicted future trajectory a minimum horizontal distance and a minimum vertical distance from the aircraft; (Column [12] Lines [5-47] and Figure [3-4], Lepere teaches a plurality of volumes having horizontal and vertical components (see Figure [3-4]) that make up the predicted future trajectory band)
determining, based on the minimum horizontal and vertical distances, a three-dimensional volume for each point in time; and (Column [12] Lines [5-47] and Figure [3-4], Lepere teaches establishing a volume based on the dimensions)
determining, by compiling the three-dimensional volumes for each point in time, the extended volume. (Column [12] Lines [5-47] and Figure [3-4], Lepere teaches a projection of the volumes centered on the trajectory to establish a band that increases with time)
Buchmueller and Lepere are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller with explicit disclose that the trajectory envelope comprised a plurality of anticipated volumes, as Buchmueller discloses that the trajectory envelope is meant to capture a plurality of anticipated positions/trajectories (Paragraph [0053, 0056-0057], for instance). The approach of Lepere merely shows that the projection of a future trajectory of an aircraft being made up of a plurality of volumes also was known in the art at the time of effective filing, for the benefit of tracking uncertainty at increasing time periods (Lepere, Column [10] Lines [30-35]).
Regarding claim 5: Buchmueller discloses wherein at least one of the minimum horizontal or vertical distance for each point in time is non-constant. (Paragraph [0024, 0026, 0046, 0056-0059, 0060, 0090] and Figure [4-5], Buchmueller discloses establishing a trajectory envelope that captures predicted positions along predicted trajectories within a certain time period, the envelope having dimensions comprising horizontal and vertical components including non-constant shapes, such as expanding cones or teardrop-shaped envelopes)
Regarding claim 6: Buchmueller discloses wherein the minimum horizontal distance at a first point in time is less than the minimum horizontal distance at a second, later, point in time, such that the minimum horizontal distance increases over time. (Paragraph [0024, 0026, 0046, 0056-0059, 0060, 0090] and Figure [4-5], Buchmueller discloses establishing a trajectory envelope that captures predicted positions along predicted trajectories within a certain time period, the envelope having dimensions comprising horizontal and vertical components including non-constant shapes, such as expanding cones or teardrop-shaped envelopes which increase over time, comprising increasing horizontal elements)
Regarding claim 7: Buchmueller discloses wherein the minimum vertical distance at a first point in time is less than the minimum vertical distance at a second, later, point in time, such that the minimum vertical distance increases over time. (Paragraph [0024, 0026, 0046, 0056-0059, 0060, 0090] and Figure [4-5], Buchmueller discloses establishing a trajectory envelope that captures predicted positions along predicted trajectories within a certain time period, the envelope having dimensions comprising horizontal and vertical components including non-constant shapes, such as expanding cones or teardrop-shaped envelopes which increase over time, comprising increasing vertical elements)
Regarding claim 8: Buchmueller discloses wherein a rate at which the minimum vertical distance increases is based on aircraft type. (Paragraph [0052-0059] and Figure [4-5], Buchmueller discloses that the type/make/model/capabilities of aircraft impacts how the volume is scaled)
Claims 9-10, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller, in view of Coulmeau, in further view of Tantardini et al. (US 2021/0358311 A1; hereinafter Tantardini).
Regarding claim 9: Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose reservation times.
However, Tantardini, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein each of the extended volumes include a reservation time, wherein the reservation time is based on the at least one aircraft parameter. (Paragraph [0150-0151, 0163] and Figure [16-19], Tantardini teaches a reservation of airspace tubes as the aircraft travels based on planned trajectory)
Buchmueller and Tantardini are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller to have explicitly included a temporal aspect to the trajectory envelopes, as the vehicle is not going to occupy the airspace for an indefinite amount of time. Therefore, associating an occupied airspace with a certain time as taught by Tantardini is merely an obvious incorporation to prevent permanently cluttering a virtual space with volumes that do not disappear.
Regarding claim 10: Buchmueller discloses wherein the at least one aircraft parameter is a current speed of the aircraft. (Paragraph [0055-0059], Buchmueller discloses that aircraft speed is a consideration in the method described to establish the trajectory envelopes)
Regarding claim 12: Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose temporal reservation.
However, Tantardini, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein each of the extended volumes include a reservation time, and planning the flight path for the UAV further comprises: (Paragraph [0150-0151, 0163] and Figure [16-19], Tantardini teaches a reservation of airspace tubes as the aircraft travels based on planned trajectory)
determining, based on a starting point and an end point of the UAV, a time required for the UAV to reach each point of a plurality of points along the flight path; and (Paragraph [0076, 0163, 0165, 0168-0170], Tantardini teaches time dependent reservation of airspace and time to arrival (plurality of points along path) in addition to an estimated time at each waypoint, in accordance with a takeoff time and arrival time)
determining whether the planned flight path intersects with at least one of the extended volumes, wherein the intersection is based on whether the reservation time for each extended volume will expire prior to the time required for the UAV to reach the extended volume. (Paragraph [0150-0151, 0155, 0158, 0163, 0171], Tantardini teaches if collision is possible based on trajectory intersection in a certain time period)
Buchmueller and Tantardini are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller to have explicitly included a temporal aspect to the trajectory envelopes, as the vehicle is not going to occupy the airspace for an indefinite amount of time. Therefore, associating an occupied airspace with a certain time as taught by Tantardini is merely an obvious incorporation to prevent associating a collision possibility with a path traversed a significant time previously that no longer poses risk of collision.
Regarding claim 13: Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose temporal elements to the trajectory.
However, Tantardini, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein if it is determined that the UAV will reach the extended volume for an aircraft prior to the volume time expiring, the method further comprises: determining a new future flight path around the extended volume. (Paragraph [0043-0044, 0053, 0150-0151, 0155, 0158, 0163, 0171, 0198-0199, 0218], Tentardini teaches if collision is possible based on trajectory intersection in a certain time period and describes that an avoidance action is taken to avoid collision, such as delaying time of takeoff or modifying the D-airway (a path taken by the UAV))
Buchmueller and Tantardini are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller to have explicitly disclosed an avoidance action for the UAV with time-based consideration of the obstacle, as taught by Tantardini, in order to prevent collision (Tantardini, Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 14: Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose a predetermined restriction space.
However, Tantardini, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the composite extended volume space further comprises at least one predetermined restriction space. (Paragraph [0053, 0199], Tantardini teaches that the control scheme recognizes and avoids no-flight zones (predetermined restriction spaces))
Buchmueller and Tantardini are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller to have explicitly disclosed avoidance of predetermined restriction spaces in an effort to prevent collision with static/predetermined obstacles or prevent the UAV from entering an unauthorized area, such as in the event of a new home built in a previously-traversed space (Tantardini, Paragraph [0199]).
Regarding claim 17: Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose adjusting a launch time based on an identified collision risk.
However, Tantardini, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches further comprising: adjusting a launch time of the UAV based on the determination that the planned flight path intersects with the at least one extended volume space. (Paragraph [0148, 0155], Tantardini teaches adjusting a takeoff time of the UAV if a minimum estimated safe separation distance is not met)
Buchmueller and Tantardini are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller to have delayed takeoff of the UAV, as taught by Tantardini, in order to prevent collision (Tantardini, Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 18: Buchmueller does not explicitly disclose establishing temporal data associated with the envelopes.
However, Tantardini, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein based on the determination that the planned flight path intersects with the at least one of the extended volumes the method further comprises: determining a volume time for each of the extended volumes, wherein the extended volume is resolved at expiration of the volume time; and (Paragraph [0163], Tantardini teaches time-dependent data related to the reserved air space tubes)
determining, a time at which all extended volumes intersecting with the planned flight path have been resolved. (Paragraph [0155, 0163], Tantardini teaches applying a time delay in order to prevent intersection/maintain safe separation, the time delay constituting a time when the intersection has been resolved)
Buchmueller and Tantardini are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft 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 Buchmueller to have delayed takeoff of the UAV, as taught by Tantardini, in order to prevent collision (Tantardini, Paragraph [0043]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller, in view of Coulmeau, in further view of Cummings et al. (US 2022/0068145 A1; hereinafter Cummings).
Regarding claim 20: Buchmueller does not explicitly describe receiving location data from an aircraft operating at or below 2000 feet AGL through ADS-B data.
However, Cummings, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the received data from the sensor located on the airborne aircraft comprises ADS-B data of crewed aircraft operating at or below 2,000 feet above ground level. (Paragraph [0059], Cummings teaches obtaining manned aircraft ADS-B data including position when operating at altitudes up to 3000 feet AGL (0 to 2000 is included in this range))
Buchmueller and Cummings are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have modified the disclosure of Buchmueller with the teaching that position data may originate from another aircraft as taught by Cummings, as this merely represents a change in where data originates from and does not necessarily change how the method of Buchmueller is performed. It was known in the art at the time of effective filing that ADS-B data may transmit position data and that aircraft can operate at a height below 2000 feet AGL. ADS-B is merely a more specific data source and choice of 2000 feet AGL for aircraft operating height is an obvious number selected based on operating ceilings of aircraft, effectiveness/breakdown of communication, etc. Buchmueller discloses that the data may originate from another UAV (Paragraph [0105-0107]). Merely specifying that the data originates from a certain type of communication system with an aircraft operating at a certain height does not provide patentable distinction over the noted prior art.
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