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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 December 2025 has been entered.
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/Arguments
The examiner received a request for continued examination (RCE) on 23 December 2025 comprising arguments/remarks and claim amendments in response to the final rejection office action dated 27 October 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “prior claim rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered; support for the amendments may be found, for instance, in paragraphs [0148-0155] and Figure [10] of the specification of the instant application.
Regarding outstanding claim rejections (35 U.S.C. 103), the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the independent claims. The examiner has performed an additional search and located art which reasonably reads upon the claim set; outstanding prior art claim rejections (35 U.S.C. 103) are withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Additionally, the examiner reconsidered certain language presented in the claim set (claims 8 and 11) and found that the corresponding claims recite indefinite claim language. Corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections may be found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 23 December 2025, received with RCE. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent claims. Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are cancelled. Claims 23-24 are new and do not contain new matter. Claims 1, 4-13, and 16-24 are pending and rejected, as noted 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.
Regarding "…wherein each potential flight path is simulated by selecting a varying number of the plurality of airspace constraints…" (seen in claims 1, 21, 22), the examiner notes that paragraphs [0149-0155] provide a basis for understanding (thus, omitting a 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). However, the particular claim language chosen may be interpreted under multiple meanings.
For example, the number of flight paths may be five and the number of total airspace constraints may also be five. In this case, a first interpretation of the above noted language may be that in each of the five simulated paths, each of the five paths selects a different number of constraints. For example, simulation 1 selects 3 of the 5 constraints. Simulation 2 selects the other 2 of the 5 constraints. Simulation 3 selects a different set, and so on.
Alternatively, all 5 simulations may be run with the same 3 of 5 constraints (just the "static" ones per paragraph [0152], for instance), or 4 of 5 constraints, or 5 of 5 (all) constraints (merely "varying" the number of constraints between 0 and the maximum). In this case, the examiner may interpret the language to merely describe that any number of the constraints may be considered during simulation. As can be seen from the above, the "varying" terminology is not particularly limiting in this context, as any number may be considered "varying".
The examiner notes that limitation "selecting, based on the simulated potential flight paths, a flight path from among the plurality of potential flight paths for the UAV" to not necessarily describe how the selection occurs (shortest path, lowest energy consumption, lowest risk, etc.), but notes that, in the manner provided, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would understand how to select a path from among a plurality of paths based upon desired outcome. Thus, the phrase is not considered to be indefinite at this time.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states "…and each potential flight path is configured to avoid the one or more aircraft and one or more restricted airspaces…"; as the preceding limitation recites "receiving a plurality of airspace constraints…wherein each airspace constraint corresponds to a restricted airspace", reference to "one or more" is improper, as one was not established. The examiner notes that claims 21 and 22 correctly state "one or more aircraft and restricted airspaces"; the examiner suggests amendment of claim 1 to mimic the language of claims 21 and 22.
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 8 and 11 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 8 and 11 recite indefinite language “type of aircraft” and “aircraft type”, respectively. Regarding specification support for the word "type", the examiner notes that the specification is not particularly limiting, nor is it expressly clear what factors may or may not contribute to an aircraft "type". Paragraph [0003], for instance, lists "type" in the context of operating environment (air, ground, water, etc.). Paragraph [0032] lists "type" as an apparent alternative to aircraft configuration (which is similarly indefinite). Paragraph [0039] lists "type" as an apparent alternative to aircraft model of fuselage (which is similarly indefinite). Paragraph [0048] lists "type" as a reference to fixed-wing or alternative aircraft. Paragraph [0094] attempts to clarify type, but does not particularly limit the language either, merely stating that each "type" may pertain to a different payload delivery capability. Paragraph [0099] lists "type" as pertaining to a configuration for different services and/or operators but does not particularly limit its meaning. As none of the noted instances of "type" distinctly describe what may or may not be indicative of "type", the term renders the claim indefinite. Any number of possibilities exist that may read upon this language, such as number of propellors, manufacturer, weight class, wingspan, manned versus unmanned, fuel versus electric powered, and so on. As the language is not explicitly defined in the specification and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily know what is reasonably included with the word "type", it falls under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).II.E. and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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. Thus, claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) under the rationale provided above.
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, 16, 19, and 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 Pesquet-Popescu et al. (US 2022/0351629 A1; published 03 Nov 2022, hereinafter Pesquet-Popescu) or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg et al. (US 2022/0011786 A1; published 13 Jan 2022, hereinafter Teisberg).
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; (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; (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)
receiving a plurality of airspace constraints within an airspace, wherein each airspace constraint corresponds to a restricted airspace; […] (Paragraph [0018, 0022, 0030-0031, 0053, 0055-0059, 0072, 0091] and Figure [2, 4, 5, 7], and Claim [17-18], Buchmueller discloses identifying objects in an airspace, including static and dynamic objects, both reasonably constituting “restricted airspace”, as the UAV is configured to avoid them (such as in the case of the scaled trajectory envelope of the other aircraft, for instance), and is thus “restricted” from flight into the aforementioned objects)
[…] controlling the UAV to navigate through the airspace using the selected flight path. (Paragraph [0017-0018, 0030, 0035, 0063, 0087, 0095, 0102] and Claim [9], Buchmueller discloses autonomous navigation of the UAV through the flight plan which was based upon the scaled trajectory envelope in order to avoid collision/minimize chance of collision)
The claimed invention of the instant application pertains to two separate elements; first, creation of an airspace map comprising the locations and predicted trajectories of dynamic objects and locations of static objects, and second, determination of a flight plan through the airspace map created through use of simulation.
As detailed above, Buchmueller discloses the claimed airspace map creation. The claimed invention of the instant application and the disclosure of Buchmueller then differs in how a flight plan is chosen. Buchmueller discloses the desire to select a flight plan (ego vehicle trajectory) that minimizes or eliminates collision with noted objects, but does not disclose doing so through the use of simulation elements. However, the examiner submits that the use of simulated paths through an airspace to avoid collision with noted objects in the environment was well known in the art, and additionally, was known in combination with an analogous form of map creation.
Pesquet-Popescu, in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management, teaches […] simulating a plurality of potential flight paths for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) through the airspace, wherein each potential flight path is simulated by selecting a varying number of the plurality of airspace constraints, and (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Note the examiner’s interpretation of “varying number” in the corresponding claim interpretation section. Paragraph [0011, 0091], Pesquet-Popescu teaches simulation of a plurality of paths)
each potential flight path is configured to avoid the one or more aircraft and one or more [examiner note: “one or more” in the case of claim 1] restricted airspaces corresponding to the selected airspace constraints based on the composite extended volume space and the selected airspace restriction constraints; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0011, 0030-0031], Pesquet-Popescu teaches that each trajectory avoids the obstacles (the obstacles comprising both the dynamic aircraft and static zones))
selecting, based on the simulated potential flight paths, a flight path from among the plurality of potential flight paths for the UAV; and […] (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0011, 0091, 0095-0097], Pesquet-Popescu teaches selecting a trajectory with the highest performance metric)
Buchmueller and Pesquet-Popescu are in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Buchmueller with the flight plan selection method of Pesquet-Popescu, as the latter chooses a flight plan/trajectory having a highest performance score while still meeting obstacle avoidance and flyability constraints (Pesquet-Popescu, Paragraph [0095-0096]). Pesquet-Popescu teaches an analogous system of quantifying an airspace of mixed static and dynamic obstacles, with both standard manned aircraft and unmanned drones, classifying a world map of virtual tubes surrounding trajectories to avoid collision (Pesquet-Popescu, Paragraph [0011, 0028-0030], for instance). As noted above, the independent claims of the instant application recite a two-part invention: creation of an airspace map and planning of a UAV route through the airspace. Buchmueller more closely aligns with the claimed invention of the instant application regarding map creation but leaves the method of flight plan choice generic. Pesquet-Popescu is in an analogous field of endeavor and utilizes an analogous map creation system, but provides the detail of simulation for best performance path selection (rationale). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it to be obvious to utilize the map generated by Buchmueller with the trajectory selection of Pesquet-Popescu to select a trajectory with best performance that also avoids collision with the obstacles in the map, constituting a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the event that applicant traverses the above explanation pertaining to the above limitations being taught by Pesquet-Popescu (under examiner’s interpretation noted above), as an alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Teisberg, in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management, teaches […] simulating a plurality of potential flight paths for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) through the airspace, wherein each potential flight path is simulated by selecting a varying number of the plurality of airspace constraints, and (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0062], Teisberg teaches “may simulate execution of many avoidance maneuvers by the aircraft 100 in various flight simulations”)
each potential flight path is configured to avoid the one or more aircraft and one or more [examiner note: “one or more” in the case of claim 1] restricted airspaces corresponding to the selected airspace constraints based on the composite extended volume space and the selected airspace restriction constraints; (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0062], Teisberg teaches that the maneuvers avoid the object of concern, such as other aircraft (intruders) and airspace restrictions)
selecting, based on the simulated potential flight paths, a flight path from among the plurality of potential flight paths for the UAV; and […] (per claims 1, 21, and 22) (Paragraph [0062], Teisberg teaches “…to select an avoidance maneuver”)
Buchmueller and Teisberg are in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Buchmueller with the flight plan selection method of Teisberg in order to plan a collision free path with known obstacles and minimize signal noise (Teisberg, Paragraph [0056, 0062]). As noted above, merely utilizing a known form of map creation (Buchmueller) with a known form of path planning (Teisberg) constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In summary of the above, the examiner notes that broader interpretation is currently afforded for the limitations pertaining to simulation, and finds that the teachings of Pesquet-Popescu closely aligns with the disclosure of Buchmueller, as they both produce analogous air maps, but in the event that applicant intends for the simulation limitation to have a more narrow interpretation, provides the teachings of Teisberg as a reference as an additional and/or alternative rejection.
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. Buchmueller further 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 16: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. Buchmueller further 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: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. Buchmueller further 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 Pesquet-Popescu in further view of Lepere et al. (US 6,088,654; date of patent 11 Jul 2000, hereinafter Lepere), or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in further view of Lepere.
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. Buchmueller further 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: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in view of Lepere, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in view of Lepere. Buchmueller further 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: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in view of Lepere, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in view of Lepere. Buchmueller further 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: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in view of Lepere, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in view of Lepere. Buchmueller further 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: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in view of Lepere, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in view of Lepere. Buchmueller further 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, 12-13, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in further view of Tantardini et al. (US 2021/0358311 A1; published 18 Nov 2021, hereinafter Tantardini), or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in further view of Tantardini.
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. 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: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in view of Tantardini, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in view of Tantardini. Buchmueller further 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: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. 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: Parent claim 12 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in view of Tantardini, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in view of Tantardini. 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], Tantardini 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 17: Parent claim 16 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. 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: Parent claim 16 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. 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 Pesquet-Popescu in further view of Cummings et al. (US 2022/0068145 A1; published 03 Mar 2022, hereinafter Cummings), or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in further view of Cummings.
Regarding claim 20: Parent claim 19 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. 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.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu in further view of Coulmeau et al. (US 2010/0100308 A1; published 22 Apr 2010, hereinafter Coulmeau), or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg in further view of Coulmeau.
Regarding claim 23: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. Buchmueller does not explicitly describe representing the initial volume as a cylinder.
However, Coulmeau, in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management and prohibited area avoidance, teaches wherein the initial volume is 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)
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 24: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Pesquet-Popescu, or additionally or in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Buchmueller in view of Teisberg. Buchmueller does not explicitly describe representing the initial volume as a cylinder.
However, Coulmeau, in a similar field of endeavor of flight plan management and prohibited area avoidance, teaches 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.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2021/0074168 A1
Flight Control System and Flight Control Apparatus
Yamada et al.
Filed: 11 Jul 2018
Pub: 11 Mar 2021
Discusses a system of UAV routing by establishing airspace cells in the airspace, where airspace cells may be reserved for UAVs at certain times.
2
US 2009/0125221 A1
Automated Separation Manager
Estkowski et al.
Filed: 12 Nov 2007
Pub: 14 May 2009
Discusses a system of managing an airspace comprising a plurality of aircraft, establishing trajectories for each aircraft in addition to a trajectory window corresponding to each trajectory in order to predict if trajectories would interfere; the system would enable an aircraft to avoid collision.
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
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights