Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Provisional application filed on 09/02/2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ham et al (U.S.2018/0356840) and further in view of Lavie et al (20160236638).
1. As per claims 1,11,20 disclosed a computer system for determining drone operation rules, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and at least one drone, the at least one drone including a plurality of sensors, the at least one processor is configured to (Paragraph.0360):
receive telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors from a plurality of missions including one or more missions associated with drone accidents (Paragraph. 0003);
identify one or more mission trends based upon the telematics data including telematics data associated with the historical drone accidents (Paragraph. 0005); the mission trends identifying values of one or more operating parameters associated with the historical drone accidents (stored data related to accidents/historical data related to accidents) [In operation 3208, the operation system may receive flight information on a periodic basis from the unmanned aerial vehicle. Alternatively, if an event occurs in the unmanned aerial vehicle, the operation system may receive flight information about the corresponding event. Herein, the event may include a result of self-diagnosis continuously performed during flight by the unmanned aerial vehicle, a case where a fault is generated, or a case where an accident or incident occurs while the unmanned aerial vehicle performs its mission.] (Paragraph. 0412); Examiner interpreted “one or more operating parameters” as flight information.
determine, one or more thresholds for safe mission operation (Paragraph. 0025); store the one or more thresholds for the one or more operating parameters for safe mission operation for one or more subsequent missions by identifying one or more ranges for the one or more operating parameters that exclude the values identified by the mission trends as being associated with the historical drone accidents [ a method and system for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle to facilitate safe autonomous flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle in an invisible area by matching route map data stored in the unmanned aerial vehicle with a location coordinate, processing an altitude value of an image, and correcting a value measured by a radio altitude sensor may be provided] (Paragraph. 0337); The route map data may be for establishing an autonomous navigation map for flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle on a space by matching at least one of flight altitude restriction data, a detailed digital map, and route information for avoiding a military protection zone or a no-fly zone to the layer shaped on the space (Paragraph. 0336). Examiner interpreted the matching of the navigational data of the unmanned aerial vehicle with the restricted data” as “safe mission operation for one or more subsequent missions by identifying one or more ranges for the one or more operating parameters that exclude the values identified by the mission trends as being associated with the historical drone accidents”. In another way examiner interpreted as matching of the data with the restricted to exclude/avoid the route similarly applicant is matching it for the safe mission as to exclude/avoid the routes that are prone to accidents.
receive telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors of the at least one drone on a subsequent mission that is separate from the one or more missions associated with drone accidents (Paragraph. 0417);
compare the telematics data received on the subsequent mission to the thresholds to identify one or more violations of the one or more thresholds by the at least one drone on the subsequent mission (Paragraph. 0313); and
However, Ham did not explicitly disclose transmit data configured to cause display of the one or more identified violations on a user computing device of an operator associated with the subsequent mission.
In the same field of endeavor Lavie disclosed, “An insurance adjuster is contacted. Parts and repair services are queried to check availability. Depending on the configuration, information about the accident is displayed on an infotainment screen in the vehicle or on an authorized portable device (Paragraph. 0161)”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have incorporated an insurance adjuster is contacted. Parts and repair services are queried to check availability. Depending on the configuration, information about the accident is displayed on an infotainment screen in the vehicle or on an authorized portable device as taught by Lavie in the method and system of Ham to optimize the collection of the data for accurate projections.
2. As per claims 2,12 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to determine at least one mission type based upon the telematics data (Ham, Paragraph. 0106).
3. As per claims 3,13 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a risk profile for the at least one mission type based upon the one or more mission trends (Lavie, Paragraph. 0044). The claim 3 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
4. As per claims 4,14 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to generate at least one of an insurance policy template (Lavie, Paragraph. 0139), a usage-based or mission-based insurance premium, and a usage-based or mission-based insurance rate for the at least one mission type and the one or more identified violations (Lavie, Paragraph. 0152). The claim 4 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
5. As per claims 5,15 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to store, in the at least one memory device, an operator profile associated with the operator of the at least one drone, the operator profile including the one or more identified violations (Ham, Paragraph. 0398).
6. As per claims 6,16 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to generate a usage-based or mission-based insurance premium based upon the operator profile including the one or more identified violations (Lavie, Paragraph. 0161). The claim 6 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
7. As per claims 7,17 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the one or more thresholds for safe mission operation to at least one user associated with a future mission (Ham, Paragraph. 0103).
8. As per claims 8,18 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the processor is further configured to generate, based upon the telematics data from the plurality of missions, a scenario model of a drone accident that occurred (Lavie, Paragraph. 0240), the scenario model including at least one cause of the drone accident wherein the one or more thresholds are determined further based upon the drone accident, the scenario model, and the at least one cause of the drone accident (Lavie, Pararaph. 0194-0197). The claim 8 has the same motivation as to claim 1.
9. As per claims 9,19 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein each mission of the plurality of missions is an unmanned aerial drone mission (Ham, Paragraph. 0083).
10. As per claim 10 Ham-Lavie disclosed wherein the telematics data includes one or more of human or automated operation, operator identification, speed information, altitude information (Lavie, Paragraph. 0022), any vehicle failures during the mission, any sensor failures during the mission, any software failures during the mission, any failure to respond to at least one of warnings and alerts (Lavie, Paragraph. 0059), any overrides of automated modes, any safety interventions, on-board telemetry, diagnostics data, or data about any relevant objects external to the drone (Ham, Paragraph. 0251).
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
12. Claims 1 of instant application rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being un-patentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11978122. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the following same subject matter or similar context for the invention as recited below
Instant Application
16452636 (11978122)
1. A computer system for determining drone operation rules, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and at least one drone, the at least one drone including a plurality of sensors, the at least one processor is configured to:
receive telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors from a plurality of missions including one or more missions associated with drone accidents;
identify one or more mission trends based upon the telematics data including telematics data associated with the drone accidents;
determine, based on the identified one or more mission trends, one or more thresholds for safe mission operation;
store the one or more thresholds for safe mission operation within the at least one memory device; receive telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors of the at least one drone on a subsequent mission that is separate from the one or more missions associated with drone accidents;
compare the telematics data received on the subsequent mission to the thresholds to identify one or more violations of the one or more thresholds by the at least one drone on the subsequent mission; and
transmit data configured to cause display of the one or more identified violations on a user computing device of an operator associated with the subsequent mission.
A computer system for determining drone operation rules, the computer system including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and at least one drone, the at least one drone including a plurality of sensors configured to collect telematics data, the telematics data including a positioning of the at least one drone during travel, the at least one processor is programmed to:
receive a plurality of telematics data from a plurality of missions including one or more missions associated with drone accidents, the telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors; generate a scenario model of a drone accident from the plurality of telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors of the drone involved in the drone accident, the scenario model comprising the telematics data associated with the drone accident and including the positioning of the drone during the drone accident; determine one or more guidelines for safe mission operation of a drone for a subsequent mission based upon at least the scenario model, the subsequent mission separate from the one or more missions associated with drone accidents, the one or more guidelines defining one or more thresholds for at least one respective type of telematics data, the thresholds determined based upon at least the scenario model; store the one or more guidelines for safe mission operation within the at least one memory device; receive telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors of the at least one drone on the subsequent mission, the received telematics data including telematics data of the at least one respective type;
compare the one or more thresholds defined by the guidelines to the received telematics data to identify violations of the one or more guidelines by the drone on the subsequent mission; and
transmit data configured to display the one or more identified violations of the one or more guidelines on a user computing device of an operator associated with the subsequent mission.
Further, the instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11978122 and differ only in terminology. To the extent that the instant claims are broaden and therefore generic to the claimed invention of U.S. Patent No. 11978122, in re Goodman 29 USPQ 2d 2010 CAFC 1993, states that a generic claim cannot be issued without a terminal disclaimer, if a species claim has been previously been claimed in a pending application. Nonetheless, the removal of said limitations from claim 1 of the present application made claim 1 a broader version of claim 1. (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument is as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose,” store the one or more thresholds for the one or more operating parameters for safe mission operation for one or more subsequent missions by identifying one or more ranges for the one or more operating parameters that exclude the values identified by the mission trends as being associated with the historical drone accidents”.
As to applicant’s argument HAM disclosed, “[ a method and system for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle to facilitate safe autonomous flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle in an invisible area by matching route map data stored in the unmanned aerial vehicle with a location coordinate, processing an altitude value of an image, and correcting a value measured by a radio altitude sensor may be provided] (Paragraph. 0337); The route map data may be for establishing an autonomous navigation map for flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle on a space by matching at least one of flight altitude restriction data, a detailed digital map, and route information for avoiding a military protection zone or a no-fly zone to the layer shaped on the space (Paragraph. 0336). Examiner interpreted the matching of the navigational data of the unmanned aerial vehicle with the restricted data” as “safe mission operation for one or more subsequent missions by identifying one or more ranges for the one or more operating parameters that exclude the values identified by the mission trends as being associated with the historical drone accidents”. In another way examiner interpreted as matching of the data with the restricted to exclude/avoid the route similarly applicant is matching it for the safe mission as to exclude/avoid the routes that are prone to accidents”.
B. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “receive telematics data collected by the plurality of sensors from a plurality of missions including one or more missions associated with drone accidents”.
As to applicant’s argument HAM disclosed, “[In operation 3208, the operation system may receive flight information on a periodic basis from the unmanned aerial vehicle. Alternatively, if an event occurs in the unmanned aerial vehicle, the operation system may receive flight information about the corresponding event. Herein, the event may include a result of self-diagnosis continuously performed during flight by the unmanned aerial vehicle, a case where a fault is generated, or a case where an accident or incident occurs while the unmanned aerial vehicle performs its mission.] (Paragraph. 0412)”. Flight information is interpreted as “telematics data” and HAM further disclosed, “[An ID of a registered aerial vehicle, a business code applying for route assignment, information about whether flight is autonomous flight, GPS, INS, and sensor altitude information, flight data, and the like may be displayed on control information 2150 of the unmanned aerial vehicle for the autonomous flight]” (Paragraph. 0275).
C. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “identify one or more missions trends based upon the telematics data including one or more missions associated with drone accidents”.
As to applicant’s argument HAM disclosed, “[In operation 3208, the operation system may receive flight information on a periodic basis from the unmanned aerial vehicle. Alternatively, if an event occurs in the unmanned aerial vehicle, the operation system may receive flight information about the corresponding event. Herein, the event may include a result of self-diagnosis continuously performed during flight by the unmanned aerial vehicle, a case where a fault is generated, or a case where an accident or incident occurs while the unmanned aerial vehicle performs its mission.] (Paragraph. 0412)”. Flight information is interpreted as “telematics data” and HAM further disclosed, “[An ID of a registered aerial vehicle, a business code applying for route assignment, information about whether flight is autonomous flight, GPS, INS, and sensor altitude information, flight data, and the like may be displayed on control information 2150 of the unmanned aerial vehicle for the autonomous flight]” (Paragraph. 0275).
D. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “determine based on the identified one or mission trends, one or more thresholds for the one or more operating parameters for safe mission operation that exclude the values associated with the drone accidents”.
As to applicant’s argument HAM disclosed, “[a method and system for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle to facilitate safe autonomous flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle in an invisible area by matching route map data stored in the unmanned aerial vehicle with a location coordinate, processing an altitude value of an image, and correcting a value measured by a radio altitude sensor may be provided] (Paragraph. 0337).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
15. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights