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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 5 and 11 are canceled.
Claims 1,12-13 are amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 are pending.
Response to arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 05/14/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant argument:
Applicant amended the independent claim 1 to overcome 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
For claims 4,8-10 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Quintana in view of Hoshi-Applicant does not admit PHOSITAs would combine or modification to describe, teach or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1, at least “predicting….falls below….compared to the scheduled flight time”
For claim 3 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Quintana in view of Jaugilas-Applicant does not admit PHOSITAs would combine or modification to describe, teach or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1.
For claims 12 and 13 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Quintana in view of Naito-Applicant does not admit PHOSITAs would combine or modification to describe, teach or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1.
For claims 11-13 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Quintana in view of Naito and Zedlitz -Applicant does not admit PHOSITAs would combine or modification to describe, teach or suggest the limitations of amended independent claim 1.
Office response:
Amended claim 1, overcome 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Please see new mapping for all claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2,6-7,12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over JP2020514576A to Zedritz et al. (herein after “Zedritz”) in view of US20170300050 A1 to Naito et al. (herein after “Naito”).
Regarding claim 1. Zedritz teaches predict a time at which the illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies falls below a threshold value based on at least one value of a detected illuminance at a given point on a ground in the area in which the flight vehicle flies(Zedritz para[0016]) This method calculates future times based on the current time and the predicted transition times of the zone's typical window. ) and
predicted changes in illuminance over time at the area in which the flight vehicle flies; (See Zedritz para[0018] The processor is also configured to predict the sun's position at future times and determine the program specified by the user within the schedule.)
compare a time remaining until the predicted time with a flight time scheduled after a current time included in a flight plan for the flight vehicle (one can calculate based on Zedritz’s predicted solar positioning at future time to calculate remaining time after current time); and
change the flight plan for the flight vehicle when the time remaining is insufficient compared to the scheduled flight time; (same as Zedritz para[0089]-[0090], the output from the external sensor 510 used as a input of the window controller 450 where The window controller 450 uses Module A to calculate the penetration depth of direct sunlight incident on the room 500 based on the position of the sun in the sky and the configuration of the window from the configuration file. (see para[0112])
wherein the processor is configured to predict the time at which the illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicles flies falls below the threshold value by: (See Zedritz para[0018] The processor is also configured to predict the sun's position at future times and determine the program specified by the user within the schedule.)
determining a first illuminance curve in a time-illumination plane including predicted chronological changes in illuminance over a specified period of time to provide the time at which the illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies is predicted to fall below the threshold value; (See Zedritz FIG. 26A, para [0223] The lower graph includes a bell-shaped curve of sunny day illuminance values over time t for reference )
correct the first illuminance curve by translating the first illumination curve in the time-illumination plane to determine a second illuminance curve in the time-illumination plane including the at least one value of the detected illuminance (See Zedritz FIG. 26A )
during the at least one detection time and the chronological changes in illuminance over the specified period of time to provide a corrected time at which the illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies falls below the threshold value based on the second illuminance curve (See Zedritz gifure 26A where the lower graph contains, for reference, a bell-shaped curve of clear-air illuminance values over time t. The lower graph includes a curve of sensor readings taken over time t during the day when the weather regularly deviates from clear weather , The boxcar value is the calculated central tendency (eg, representative, mean, or median) of a large number (n) of consecutive sensor samples (illuminance readings measured over time, The upper graph shows the transmission of the tint state through the tint adjustable window (T .sub.vis ) at time t, as determined by the control method, see para[0223] where the curve adjusted based on the short and long boxcar value based on event,cloud position and time). ; and
wherein the compare step includes comparing a time remaining until the corrected time with the flight time scheduled after the current time included in a flight plan for the flight vehicle. (See Zedritz FIG. 26A shows two graphs related to a normal daily sensor reading and the associated shade states determined by the control method described with reference to FIG. 25A. The lower graph contains, for reference, a bell-shaped curve of clear-air illuminance values over time t.).
However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach An information processing apparatus comprising: an illuminance sensor configured to detect over time values of an illuminance of an area in which a flight vehicle flies, a processor operatively coupled to the illuminance sensor, the processor configured to, predict a time at which the illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies falls below a threshold value based on at least one value of a detected illuminance at a given point on a ground in the area in which the flight vehicle flies. Nevertheless, Naito same field of endeavor teaches An information processing apparatus comprising: an illuminance sensor (see Naito illuminance sensor 101) configured to detect over time values of an illuminance of an area in which a flight vehicle flies (see Naito para [0068] An illuminance sensor 101 is provided on a front surface of the drone 1. The illuminance sensor 101 is a phototransistor or a photodiode, for example, and detects an illuminance in a flight direction of the drone 1);
a processor operatively coupled to the illuminance sensor, the processor configured to: (See Naito para[0233] the software program is stored in one or more non-transitory recording media such as read-only memories (ROMs), optical discs, or hard disk drives, and the functions specified by the software program are executed by a processor and peripheral devices when the processor executes the software program. A system or an apparatus may include one or more non-transitory recording media storing the software program, the processor, and a necessary hardware device, such as an interface)
receive the at least one value of the detected illuminance from the illuminance sensor during at least one detection time (see Naito para[0068] An illuminance sensor 101 is provided on a front surface of the drone 1. The illuminance sensor 101 is a phototransistor or a photodiode, for example, and detects an illuminance in a flight direction of the drone 1.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Naito’s illuminance sensor to detect illuminance in all dimensions of the unmanned aerial vehicle in order to allow to fly only within the range of visibility in which the unmanned aerial vehicle can be visually observed (See para[0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach to wherein the flight plan is changed to a flight plan in which the flight vehicle does not pass through any of a plurality of scheduled waypoints. Nevertheless, Naito same field of endeavor teaches to wherein the flight plan is changed to a flight plan in which the flight vehicle does not pass through any of a plurality of scheduled waypoints (see claim 2 Niato claim 2 flying, if the detected illuminance does not satisfy the illuminance requirement, the drone in a direction different from the flight direction, para [0047]In addition, in the drone, the operations may further include flying, if the detected illuminance does not satisfy the illuminance requirement, the drone in a direction different from the flight direction)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Naito’s illuminance sensor to detect illuminance in all dimensions of the unmanned aerial vehicle in order to allow to fly only within the range of visibility in which the unmanned aerial vehicle can be visually observed (See para[0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. Zedritz teaches wherein the processor predicts the time based on an estimated sunset time in the area on a day when the flight vehicle flies. (See Zedritz para[0185]For example, sunrise and sunset times change throughout the year, and the user may not want to reprogram the schedule to account for these changes. The schedule logic 1518 uses the sunrise and sunset times from the sun position calculator 1512 to allow the user to reprogram the schedule for these changing times before and after sunrise without having to reprogram the schedule, see para[0223]Since the illumination value is below the lower limit, a defined shade level (nominal transparent state) associated with 60% T .sub.vis is applied, para[0191] Module 1 1406 includes logic to determine the hue level and return it to the scheduling logic 1518 of the window controller 1410.
This logic predicts the appropriate hue level for a future time provided by the time portion 1510. The hue level is determined for a representative hue-adjustable window associated with each zone in the schedule).
Regarding claim 7, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. Zedritz teaches wherein the processor predicts the time using information on weather in the area in which the flight vehicle flies. . (See Zedritz para[0185]For example, sunrise and sunset times change throughout the year, and the user may not want to reprogram the schedule to account for these changes. The schedule logic 1518 uses the sunrise and sunset times from the sun position calculator 1512 to allow the user to reprogram the schedule for these changing times before and after sunrise without having to reprogram the schedule, see para[0223]Since the illumination value is below the lower limit, a defined shade level (nominal transparent state) associated with 60% T .sub.vis is applied, para[0191] Module 1 1406 includes logic to determine the hue level and return it to the scheduling logic 1518 of the window controller 1410.
This logic predicts the appropriate hue level for a future time provided by the time portion 1510. The hue level is determined for a representative hue-adjustable window associated with each zone in the schedule).
Regarding claim 12, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. Zedritz teaches wherein the first illuminance curve represents a predicted change in illuminance at the given point on the ground throughout the period of time. (See Zedritz FIG. 26A shows two graphs related to a normal daily sensor reading and the associated shade states determined by the control method described with reference to FIG. 25A. The lower graph contains, for reference, a bell-shaped curve of clear-air illuminance values over time t.).
Regarding claim 13, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. Zedritz teaches wherein the first illuminance curve includes predicted changes in illuminance assuming weather during the flight time remains clear and unchanged. (See Zedritz FIG. 26A shows two graphs related to a normal daily sensor reading and the associated shade states determined by the control method described with reference to FIG. 25A. The lower graph contains, for reference, a bell-shaped curve of clear-air illuminance values over time t).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over “Zedritz” in view of “Naito” and US 20190144112 A1 to Jaugilas (herein after “Jaugilas).
Regarding claim 3, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach apparatus according to wherein the flight plan is changed to a flight plan in accordance with an increase in power consumption due to flight at an illuminance below the threshold value. Nevertheless, Jaugilas same field of endeavor teaches wherein the flight plan is changed to a flight plan in accordance with an increase in power consumption due to flight at an illuminance below the threshold value (See Jaugilas para[0118] flight plan generator 800 increases the energy generated from flying a set distance from a high voltage power line to compensate for having less solar power.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Jaugilas’s changing flight plan based on increasing in power consumption of the unmanned aerial vehicle in order to allow to increase the battery capacity without increasing the weight of the aerial vehicle (see para[0003]).
Claims 4,8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over “Zedritz” in view of “Naito” and JP 2021060644 A to Hoshi et al. (herein after “Hoshi”).
Regarding claim 4, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the flight plan is changed to a flight plan in which the flight vehicle flies to an alternative transportation base for alternative transportation of a package being transported by the flight vehicle. Nevertheless, Hoshi same field of endeavor teaches wherein the flight plan is changed to a flight plan in which the flight vehicle flies to an alternative transportation base for alternative transportation of a package being transported by the flight vehicle (See Hoshi para[0002] a distribution plan adjustment method and a system for creating an efficient alternative transportation plan by reflecting the actual operation status and the status of cargo loading / unloading work).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Hoshi’s flight plan changes condition depend on alternative transportation in order to allow to manages the delivery status of the delivery vehicle detects a delivery vehicle that is not expected to arrive at the destination by the scheduled time (see para[0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the processor changes the flight plan based on recorded time required to deliver a package to be transported by the flight vehicle, from an above a destination to the destination. Nevertheless, Hoshi same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor changes the flight plan based on recorded time required to deliver a package to be transported by the flight vehicle, from an above a destination to the destination (See Hoshi para[0014] Create and change delivery plan information that defines the estimated delivery time to the destination and delivery destination. The delivery plan information is created based on the delivery destination specified by the shipper and the desired delivery time zone. The delivery plan change device 10 transmits the delivery plan information to the control devices 31 to 51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Hoshi’s flight plan changes condition depend on alternative transportation in order to allow to manages the delivery status of the delivery vehicle detects a delivery vehicle that is not expected to arrive at the destination by the scheduled time (see para[0002]).
Regarding claim 9, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the changing unit processor changes the flight plan based on a method for delivering a package to be transported by the flight vehicle to a destination. Nevertheless, Hoshi same field of endeavor teaches wherein the changing unit processor changes the flight plan based on a method for delivering a package to be transported by the flight vehicle to a destination. (See Hoshi para[0033] the delivery plan change determination unit 106 determines the scheduled delivery time to each delivery destination for all patterns of the delivery method. ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Hoshi’s flight plan changes condition depend on alternative transportation in order to allow to manages the delivery status of the delivery vehicle detects a delivery vehicle that is not expected to arrive at the destination by the scheduled time (see para[0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Zedritz and Naito remain applied as claim 1. However, Zedritz does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the processor changes the flight plan based on an attribute of a destination of a package to be transported by the flight vehicle. Nevertheless, Hoshi same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor changes the flight plan based on an attribute of a destination of a package to be transported by the flight vehicle. (See Hoshi paras[0032] - [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Zedritz’s control method of tintable window based on the illuminance over the time with Hoshi’s flight plan changes condition depend on alternative transportation in order to allow to manages the delivery status of the delivery vehicle detects a delivery vehicle that is not expected to arrive at the destination by the scheduled time (see para[0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights