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 .
The official correspondence below is an after non-final.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
There are no new claims.
Claim 1-14 are currently pending.
Amendments received 02-13-2026 have been amended.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20070250223 A1) in view of Chen (CN 110149588 A).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Francois discloses, for each point from a plurality of ground points (Francois: [ABS] the minimum altitude values being determined for a coverage of the route of the aircraft during the period by disks centered on points on the route using requests to a database containing airspace zones corresponding to a minimum flying altitude; [FIG. 5b]), and secondly a vertical related to the ground position of the aircraft (Francois: [0052] FIG. 5b illustrates, for each of the disks 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 along the route 63, the minimum altitude value retained in the disk, which is the maximum value of the minimum flying altitudes calculated for each type of zone considered and extracted, for example, from the database; [0054-0055]), the circle being contained in a vertical plane (Francois: [FIG. 5b]) comprising said vertical related to the ground position of the aircraft (Francois: [ABS] a phase for generating a warning message based on the relative position of the vertical flight profile compared with the minimum vertical flight profile), and ii. for all of the intersections thus obtained, selecting the greatest altitude as the maximum flying altitude (Francois: [0053] If the disk overlaps several segments of one and the same MSA, the minimum altitude value retained for this MSA is the maximum altitude of the sectors concerned).
Francois does not explicitly disclose, situated within a perimeter around the ground position of the aircraft, said plurality of ground points being surrounding points, determining one or more intersections between firstly a circle, the centre of which is said surrounding point and the radius of which is the maximum authorized ground distance at this point, said circle being a determination circle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses, situated within a perimeter around the ground position of the aircraft (Chen: [0039] the unmanned aerial vehicle base station in an idle state, the coordinate position is (0, 0, 0). at the t0 time, the macro base station 41 within a coverage area by the locating device detects user position, and each position where a data point, calculating the values of all data points. the data point with the maximum potential value as a cover center point C, the covering centre point C of coordinates (xC, yC) as the horizontal position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station (x, y), as shown in FIG. 5. step 402, determining the height of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station. the to cover the centre point C as centre, the radius is area of Rmax, searching data point D has a minimum potential value. distance between the points C and D, namely the actual coverage radius r of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station, as shown in FIG. 6. The unmanned aerial vehicle base station coverage relation between the radius r and the height, calculating the unmanned aerial vehicle base station height h. Thus, the end of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station position as shown in FIG. 7. step 403, updating the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station; [FIG. 5-7]), said plurality of ground points being surrounding points (Chen: [0021] It can be seen by the data field theory values of data points around the data points around it, and the more the closer distance. starting from the perspective of data field, it is in coverage of the area centre point C as the center to cover; [FIG. 6-9]), determining one or more intersections between firstly a circle, the centre of which is said surrounding point (Chen: [FIG. 6(r and Rmax)]; [0053] the to cover the centre point C as centre, the radius is area of Rmax, searching data point D has a minimum potential value. distance between the points C and D, namely the actual coverage radius r of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station, as shown in FIG. 6) and the radius of which is the maximum authorized ground distance at this point (Chen: [0034] wherein, ψ (k) represents the potential, M is the number of neighbor space data point, i is the mass, Si, k of the data point i is the distance between the data point i, k, FORMULA is the influence factor. In the embodiment of the invention, the data point with the maximum potential value as point C, can be expressed as: wherein, N is the number of users in the coverage area. step 102, the coordinate of the centre point, the horizontal position coordinate of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station. after determining the central point, can obtain a coordinate, namely the horizontal position coordinate of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station. step 103, obtaining the radius of the second region of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station the actual coverage), said circle being a determination circle (Chen: [ABS] determining the central point of the first area, the coordinate of the centre point, the horizontal position coordinates of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station; obtaining the radius of the second region of actual coverage by the unmanned aerial vehicle base station; according to the radius of the second area, determining ... ; and a third determining circle/radius see "[0010] the radius of the third region obtains the unmanned aerial vehicle base station actual coverage according to the radius of the third area, determining"; [FIG. 6-9]), for the benefit of creating an efficient return route to a base station (examiner: controlling an unmanned aircraft).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Francois to include potential surrounding point taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create an efficient return route to a base station.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Chen also discloses, horizontal positions of said surrounding points form a network of points, the centre of which is preferably a horizontal position of the aircraft (Chen: [0039] the unmanned aerial vehicle base station in an idle state, the coordinate position is (0, 0, 0). at the t0 time, the macro base station 41 within a coverage area by the locating device detects user position, and each position where a data point, calculating the values of all data points. the data point with the maximum potential value as a cover center point C, the covering centre point C of coordinates (xC, yC) as the horizontal position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station (x, y), as shown in FIG. 5. step 402, determining the height of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station. then to cover the centre point C as centre, the radius is area of Rmax, searching data point D has a minimum potential value. distance between the points C and D, namely the actual coverage radius r of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station, as shown in FIG. 6. The unmanned aerial vehicle base station coverage relation between the radius r and the height, calculating the unmanned aerial vehicle base station height h. Thus, the end of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station position as shown in FIG. 7. step 403, updating the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station; [FIG. 5-7]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Chen also discloses, identifying the surrounding points, said step involving selecting points situated within a horizontal distance around the ground position of the aircraft, said points forming said surrounding points (Chen: [0006] determining the candidate point in the first region; when said candidate centre point is located in the second region, obtaining height of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station after updating, and according to the height of the horizontal position coordinate and the updated, determining the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station; in the case the candidate centre point is not located in the second area, the horizontal position coordinate after the coordinate of the candidate centre point, updated as the unmanned aerial vehicle base station; the radius of the third region obtains the unmanned aerial vehicle base station actual coverage according to the radius of the third area, determining the height of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station after updating according to the height of the horizontal position of the updated coordinate and said updating, determining the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station after updating; [0030] in the process of updating, determining the candidate point in the first region. wherein the candidate centre point is the time of updating confirmation of data points with the maximum potential value. Then, according to the position where the candidate point, is divided into the following two situations for unmanned aerial vehicle position update: the case (1) when the candidate centre point located in said second region, obtaining height of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station after updating, and according to the height of the horizontal position coordinate and the updated, determining the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station. (2) in the case the candidate point is not located in the second area, re-determining the position of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station after updating. Specifically, it comprises the following steps: (21) the coordinate of the candidate centre point, the horizontal position coordinate as the unmanned aerial vehicle base station after updating. in this step, it is determined in the first region having points of minimum potential value. Then, the area radius is formed as the third area with the distance between the candidate centre point and the data point having the minimum potential value of, then the candidate centre point and the distance between data point has the minimum potential value of that as the radius of the third area).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 3. Further, Chen also discloses, said horizontal distance corresponds to the maximum authorized ground distance at said ground position of the aircraft (Chen: [0048] Although the unmanned aerial vehicle base station can cover the maximum coverage radius is the area of Rmax, but in fact, in order to reduce the path loss, improve the quality of communication service, and should reduce the distance between unmanned aerial vehicle base station to the data points; [0050] wherein, N ' is C as centre, the coverage radius is the number of user in the area of Rmax; to cover the centre point C as centre, the radius is area of Rmax, searching data point D has a minimum potential value. distance between the points C and D, [0055] namely the actual coverage radius r of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station), or to a difference between the maximum authorized ground distance at said ground position of the aircraft and a horizontal position uncertainty Hacc of the aircraft.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Francois also discloses, said vertical passes through the ground position (Po) of the aircraft (Francois: [0052] FIG. 5b illustrates, for each of the disks 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 along the route 63, the minimum altitude value retained in the disk, which is the maximum value of the minimum flying altitudes calculated for each type of zone considered and extracted, for example, from the database; see ground positions in at least [FIG. 5b]), or said vertical (A) passes through a point (P'o) determined by adding a horizontal position uncertainty Hacc to the horizontal distance between the surrounding point and the ground position (Po) of the aircraft.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Francois also discloses, implemented while said aircraft (A) is in flight, said ground position corresponding to a current position of the aircraft (Francois: [0052] FIG. 5b illustrates, for each of the disks 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 along the route 63, the minimum altitude value retained in the disk, which is the maximum value of the minimum flying altitudes calculated for each type of zone considered and extracted, for example, from the database; see ground positions in at least [FIG. 5b]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Francois also discloses, the ground position of the aircraft is obtained using an onboard receiver connected to a satellite navigation system (Francois: [0012] It comprises a module for calculating a vertical flight profile of the aircraft based on kinematic data supplied by a navigation module).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20070250223 A1) in view of Chen (CN 110149588 A) as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Sampaio (US 20210341928 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 3. Further, Francois in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, identifying the surrounding points comprises selecting the points such that their horizontal positions are regularly aligned on concentric circles, referred to as "network circles", centred around a horizontal position of the aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sampaio discloses, identifying the surrounding points comprises selecting the points such that their horizontal positions are regularly aligned on concentric circles, referred to as "network circles", centred around a horizontal position of the aircraft (Sampaio: at least [0087-0088] and [FIG. 12-23] disclose navigating a pathway that has an obstacle present, adjusting the waypoints falling on circles 1 and 2 (examiner: radius 1 and 2), and placing replacement waypoints with waypoints that are aligned on concentric circles), for the benefit of re-maneuvering around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the path.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Francois to include waypoints at a specified radius on concentric circles taught by Sampaio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to re-maneuver around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the original path.
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 4. Further, Francois in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, the horizontal positions of the surrounding points are aligned on a number n of network circles, the most eccentric network circle having a radius equal to said horizontal distance D, the distance d between the network circles being such that: d=D/n.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sampaio discloses, the horizontal positions of the surrounding points are aligned on a number n of network circles, the most eccentric network circle having a radius equal to said horizontal distance D, the distance d between the network circles being such that: d=D/n (Sampaio: at least [0087-0088] and [FIG. 12-23]), for the benefit of re-maneuvering around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the path.
Francois, as modified, does not explicitly recite the terminology, ”d=D/n”. However, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would be one of many permutations for determining a nest waypoint, for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates means for determining displacement and orientation, as shown by Sampaio’s mathematical approach in ¶0075 and figure 18. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice, routine customization, or routine optimization within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20070250223 A1) in view of Chen (CN 110149588 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marty (US 20080306680 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 3. Further, Francois in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, using a digital map of a terrain intended to be overflown by said aircraft, said map comprising, for points on said terrain, referred to as "mapped points", horizontal position data, an altitude datum and a datum regarding the maximum authorized ground distance at this point.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marty discloses, using a digital map of a terrain to be overflown by said aircraft (Marty: [FIG. 15]), said map comprising, for points on said terrain (Marty: [FIG. 16]), which are mapped points (Marty: [ABS] local flight constraints and called "D-Fix" because they are not listed in a published navigation database like those called "Waypoints". It consists in charting, on curvilinear distance maps), horizontal position data (Marty: [FIG. 17(vertical profile)]), an altitude datum (Marty: [0112] regulated traffic zones and dynamic constraints consisting of a prescribed altitude according to the distance traveled from the departure point 10 of the path corresponding to the go profile part (FIG. 4a) of a vertical flight and speed profile (climb from the departure point to the cruising flight altitude prolonged indefinitely by a level)) and a datum regarding the maximum authorized ground distance at this point (Marty: [0006] this determination of a direct curvilinear path is based on estimations of curvilinear distances in the presence of static constraints (obstacles to be circumnavigated) and dynamic constraints (vertical flight and speed profile)), for the benefit of guaranteeing a circumnavigation of the surrounding reliefs and compliance with regulated overfly zones.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Francois to include flight data taught by Marty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guarantee a circumnavigation of the surrounding reliefs and compliance with regulated overfly zones.
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Francois in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, implemented by an electronic control unit aboard the aircraft (A).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marty discloses, implemented by an electronic control unit aboard the aircraft (A) (Marty: [0155] a man-machine interface MCDU (Multipurpose Control Display Unit) 61 and acting on an FG/C (Flight Guidance and Control) automatic pilot 62 dedicated to maintaining the aircraft on its path and to monitoring its mobile surfaces), for the benefit of guaranteeing a circumnavigation of the surrounding reliefs and compliance with regulated overfly zones in an automatic piloting mode.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed by a modified Francois to include control units for automatic piloting mode taught by Marty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guarantee a circumnavigation of the surrounding reliefs and compliance with regulated overfly zones in an automatic piloting mode.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 1. Further, Francois in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, an electronic control unit configured to implement a method according to claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Marty discloses, an electronic control unit configured to implement a method according to claim 1 (Marty: [0155] a man-machine interface MCDU (Multipurpose Control Display Unit) 61 and acting on an FG/C (Flight Guidance and Control) automatic pilot 62 dedicated to maintaining the aircraft on its path and to monitoring its mobile surfaces), for the benefit of guaranteeing a circumnavigation of the surrounding reliefs and compliance with regulated overfly zones in an automatic piloting mode.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed by a modified Francois to include control units for automatic piloting mode taught by Marty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guarantee a circumnavigation of the surrounding reliefs and compliance with regulated overfly zones in an automatic piloting mode.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francois (US 20070250223 A1) in view of Chen (CN 110149588 A) in further view of Marty (US 20080306680 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sampaio (US 20210341928 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 7. Further, Francois in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose, at least some of the surrounding points (Po,P1, P2, P3, P'1, P'2, P'3) correspond to mapped points.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sampaio discloses, at least some of the surrounding points (Po,P1, P2, P3, P'1, P'2, P'3) correspond to mapped points (Sampaio: at least [0087-0088] and [FIG. 12-23]), for the benefit of re-maneuvering around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the path.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Francois to include waypoints at a specified radius on concentric circles taught by Sampaio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to re-maneuver around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the original path.
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Francois in view of Chen remain as applied above to claim 7. Further, Marty also discloses, said method comprising a step of interpolating an altitude datum and preferably a maximum authorized ground distance datum, at these points on the basis of the digital map (Marty: [0006] This determination of a direct curvilinear path is based on estimations of curvilinear distances in the presence of static constraints (obstacles to be circumnavigated) and dynamic constraints (vertical flight and speed profile)).
Francois, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, at least some of the surrounding points (Po,P1, P2, P3, P'1, P'2, P'3) are situated between the mapped points.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sampaio discloses, at least some of the surrounding points (Po,P1, P2, P3, P'1, P'2, P'3) are situated between the mapped points (Sampaio: at least [0087-0088] and [FIG. 12-23]), for the benefit of re-maneuvering around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the path.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Francois to include waypoints at a specified radius on concentric circles taught by Sampaio. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to re-maneuver around an obstacle and quickly and efficiently resume the original path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02-13-2026, beginning on page 5, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has contended that the prior art of record fails to disclose, determining one or more intersections between firstly a circle, the centre of which is said surrounding point and the radius of which is the maximum authorized ground distance at this point, said circle being a determination circle, and secondly a vertical related to the ground position of the aircraft, the circle being contained in a vertical plane comprising said vertical related to the ground position of the aircraft, and ii. for all of the intersections thus obtained, selecting the greatest altitude as the maximum flying altitude. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “determining one or more intersections between firstly a circle, the centre of which is said surrounding point and the radius of which is the maximum authorized ground distance at this point, said circle being a determination circle” is determining as maximum distance. Chen (CN 110149588 A) discloses determining two radiuses, an r and an Rmax, for an operating “ground” distance (Chen: see at least [ABS], [0034], [FIG. 6]), and Francois (US 20070250223 A1) operating altitudes (Francois: see at least [ABS], [0052-0055], [FIG. 5b]). Further, both of the prior art are related to vehicle control/navigation. Because the prior art of record discloses that which is claimed, and are related to vehicle control/navigation, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Artini (US 20050258979 A1)
Parker (US 12315376 B1)
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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights