DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on March 4, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12-13, and 15 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a method of determining a set of landing sites for an aircraft, which is composed of retrieving a first map of a reachable area surrounding the aircraft, converting data relating to a plurality of no-go zones into a second map, filtering the plurality of no-go zones from the first map using the second map to create a third map of potential landing sites, fitting a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software in which each fitted rectangle is characterized by length, width, and coordinates and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones and identifying one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites (a method). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of determining a set of landing sites for an aircraft, wherein the method comprises:
retrieving a first map of a reachable area surrounding the aircraft;
converting data relating to a plurality of no-go zones into a second map;
filtering the plurality of no-go zones from the first map using the second map to create a third map of potential landing sites; and
fitting a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones;
identifying one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites;
generating a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites;
and navigating the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites by executing the flight plan.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “retrieving”, “converting”, “filtering”, “fitting”, “identifying”, “generating”, and “navigating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 7-9 and 12-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 uses the limitation of “receiving data corresponding to a terrain profile of the reachable area”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 uses the limitation of “identifying a plurality of low-risk landing sites from the one or more feasible landing sites using the data corresponding to the terrain profile of the reachable area”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 uses the limitations of “identifying a plurality of feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft”, “ranking the plurality of feasible landing sites”, and “navigating to a highest ranked of the plurality of feasible landing sites”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 12 uses the limitations of “selecting a highest-ranked landing site”, generating a first flight plan” and “sending the first flight plan to an air traffic controller”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 13 uses the limitations of “receiving an approval from the air traffic controller” and “programming the first flight plan into the aircraft”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 uses the limitations of “receiving a disapproval from the air traffic controller”, “selecting a second landing site”, “generating a second flight plan”, “sending the second flight plan to the air traffic controller”, “receiving an approval form the air traffic controller”, and “programming the second flight plan into the aircraft”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 15,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 15 is directed toward a system of determining a set of landing sites for an aircraft comprising a processor which is configured to retrieve a first map of a reachable area surrounding the aircraft, convert data relating to a plurality of no-go zones into a second map, filter the plurality of no-go zones from the first map using the second map to create a third map of potential landing sites, fit a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones, identify one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft and the fitted rectangles associated with each potential landing sites, and generate a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites in which the flight plan is configured to navigate the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites (a machine). Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for determining a set of landing sites for an aircraft comprising a processor; wherein the processor is configured to:
retrieve a first map of a reachable area surrounding the aircraft;
convert data relating to a plurality of no-go zones into a second map;
filter the plurality of no-go zones from the first map using the second map to create a third map of potential landing sites; and
fit a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones;
identify one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites;
and generate a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites, the flight plan being configured to navigate the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “retrieve”, “convert”, “filter”, “fit”, and “identify”, and “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10676213) in view of Shuster (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070138345) and further in view of Zeng, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10676213).
Regarding claim 1, Ding, et al. teaches: A method of determining a set of landing sites for an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: retrieving a first map of a reachable area surrounding the aircraft; (Flow Diagram (400), Steps (402) - (404), Col. 8, lines 19-31: "FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary data flow diagram (400) [method] that can be performed by the processing subsystem (204) of FIG. 2 independently or in conjunction with the processing subsystem (304) of FIG. 3. Sensor data indicative of current conditions at potential landing areas (132) of FIG. 1 for the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1 [aircraft] are received at sensor data processing (402) from the sensors (122). The sensor data processing (402) may also receive position data (404), for example, from the navigation system (134) of FIGS. 1 and 2. The position data (404) received for the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1 may be used to determine positions of the potential landing areas (132) of FIG. 1 and the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1 [retrieving map of reachable (landing) area using position data information].")
converting data relating to a plurality of no-go zones into a second map; (Col. 5, lines 28-45: "…rule out a number of cells (138) as possible safe landing areas. For example, a number of no-fly zones (142) can be defined within the potential landing areas (132) [creation of no-go zones]. […] Determining an optimal safe landing area may be performed locally by the SLA determination system (106) or can be done in whole or in part by a remote computer system (148). For example, the aircraft computer system (118) can transmit a copy of a SLA map for the potential landing areas (132) via a communication interface (150) to the remote computer system (148) [convert data related to no-go zones into second map].")
filtering the plurality of no-go zones from the first map using the second map to create a third map of potential landing sites (Col. 8, lines 1-5: "…remote computer system (302) receives the SLA map (228) from the aircraft computer system (118) of FIG. 2, performs SLA optimization [optimizes map to extract no-go zones], and returns the optimal SLA (232) to the aircraft computer system (118) of FIG. 2." ; Flow Diagram (400), Steps (402-406), Col. 8, lines 34-42: "…SLA mapping logic (202) includes feature extraction logic (406) and map update logic (408) to produce the SLA map (228).The sensor data processing (402) can provide the sensor data to the feature extraction logic (406). The feature extraction logic (406) performs feature extraction on the sensor data. The feature extraction logic (406) may perform known detection techniques to identify or filter out features [filtering out undesirable features from second map to create third map]." ; Col. 8, lines 59-61: "The map update logic (408) can generate and update the SLA map (228) based on comparing extracted features of the sensor data with the probabilistic SLA model (214) [extraction process - removal of individual features].").
Ding, et al. does not teach and identifying one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft, generating a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites; and navigating the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites by executing the flight plan.
In a similar field of endeavor (aviation navigation), Shuster teaches: and identifying one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft (Step (304), Paragraph [0038]: "At step (304), an on-board computer may select a nearest acceptable landing area from a database of landing areas [identifying feasible landing site from map] meeting the landing requirements [landing requirements] and within glide range. Once the current equipment status, wind speed and direction, and altitude are known, the glide radius in various directions may be calculated.").
generating a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites; (Step (304), Paragraph [0038]: "The system may select any number of emergency landing areas located in the glide radius, and prioritize them according to suitability for an emergency landing, distance from current location, and pilot preferences for landing areas, if any. One or more of the highest-priority emergency landing areas may be selected [generating flight plan based on landing sites]")
and navigating the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites by executing the flight plan (Step (304), Paragraph [0039]: "Once the landing area is selected, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path [navigating aircraft to landing site based on flight plan].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding, et al. to include the teaching of Shuster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of guiding an aircraft towards the completion of an emergency landing based on specified requirements (Shuster Paragraphs [0009] – [0011]).
The combination of Ding, et al. and Shuster does not teach fitting a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones; and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites.
In a similar field of endeavor (path planning for landing of aircraft), Zeng, et al. teaches: fitting a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones; (Step (S500), Col. 6, lines 37-51: "The terrain analysis result is obtained through weighted summation based on the terrain type, the image uniformity score, and the consistency score. A length and a width of a corresponding touchdown taxiing rectangular box are obtained based on the terrain analysis result. A flat area sufficient to contain the touchdown taxiing rectangular box is selected as the alternative landing area, and a landing score is calculated for the alternative landing area based on the terrain analysis result [length, width, and coordinates of rectangular area; analysis of landing sites]." ; Step (S600), Col. 6, lines 52-64: Obtain a current satellite image of the alternative landing area and determine the landing area. In this embodiment, the obtaining a current satellite image of the alternative landing area and determining the landing area [using image processing software] […] The current satellite image of the alternative landing area may be obtained, and a similarity between a current satellite image of an alternative landing area with a highest landing score and the historical satellite image may be calculated. When the similarity is greater than or equal to a preset reliable threshold, the alternative landing area with the highest landing score as the landing area may be selected [comparison of sites, determining max size of available safe space].").
and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites (Zeng, et al. Step (S500), Col. 6, lines 37-51: "The terrain analysis result is obtained through weighted summation based on the terrain type, the image uniformity score, and the consistency score. A length and a width of a corresponding touchdown taxiing rectangular box are obtained based on the terrain analysis result. A flat area sufficient to contain the touchdown taxiing rectangular box is selected as the alternative landing area, and a landing score is calculated for the alternative landing area based on the terrain analysis result [length, width, and coordinates of rectangular area; analysis of landing sites].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ding, et al. and Shuster to include the teaching of Zeng, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of preparing a landing path for an aircraft based on image recognition (Zeng, et al. Col. 1, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 2, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reachable area is determined from an assessment of an aircraft's manoeuvrability (Ding, et al. Col. 6, lines 54-60: "The constraints (218) may define a variety of limits associated with the mission and/or the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1 [aircraft]. For example, the constraints (218) can include a bounding box or range relative to the targeted location (146) of FIG. 1 to limit analysis of the potential landing areas (132) of FIG. 1 [reachable area]. The constraints (218) may also include limits of maneuverability of the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1 [assessment of aircraft's maneuverability].").
Regarding claim 4, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reachable area is determined using data corresponding to at least one of an aircraft heading, position, track, course, altitude, or speed (Ding, et al. Step (402), Col. 8, lines 22-27: "Sensor data indicative of current conditions at potential landing areas (132) [reachable area] of FIG. 1 for the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1 are received at sensor data processing (402) from the sensors (122). The sensor data processing (402) may also receive position data (404) [data corresponding to aircraft position], for example, from the navigation system (134) of FIGS. 1 and 2.").
Regarding claim 5, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reachable area is determined using data corresponding to aircraft fuel levels (Ding, et al. Step (410), Col. 9, lines 18-27: "…The SLA optimizer (226) can rank the list of candidate SLAs (230) based on the planner results (410), which can include estimated costs to reach each of the candidate SLAs (230) [reachable data - safe landing area (SLA)]. The estimated cost to reach each of the candidate SLAs (230) can be defined as one or more of: […] an estimated amount of fuel consumption [aircraft fuel level]").
Regarding claim 6, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more landing requirements for the aircraft comprise at least one of a minimum length or width of a landing strip for the aircraft (Shuster Paragraph [0011]: "In addition, the aircraft landing requirements may also be gathered. Such as the minimum landing strip length needed for landing [landing requirements for aircraft include minimum length of landing strip for aircraft]").
Regarding claim 7, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method comprises receiving data corresponding to a terrain profile of the reachable area (Ding, et al. Col. 5, lines 6-9: "…the aircraft computer system (118) of the SLA determination system (106) observes the terrain (130) [terrain profile] and determines current conditions at the potential landing areas (132) [receives data pertaining to reachable (landing) area] for the autonomous UAV (100)").
Regarding claim 8, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 7, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the method comprises identifying a plurality of low-risk landing sites from the one or more feasible landing sites using the data corresponding to the terrain profile of the reachable area (Ding, et al. Col. 6, lines 40-42: "The probabilistic SLA [safe (low risk) landing area] model (214) can define probabilities that terrain features [terrain profile] are suitable for safe landing [feasible landing sites] of the autonomous UAV (100) of FIG. 1.").
Regarding claim 9, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, Ding, et al. teaches: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method comprises: and ranking the plurality of feasible landing sites (Step (410), Col. 9, lines 18-23: "…The SLA optimizer (226) can rank the list of candidate SLAs (230) based on the planner results (410), which can include estimated costs to reach each of the candidate SLAs (230) [ranking the plurality of feasible landing sites (e.g., safe landing areas (SLAs))].").
Ding, et al. does not teach identifying a plurality of feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft; wherein navigating the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites comprises navigating to a highest ranked of the plurality of feasible landing sites.
In a similar field of endeavor (aviation navigation), Shuster teaches: identifying a plurality of feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft (Step (304), Paragraph [0038]: "At step (304), an on-board computer may select a nearest acceptable landing area from a database of landing areas [identifying feasible landing site from map] meeting the landing requirements [landing requirements] and within glide range. Once the current equipment status, wind speed and direction, and altitude are known, the glide radius in various directions may be calculated.")
wherein navigating the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites comprises navigating to a highest ranked of the plurality of feasible landing sites (Paragraph [0017]: "the system may find the nearest landing area of the highest available classification, and direct the pilot toward that location [navigating to highest ranked of available landing sites].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding, et al. to include the teaching of Shuster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of guiding an aircraft towards the completion of an emergency landing based on specified requirements (Shuster Paragraphs [0009] – [0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 9, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the plurality of feasible landing sites are ranked in order of landing strip size (Shuster Paragraph [0025]: "Database (104) may contain data describing the location and characteristics of emergency landing area. Data concerning landing areas [database containing plurality of feasible landing sites] may be gathered in advance using various manual or semi-automatic data. Such data may include the geographic location of the landing area, elevation, length and orientation of landing strips [landing strip size], [...] Each landing area may be assigned a classification to indicate its desirability as a landing area, for example, class A, class B, etc [ranking system].").
Regarding claim 11, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 9, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the plurality of feasible landing sites are ranked based on the distance to a landing site of the set of landing sets and a required manoeuvrability (Ding, et al. Col 5., lines 45-50: "The remote computer system (148) can be a ground control station that includes a processing subsystem (152) which implements a path planner to rank a list of the candidate safe landing areas (140) based on an estimated cost to reach each of the candidate safe landing areas (140) [ranking feasible landing sites (e.g., safe landing areas) based on specific costs]" ; Ding, et al. Col. 6, lines 42-48: "The costs (216) may define mission-level cost details [costs include], such as costs associated distances [distance to a safe landing site], […] For example, a cost-per-unit of time or distance may be defined [costs also include] […] according to a multi-variable lookup table based on maneuver type [required manoeuvrability]").
Regarding claim 12, Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. remain as applied to claim 9, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method as claimed in claim 9, comprising selecting a highest-ranked landing site, wherein generating the flight plan comprises and generating a first flight plan and sending the first flight plan to an air traffic controller (Shuster Paragraph [0038]: "One or more of the highest-priority emergency landing areas may be selected [selecting highest-ranked landing site]." ; Shuster Paragraph [0040]: "…the navigation system may broadcast an emergency signal comprising current coordinates and location of the selected landing area. This may be useful to alert other pilots in the vicinity and the airstrip controllers, if any, that a plane is gliding in for a landing under emergency conditions [generates flight plan and sends plan to air traffic controller].").
Regarding claim 15, Ding, et al. teaches: A system for determining a set of landing sites for an aircraft comprising one or more processors; (Col. 5, lines 6-9: "…the aircraft computer system (118) [system] of the SLA determination system (106) [set of landing sites] observes the terrain (130) and determines current conditions at the potential landing areas (132) for the autonomous UAV (100) [aircraft]." ; Col. 6, lines 6-8: "…FIG. 2, the aircraft computer system (118) includes a memory (206) that communicates with a processing subsystem (204) [processor].")
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (Col. 6, lines 6-8: "…FIG. 2, the aircraft computer system (118) includes a memory (206) that communicates with a processing subsystem (204) [processor].")
retrieve a first map of a reachable area surrounding the aircraft; (Col. 5, lines 6-20: "…the aircraft computer system (118) of the SLA determination system (106) observes the terrain (130) and determines current conditions at the potential landing areas (132) for the autonomous UAV (100). A geospatial grid (136) subdivides and partitions the potential landing areas (132) into a plurality of cells (138) for analysis. [...] Using feature extraction for visual information and/or depth information, a probabilistic safe landing area map can be developed and updated based on comparing extracted features of the sensor data with a probabilistic safe landing area model [creation of first map of reachable areas surrounding aircraft].")
convert data relating to a plurality of no-go zones into a second map; (Col. 5, lines 28-45: "…rule out a number of cells (138) as possible safe landing areas. For example, a number of no-fly zones (142) can be defined within the potential landing areas (132) [creation of no-go zones]. […] Determining an optimal safe landing area may be performed locally by the SLA determination system (106) or can be done in whole or in part by a remote computer system (148). For example, the aircraft computer system (118) can transmit a copy of a SLA map for the potential landing areas (132) via a communication interface (150) to the remote computer system (148) [convert data related to no-go zones into second map].")
filter the plurality of no-go zones from the first map using the second map to create a third map of potential landing sites (Col. 8, lines 1-5: "…remote computer system (302) receives the SLA map (228) from the aircraft computer system (118) of FIG. 2, performs SLA optimization [optimizes map to extract no-go zones], and returns the optimal SLA (232) to the aircraft computer system (118) of FIG. 2." ; Col. 8, lines 34-42: "…SLA mapping logic (202) includes feature extraction logic (406) and map update logic (408) to produce the SLA map (228).The sensor data processing (402) can provide the sensor data to the feature extraction logic (406). The feature extraction logic (406) performs feature extraction on the sensor data. The feature extraction logic (406) may perform known detection techniques to identify or filter out features [filtering out undesirable features from second map to create third map]." ; Col. 8, lines 59-61: "The map update logic (408) can generate and update the SLA map (228) based on comparing extracted features of the sensor data with the probabilistic SLA model (214) [extraction process - removal of individual features].").
Ding, et al. does not teach and identify one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft and generate a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites, the flight plan being configured to navigate the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites.
In a similar field of endeavor (aviation navigation), Shuster teaches: and identify one or more feasible landing sites from the third map based on one or more landing requirements of the aircraft (Paragraph [0032]: "Other parameters that may be specified, and that may be important in the selection or use of a landing area, may also be specified [selection of landing sites from map]. […] In an embodiment of the invention, glide characteristics and landing requirements [landing requirements] for various models of aircraft under different conditions may be maintained in the system database to ease the chore of configuring the system for a particular aircraft and flight. […] the range of glide speeds the plane is capable of under various conditions, such with or without landing gear extended, etc, the best glide speed, the rate of descent at different glide speeds and payloads, the maximum cruising altitude, maximum airspeed, and so forth. Other parameters may include the amount of fuel on board, the weight of other payload on board, acceptable terrain for landing, wingspan, minimum landing length needed, or other pertinent data [examples of aircraft landing requirements].").
and generate a flight plan based on the identified feasible one or more landing sites, the flight plan being configured to navigate the aircraft to one of the identified feasible one or more landing sites (Paragraph [0038]: "The system may select any number of emergency landing areas located in the glide radius, and prioritize them according to suitability for an emergency landing, distance from current location, and pilot preferences for landing areas, if any. One or more of the highest-priority emergency landing areas may be selected [generating flight plan based on landing sites]" ; Paragraph [0039]: "Once the landing area is selected, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path [navigating aircraft to landing site based on flight plan].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ding, et al. to include the teaching of Shuster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of guiding an aircraft towards the completion of an emergency landing based on specified requirements (Shuster Paragraphs [0009] – [0011]).
The combination of Ding, et al. and Shuster does not teach fit a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones; and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites.
In a similar field of endeavor (path planning for landing of aircraft), Zeng, et al. teaches: fit a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones; (Col. 6, lines 37-51: "The terrain analysis result is obtained through weighted summation based on the terrain type, the image uniformity score, and the consistency score. A length and a width of a corresponding touchdown taxiing rectangular box are obtained based on the terrain analysis result. A flat area sufficient to contain the touchdown taxiing rectangular box is selected as the alternative landing area, and a landing score is calculated for the alternative landing area based on the terrain analysis result [length, width, and coordinates of rectangular area; analysis of landing sites]." ; Col. 6, lines 52-64: "Obtain a current satellite image of the alternative landing area and determine the landing area. In this embodiment, the obtaining a current satellite image of the alternative landing area and determining the landing area [using image processing software] […] The current satellite image of the alternative landing area may be obtained, and a similarity between a current satellite image of an alternative landing area with a highest landing score and the historical satellite image may be calculated. When the similarity is greater than or equal to a preset reliable threshold, the alternative landing area with the highest landing score as the landing area may be selected [comparison of sites, determining max size of available safe space].")
and the fitted rectangles associated with each of the potential landing sites (Paragraph [0038]: "The system may select any number of emergency landing areas located in the glide radius, and prioritize them according to suitability for an emergency landing, distance from current location, and pilot preferences for landing areas, if any. One or more of the highest-priority emergency landing areas may be selected [generating flight plan based on landing sites]" ; Paragraph [0039]: "Once the landing area is selected, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path [navigating aircraft to landing site based on flight plan].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ding, et al. and Shuster to include the teaching of Zeng, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of preparing a landing path for an aircraft based on image recognition (Zeng, et al. Col. 1, lines 16-19).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10676213), Shuster (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070138345), and Zeng, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11573579) in view of Driscoll, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210094692).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. does not teach the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the assessment of the aircraft's manoeuvrability uses data corresponding to the steerability of the aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (steering of aircraft to destination), Driscoll, et al. teaches: The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the assessment of the aircraft's manoeuvrability uses data corresponding to the steerability of the aircraft (Paragraph [0026]: "As the vehicle (10) [aircraft] descends using the parasail (110), the guidance system (216) can use the three-dimensional map to determine the an acceptable landing position for the vehicle (10) [assessment of potential landing sites]. Furthermore, the guidance system (216) can determine potential obstacles in the descent path of the vehicle (10) and can steer the parasail (110) to avoid collision with the obstacle [assessment of manoeuvrability to travel to potential landing site involves steerability of aircraft].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. to include the teaching of Driscoll, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the steering of an aircraft to a landing site (Driscoll, et al. Paragraph [0003]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10676213), Shuster (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070138345), Zeng, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11573579) in view of Levy, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160140851).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ding, et al. and Shuster does not teach the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the method comprises receiving an approval from the air traffic controller and programming the first flight plan into the aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft navigation), Levy, et al. teaches: The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the method comprises receiving an approval from the air traffic controller and programming the first flight plan into the aircraft prior to navigating the aircraft by executing the first flight plan (Step (408), Paragraph [0137]: "…FIG. 4, optionally, at (408), the proposed flight path is approved [approved] by the control server [air traffic controller] when the flight risk of the drone is within an acceptable risk threshold [prior to navigating aircraft by executing flight plan]" ; Paragraph [0064]: "Control center (1108) monitors and/or controls drones (1106) [...] navigates drones through the allowed air spaces [programmed aircraft to operate through allowed airspace]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. to include the teaching of Levy, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of navigating an aircraft to a landing site as a function of approval from air traffic control (ATC) (Levy, et al. Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. does not teach the method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the method comprises: receiving a disapproval from the air traffic controller; selecting a second landing site; generating a second flight plan; sending the second flight plan to the air traffic controller; receiving an approval form the air traffic controller; and programming the second flight plan into the aircraft, prior to navigating the aircraft by executing the second flight plan.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft navigation), Levy, et al. teaches: The method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the method comprises: receiving a disapproval from the air traffic controller; (Step (410), Paragraph [0138]: "Alternatively, at (410), when the proposed flight path is not approved by the control server [air traffic controller], the flight path is rejected or blocked [disapproval].)
selecting a second landing site; (Step (416), Paragraph [0154]: "Control may be transferred permanently to the server, for example, when an emergency landing is required. Control may be temporarily transferred to the server and then returned to the drone, for example, to correct small deviations from the flight plan [selecting second landing site in case of emergency landing].")
generating a second flight plan; (Step (410), Paragraph [0138]: "In such a case, the control server may request a new flight plan [generating a second flight plan]")
sending the second flight plan to the air traffic controller; (Step (410), Paragraph [0138]: "…the control server [air traffic controller] may request a new flight plan [second flight plan], and/or calculate one or more allowed flight paths for the drone, as described herein [sent plan to air traffic controller for approval].")
receiving an approval form the air traffic controller; (Step (410), Paragraph [0138]: "…the control server [air traffic controller] […] and/or calculate one or more allowed flight paths for the drone, as described herein [allowed - receiving approval from air traffic controller].")
and programming the second flight plan into the aircraft, prior to navigating the aircraft by executing the second flight plan (Step (410), Paragraph [0138]: "The drone [aircraft] may navigated or be navigated based the allowed flight paths, as described herein [navigating based on programmed second plan; prior to navigating aircraft by executing flight plan].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al. to include the teaching of Levy, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of navigating an aircraft to an alternative landing site as a function of disapproval from air traffic control (ATC) (Levy, et al. Paragraph [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant asserted that amended claims 1 and 15 were patentable over Ding, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10676213) in view of Shuster (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20070138345) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “fitting a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones”. Please note that Zeng, et al. was cited in order to teach these features. In Zeng, et al., the process of terrain analysis for potential landing sites is conducted using a process of “…weighted summation based on the terrain type, the image uniformity score, and the consistency score”, which yields the result of “…A length and a width of a corresponding touchdown taxiing rectangular box” for the creation of alternative landing sites and is analyzed through the process of determining “A flat area sufficient to contain the touchdown taxiing rectangular box is selected as the alternative landing area, and a landing score is calculated for the alternative landing area based on the terrain analysis result” (Col. 6, lines 37-51). Further analysis is conducted with respect to alternative landing areas by comparing the results of the previous procedure with “a current satellite image of the alternative landing area” in which “a similarity between a current satellite image of an alternative landing area with a highest landing score and the historical satellite image may be calculated”, and as a result, “when the similarity is greater than or equal to a preset reliable threshold, the alternative landing area with the highest landing score as the landing area may be selected” (Col. 6, lines 37-51). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Zeng, et al. with Ding, et al. and Shuster because Ding, et al. teaches the process of retrieving a landing map for an aircraft (Col. 8, lines 19-31), identifying no-go zones (Col. 5, lines 28-45), and filtering the zones to create a new map of potential landing sites (Col. 8, lines 1-5, Col. 8, lines 34-42, and Col. 8, lines 59-61) and Shuster teaches the identification of landing sites based on the aircraft’s landing requirements (Paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Ding, et al., Shuster, and Zeng, et al., reads on the claim limitation “fitting a rectangle to each of the potential landing sites via image processing software, each fitted rectangle being characterized by length, width, and coordinates, and each fitted rectangle being of a maximum size possible within an associated safe space between the plurality of no-go zones”, as stated in amended claims 1 and 15, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rey, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220198945) teaches a landing site selection system and method which selects landing sites for emergency landings for a specified aircraft.
Spinelli, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9520066) teaches a routing tool for the determination of a suitable emergency landing site for an aircraft.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 Y 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights