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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1, 5-10 are amended.
Claims 11-13 are new claims.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 11/11/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/11/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Applicant remarks:
Applicant respectfully disagrees the rejection of claim 1 based on Baba and Watanabe (page 9)
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims 3 and 7 based on Baba, Watanabe and Azizi (page 13).
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections of claims 8, 9 and 10 based on Baba, Watanabe and Kawamoto (pages 16- 19).
Office response:
Applicant clarifying amendments of independent claim 1, which change the scope of the claim and Office has supplied new grounds for rejection.
Amended independent claims 1 and 7 imply the change in scope of the claim for claims 3 and 7, which change the scope of the claim and Office has supplied new grounds for rejection.
Amended independent claims 1, 8, 9 and 10 imply the change in scope of the claim for claims 8, 9 and 10, which change the scope of the claim and Office has supplied new grounds for rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2,6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by US20210309385 A1 to Quintana et al. (herein after “Quintana).
Regarding claim 1, Quintana teaches An information processing apparatus comprising (See Quintana control members for controlling said system 10 )
a processor configured to
predict a time at which an illuminance of an area in which a flight vehicle flies falls below a threshold value based on at least one detected illuminance at a given point on aground in the area in which the flight vehicle flies and predicted changes in illuminance over time at the area in which the flight vehicle flies; (See para[0014] At least two criteria are associated with each risk, in particular the time to the aircraft being endangered by the risk, and a severity associated with said risk., para[0163] For example, a curve relating to a risk associated with a parameter of the aircraft may be shown in FIG. 6. For example, this curve represents the risk associated with light that may or may not allow a flight to be flown under VFR conditions )
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; (see Quintana para[0163] –[0169] risk is associated with the sunset and sunrise time) and change the flight plan for the flight vehicle when the time remaining is insufficient compared to the scheduled flight time. (See Quintana para[0204] The central module 20 then transmits new instructions to the display device 31 for displaying the change to the pilot, and proposes a new route so as to avoid the zone in which flying under VFR conditions is not possible)
Regarding claim 2, Quintana teaches 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 Quintana para[0204] The central module 20 then transmits new instructions to the display device 31 for displaying the change to the pilot, and proposes a new route so as to avoid the zone in which flying under VFR conditions is not possible, and that also avoids populated zones or zones with trees, due to the risk of a total failure of the engine, which would require an emergency landing maneuver to be performed)
Regarding claim 6, Quintana 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 Quintana para[0164]).
Regarding claim 7, Quintana teaches wherein the processor predicts the time using information on weather in the area in which the flight vehicle flies. (see Quintana at least para[0085] A parameter external to the system may be the atmospheric conditions. An auxiliary module may include one or more sensors, e.g. for measuring the weather conditions and in particular the temperature and the atmospheric pressure that are external to the system, or indeed the wind to which the system is subjected. An auxiliary module may also be connected to a memory containing weather information such as the latest weather forecast for the zone in which the system is situated. An auxiliary module may also include a receiver in order to receive weather information, in particular the latest weather forecast for the zone in which the system is situated).
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 4,8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20210309385 A1 to Quintana et al. (herein after “Quintana) in view of JP 2021060644 A to Hoshi et al. (herein after “Hoshi”).
Regarding claim 4, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. However, Quintana 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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. However, Quintana 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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. However, Quintana 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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. However, Quintana 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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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]).
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20210309385 A1 to Quintana et al. (herein after “Quintana) in view of US 20190144112 A1 to Jaugilas (herein after “Jaugilas).
Regarding claim 3, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. However, Quintana does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach 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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20210309385 A1 to Quintana et al. (herein after “Quintana) in view of US20170300050 A1 to Naito et al. (herein after “Naito”).
Regarding claim 5, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. However, Quintana does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the processor predicts the time based on the at least one detected illuminance and illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies, the illuminance of the area being detected by an illuminance sensor of the flight vehicle. Nevertheless, Naito same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor predicts the time based on the at least one detected illuminance and illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies, the illuminance of the area being detected by an illuminance sensor of the flight vehicle (See Naito illuminance sensor 101 ).
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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20210309385 A1 to Quintana et al. (herein after “Quintana) in view of US20170300050 A1 to Naito et al. (herein after “Naito”) and JP2020514576A to Zedritz et al. (herein after “Zedritz”).
Regarding claim 11, Quintana remains applied as claim 1. Nevertheless, Naito same field of endeavor an illuminance sensor operatively coupled to the processor and configured to detect over time the illuminance of the area in which the flight vehicle flies; (See Naito illuminance sensor 101 ).
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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition 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]).
Nevertheless, Zedritz same field of endeavor teaches the processor further configured to:
determine a first illuminance curve including the at least one detected illuminance and 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] )
receive the detected illuminance from the illuminance sensor and correct the first illuminance curve to determine a second illuminance curve including the detected 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 detected illuminance; (See Zedritz FIG. 26A ) 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.).
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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition with Zedritz’s illuminance curve for the clear sky and real situation where illuminance measured using illuminance sensor in order to allow to pass the level of light that is comfortable for the occupant (See para[0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Quintana, Naito and Zedritz remain applied as claim 11. However, Quintana does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the first illuminance curve represents a predicted change in illuminance at the given point on the ground throughout the period of time. Nevertheless, Zedritz same field of endeavor 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.).
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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition with Zedritz’s illuminance curve for the clear sky and real situation where illuminance measured using illuminance sensor in order to allow to pass the level of light that is comfortable for the occupant (See para[0011]).
Regarding claim 13, Quintana, Naito and Zedritz remain applied as claim 11. However, Quintana does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the first illuminance curve includes predicted changes in illuminance assuming weather during the flight time remains clear and unchanged. Nevertheless, Zedritz same field of endeavor 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).
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 Qintana’s method and device for managing risks and alerts under VFR condition with Zedritz’s illuminance curve for the clear sky and real situation where illuminance measured using illuminance sensor in order to allow to pass the level of light that is comfortable for the occupant (See para[0011]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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