DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed April 17th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 17th, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 17th, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 15-16 recite “, and;” which is poor grammar and is likely a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of product.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The product of claim 1 is performing a mental process. The mental process of claim 1 merely consists of calculate a determination parameter relating to congestion in the corridor corresponding to the usage plan by referring to the reservation information; predict a congestion status of the corridor according to the calculated determination parameter; and generate determination information relating to availability of the corridor according to the predicted congestion status of the corridor which under its BRI consists of airspace management. For example, people who work for air traffic controller need to keep track of how many aircraft are in an airspace, their locations and headings, and determine whether any of the aircraft are at risk of collision in the airspace.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional element of [a] determination device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to which are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely stating the mental process is executed using a computer. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely an indication of the technological environment.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of acquire a usage plan of a corridor formed for navigation of a drone which are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely a step of data acquisition. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of store reservation information of the corridor; and output the determination information relating to availability of the corridor which are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely a well-known, routine, conventional activity of computers. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely well-known, routine, conventional activity of computers.
Step 2b:
The additional element of [a] determination device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to, which was considered technological environment in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is merely indicating a technological environment for the invention to be performed. For example, the MPEP provides that “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981)”. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
The additional element of acquire a usage plan of a corridor formed for navigation of a drone, which was considered insignificant extra solution activity in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because it is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. For example, the MPEP provides that an extra solution activity need to not be well known or it must be significant. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iv) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”.
The additional element of store reservation information of the corridor; and output the determination information relating to availability of the corridor, which was considered well-known, routine, conventional activity in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because they are well-known, routine, conventional activities for computers. For example, the MPEP provides that receiving, storing, and transmitting are well-known, routine, conventional activities for computers. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Claims 2-10 and 13-18 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same mental process of claim 1 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to permit use of the corridor in a case where it is predicted that congestion will not occur in the corridor in response to acceptance of the usage plan; and do not permit use of the corridor in a case where it is predicted that congestion will occur in the corridor in response to acceptance of the usage plan which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, an air traffic controller can determine whether or not an aircraft is allowed to fly through an airspace based on the traffic.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same mental process of claim 1 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to present an alternative plan relating to use of the corridor in a case where it is predicted that congestion will occur in the corridor in response to acceptance of the usage plan which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, an air traffic controller can determine that an aircraft needs to reroute to another airspace if there is an issue.
Regarding claims 4-7, claims 4-7 recite the same mental process of claim 1 and goes on to add the expand the mental step of predicting the congestion status of the corridor.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same mental process of claim 1 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the usage plan including a charge amount of the drone planning to use the corridor, and determine availability of the corridor according to a charge amount of the drone included in the usage plan which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a pilot needs to determine based on the fuel level of their aircraft whether their aircraft can perform a flight route.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the same mental process of claim 8 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he determination device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to store the reservation information including information relating to a charging station usable when using the corridor, and generate caution information relating to use of the corridor according to a reservation status of the charging station included in the reservation information when the charge amount of the drone included in the usage plan is insufficient which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a pilot needs to determine based on the fuel level of their aircraft whether their aircraft can perform a flight route and warn passengers if their aircraft is unable to complete the route due to insufficient fuel.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the same mental process of claim 1 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire environment information of the corridor, and determine availability of the corridor according to a status of the corridor included in the environment information which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a pilot needs to keep an eye on the weather and reschedule their flight if the weather is too harsh.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional elements of [a] management system comprising: the determination device according to claim 1; and a management device configured to manage a corridor available to the drone according to the determination information of the determination device which do not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as these are merely indication of technological environment of the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the same mental process of claim 13 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he management system according to claim 13, wherein the management device includes: a memory storing instructions; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: acquire transmitted information including a remote identifier (RID) of the drone using the corridor; calculate a position of the drone by using position information included in the transmitted information; calculate number of drones located in a unit region inside the corridor according to the position of the drone using the corridor; generate control information for the drone according to the number of drones located in the unit region, and output the generated control information which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, an air traffic controller can determine the location of aircraft within a monitored region and determine whether they will collide and how to prevent the collision.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the same mental process of claim 14 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he management system according to claim 14, wherein the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to generate the control information for controlling the plurality of drones inside the unit region to move away from each other in a case where the number of drones inside the unit region exceeds an upper limit number of drones set in the unit region, and do not generate the control information for the drone inside the unit region in a case where the number of drones inside the unit region does not exceed the upper limit number of drones set in the unit region which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, an air traffic controller can determine the location of aircraft within a monitored region and determine whether they will collide and how to prevent the collision.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the same mental process of claim 14 but with the additional elements of [t]he management system according to claim 14, wherein in the case of detecting the drone inside the corridor and the detected drone is not permitted to use the corridor, the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to output warning information for prompting the detected drone to exit from the corridor which do not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as these are well-known, routine, conventional activities for computers. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional elements of [t]he management system according to claim 15, wherein in the case of detecting the drone inside the corridor and the detected drone is not permitted to use the corridor, the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to output the control information for controlling the detected drone to exit from the corridor which do not integrate the mental process into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as these are well-known, routine, conventional activities for computers. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites the same mental process of claim 14 and goes on to add the mental steps of [t]he management system according to claim 13, wherein the processor of the determination device is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether to form an emergency corridor according to a usage status of the corridor in a case where an emergency request of the corridor is acquired as the usage plan, output an instruction to form the emergency corridor to the management device in a case where the formation of the emergency corridor is possible, and output determination information including a determination result relating to use of the emergency corridor to a request source of the emergency request, and the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to form the emergency corridor in response to the instruction to form the corridor from the determination device which can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, an air traffic controller can determine if an aircraft is allowed in a restricted area and if not determine a path outside of the restricted area in the event that the aircraft enters it.
Claims 19-20 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the same mental process of claim 1 but are directed to different statutory categories. Claim 19 is directed to the statutory category of method and claim 20 is directed to the statutory category of product.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1-10 and 13-20 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 10-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusumi et al. (US Pub. No. 20210225176 A1), herein after Kusumi.
Regarding claim 1, Kusumi teaches [a] determination device comprising (Kusumi: Para. 0069, teaching a server for determining information related to an aircraft's flight plan and airspace): a memory storing instructions; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to (Kusumi: Para. 0080, teaching memory that stores programs to be executed to perform the functions of the invention): acquire a usage plan of a corridor formed for navigation of a drone; store reservation information of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0030, teaching that the server receives information on a flight request); calculate a determination parameter relating to congestion in the corridor corresponding to the usage plan by referring to the reservation information (Kusumi: Para. 0050, teaching that an airspace level is determined using the degree of congestion of the airspace); predict a congestion status of the corridor according to the calculated determination parameter (Kusumi: Para. 0063, teaching that the congestion degree of an airspace is based on the amount of aerial vehicles projected to be in the airspace); generate determination information relating to availability of the corridor according to the predicted congestion status of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0070, teaching determining whether to permit or reject the use of an airspace based on the airspace level); and output the determination information relating to availability of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0106, teaching notifying the user's support device of the permission of the flight request when the airspace level is below an authority level).
Regarding claim 2, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to permit use of the corridor in a case where it is predicted that congestion will not occur in the corridor in response to acceptance of the usage plan (Kusumi: Para. 0106, teaching notifying the user's support device of the permission of the flight request when the airspace level is below an authority level; and Para. 0107, teaching that the UAV is controlled according to the flight path), and do not permit use of the corridor in a case where it is predicted that congestion will occur in the corridor in response to acceptance of the usage plan (Kusumi: Para. 0105, teaching that the UAV is not permitted in the airspace when the airspace level is below authority level).
Regarding claim 3, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to present an alternative plan relating to use of the corridor in a case where it is predicted that congestion will occur in the corridor in response to acceptance of the usage plan (Kusumi: Para. 0094, teaching that if the airspace level of the flight path is above the authority level, the system generates an alternative flight path that has the airspace level below the authority level).
Regarding claim 10, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire environment information of the corridor, and determine availability of the corridor according to a status of the corridor included in the environment information (Kusumi: Para. 0062, teaching that the airspace level is based on the weather).
Regarding claim 11, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to output a reservation status of the corridor to a terminal device used by a user who has applied for the usage plan, and displays the reservation status of the corridor on a screen of the terminal device used by the user (Kusumi: Para. 0106, teaching notifying the user's support device of the permission of the flight request when the airspace level is below an authority level).
Regarding claim 12, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the usage plan input according to an operation on the reservation status of the corridor displayed on the terminal device, and output the determination information determined according to the usage plan to the terminal device (Kusumi: Para. 0092, teaching that the server receives information on whether the user accepts or rejects a flight path).
Regarding claim 13, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [a] management system comprising: the determination device according to claim 1; and a management device configured to manage a corridor available to the drone according to the determination information of the determination device (Kusumi: Para. 0030, teaching that the server receives information on a flight request).
Regarding claim 19, Kusumi teaches [a] determination method causing a computer to execute; acquiring a usage plan of a corridor formed for navigation of a drone; storing reservation information of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0030, teaching that the server receives information on a flight request); calculates a determination parameter relating to congestion in the corridor corresponding to the usage plan by referring to the reservation information (Kusumi: Para. 0050, teaching that an airspace level is determined using the degree of congestion of the airspace); predicts a congestion status of the corridor according to the calculated determination parameter (Kusumi: Para. 0063, teaching that the congestion degree of an airspace is based on the amount of aerial vehicles projected to be in the airspace); generating determination information relating to availability of the corridor according to the predicted congestion status of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0070, teaching determining whether to permit or reject the use of an airspace based on the airspace level); and outputting the determination information relating to availability of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0106, teaching notifying the user's support device of the permission of the flight request when the airspace level is below an authority level).
Regarding claim 20, Kusumi teaches [a] non-transient recording medium recorded with a program for causing a computer to execute (Kusumi: Para. 0080, teaching memory that stores programs to be executed to perform the functions of the invention): a process of acquiring a usage plan of a corridor formed for navigation of a drone; a process of storing reservation information of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0030, teaching that the server receives information on a flight request); a process of calculating a determination parameter relating to congestion in the corridor corresponding to the usage plan by referring to the reservation information (Kusumi: Para. 0050, teaching that an airspace level is determined using the degree of congestion of the airspace); a process of predicting a congestion status of the corridor according to the calculated determination parameter (Kusumi: Para. 0063, teaching that the congestion degree of an airspace is based on the amount of aerial vehicles projected to be in the airspace); a process of generating determination information relating to availability of the corridor according to the predicted congestion status of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0070, teaching determining whether to permit or reject the use of an airspace based on the airspace level); and a process of outputting the determination information relating to availability of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0106, teaching notifying the user's support device of the permission of the flight request when the airspace level is below an authority level).
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi as applied to claim 1 above as evidenced by Kusumi.
Regarding claim 4, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1, however Kusumi does not explicitly teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to predict the congestion status of the corridor according to a ratio of number of drones that made the reservation corresponding to the usage plan with respect to an upper limit number of drones allowed for each of a plurality of corridor regions constituting the corridor however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Kusumi which teaches that the congestion degree of an airspace is based on the amount of aerial vehicles projected to be in the airspace and that the congestion degree is based on how many aircraft are in an area compared to a tolerable amount (Kusumi: Para. 0063) for the benefit of reducing the chance of collision with the aircraft in highly congested areas.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to have in the score for determining the airspace level the congestion level be determined based on a ratio of how many aircraft are in the airspace to the number that is tolerable, as taught by Kusumi, for the benefit of reducing the chance of collision with the aircraft in highly congested areas.
Regarding claim 5, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 4 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to predict that congestion will not occur in the corridor when the ratio of the number of drones that made the reservation corresponding to the usage plan with respect to the upper limit number of drones allowed for each of the plurality of corridor regions constituting the corridor is less than or equal to 1, and predict that that congestion will occur in the corridor when the ratio of the number of drones that made the reservation corresponding to the usage plan with respect to the upper limit number of drones allowed for each of the plurality of corridor regions constituting the corridor exceeds one (Kusumi: Para. 0061, teaching that the score of the congestion level becomes higher the more aircraft are in the airspace; and Para. 0056, teaching that if the score of the airspace level, which is based on the congestion degree, exceeds the authority level of the airspace then the UAV is not permitted to fly in the airspace as it will be unsafe).
Regarding claim 6, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1, however Kusumi does not explicitly teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to predict the congestion status of the corridor according to a value obtained by subtracting the number of drones that made the reservation corresponding to the usage plan from the upper limit number of drones allowed for each of a plurality of corridor regions constituting the corridor however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Kusumi which teaches in Para. 0061 teaching that the score of the congestion level becomes higher the more aircraft are in the airspace and in Para. 0073 teaching that the determination on whether to permit or reject a flight plan is based on a comparison between airspace level to the authority level for the benefit of accurately assessing the risk of having the aircraft fly through the airspace.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to include in the congestion degree score determination of Kusumi a comparison between the number of aircraft in the airspace and an upper limit on how many aircraft should be allowed in the airspace, as taught by Kusumi, for the benefit of accurately assessing the risk of having the aircraft fly through the airspace.
Regarding claim 7, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 6 and goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to predict that congestion will not occur in the corridor when the value obtained by subtracting the number of drones that made the reservation corresponding to the usage plan from the upper limit number of drones allowed for each of the plurality of corridor regions constituting the corridor is greater than or equal to zero, and predict that that congestion will occur in the corridor when the value obtained by subtracting the number of drones that made the reservation corresponding to the usage plan from the upper limit number of drones allowed for each of the plurality of corridor regions constituting the corridor is less than 0 (Kusumi: Para. 0073, teaching that the determination on whether to permit or reject a flight plan is based on a comparison between airspace level to the authority level).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US Pub. No. 20230035476 A1), herein after Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 8, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 1, however Kusumi is silent to [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the usage plan including a charge amount of the drone planning to use the corridor, and determine availability of the corridor according to a charge amount of the drone included in the usage plan.
In a similar field, Yamamoto teaches [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the usage plan including a charge amount of the drone planning to use the corridor, and determine availability of the corridor according to a charge amount of the drone included in the usage plan (Yamamoto: Para. 0066, teaching that the flight plan is based on whether the UAV has enough charge to cover the distance till the next charging port) for the benefit of ensuring that the UAV can fulfill the flight plan.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the flight plan generation from Kusumi to factor in the available charge of the UAV, as taught by Yamamoto, for the benefit of ensuring that the UAV can fulfill the flight plan.
Regarding claim 9, Kusumi and Yamamoto remain as applied as in claim 8, and Yamamoto goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to store the reservation information including information relating to a charging station usable when using the corridor (Yamamoto: Para. 0066, teaching that the flight plan is based on whether the UAV has enough charge to cover the distance till the next charging port; and Para. 0071, teaching that the information on the reservation of a flight path includes information on the availability of charging ports), and generate caution information relating to use of the corridor according to a reservation status of the charging station included in the reservation information when the charge amount of the drone included in the usage plan is insufficient (Yamamoto: Para. 0089 and 0090, teaching that if a flight path cannot reach a charging port before running out of charge it will send an error message informing the user that the flight path cannot be completed).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Faccin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210343154 A1), herein after Faccin.
Regarding claim 14, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 13 and goes on to further teach [t]he management system according to claim 13, wherein the management device includes: a memory storing instructions; and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to (Kusumi: Para. 0080, teaching memory that stores programs to be executed to perform the functions of the invention): calculate a position of the drone by using position information included in the transmitted information (Kusumi: Para. 0087, teaching determining the UAV's location); calculate number of drones located in a unit region inside the corridor according to the position of the drone using the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0056, teaching determining the congestion level of an airspace based on the number of UAVs are in the airspace); generate control information for the drone according to the number of drones located in the unit region (Kusumi: Para. 0120, teaching generating flight paths based on the number of aircrafts whose flight paths overlap with the main UAV), and; output the generated control information (Kusumi: Para. 0106, teaching notifying the user's support device of the permission of the flight request when the airspace level is below an authority level).
Kusumi is silent to acquire transmitted information including a remote identifier (RID) of the drone using the corridor.
In a similar field, Faccin teaches acquire transmitted information including a remote identifier (RID) of the drone using the corridor (Faccin: Para. 0128, teaching UAVs that transmit a remote ID that includes information on the UAVs' location) for the benefit of enabling public and civil identification of UAVs for safety, security, and compliance purposes.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the UAV management system from Kusumi to have the UAVs transmit remote identification information, as taught by Faccin, for the benefit of enabling public and civil identification of UAVs for safety, security, and compliance purposes.
Regarding claim 15, Kusumi and Faccin remain as applied as in claim 14, and Kusumi goes on to further teach [t]he management system according to claim 14, wherein the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to generate the control information for controlling the plurality of drones inside the unit region to move away from each other in a case where the number of drones inside the unit region exceeds an upper limit number of drones set in the unit region (Kusumi: Para. 0094, teaching that if the airspace level of the flight path is above the authority level, the system generates an alternative flight path that has the airspace level below the authority level), and do not generate the control information for the drone inside the unit region in a case where the number of drones inside the unit region does not exceed the upper limit number of drones set in the unit region (Kusumi: Para. 0091, teaching that if the flight path generated is still permissible after time has passed then a new flight path is not generated).
Regarding claim 16, Kusumi and Faccin remain as applied as in claim 14, and Kusumi goes on to further teach [t]he management system according to claim 14, wherein in the case of detecting the drone inside the corridor and the detected drone is not permitted to use the corridor, the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to output warning information for prompting the detected drone to exit from the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0094, teaching that if the airspace level of the flight path is above the authority level, the system generates an alternative flight path that has the airspace level below the authority level).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi in view of Faccin as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (US Pub. No. 20180068567 A1), herein after Gong.
Regarding claim 17, Kusumi and Faccin remain as applied as in claim 15, however they are silent to [t]he management system according to claim 15, wherein in the case of detecting the drone inside the corridor and the detected drone is not permitted to use the corridor, the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to output the control information for controlling the detected drone to exit from the corridor.
In a similar field, Gong teaches [t]he management system according to claim 15, wherein in the case of detecting the drone inside the corridor and the detected drone is not permitted to use the corridor, the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to output the control information for controlling the detected drone to exit from the corridor (Gong: Para. 0161, teaching that if a UAV enters a restricted area it is forced to exit the area by generating a flight path out of the restricted area) for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the UAV routing from Kusumi in view of Faccin to have the UAV route outside of restricted airspace if it is inside of restricted airspace, as taught by Gong, for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gong.
Regarding claim 18, Kusumi remains as applied as in claim 13, however Kusumi is silent to [t]he management system according to claim 13, wherein the processor of the determination device is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether to form an emergency corridor according to a usage status of the corridor in a case where an emergency request of the corridor is acquired as the usage plan, output an instruction to form the emergency corridor to the management device in a case where the formation of the emergency corridor is possible, and output determination information including a determination result relating to use of the emergency corridor to a request source of the emergency request, and the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to form the emergency corridor in response to the instruction to form the corridor from the determination device.
In a similar field, Gong teaches [t]he management system according to claim 13, wherein the processor of the determination device is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether to form an emergency corridor according to a usage status of the corridor in a case where an emergency request of the corridor is acquired as the usage plan, output an instruction to form the emergency corridor to the management device in a case where the formation of the emergency corridor is possible, and output determination information including a determination result relating to use of the emergency corridor to a request source of the emergency request, and the processor of the management device is configured to execute the instructions to form the emergency corridor in response to the instruction to form the corridor from the determination device (examiner interprets that a request for a UAV to exit a restricted airspace is an emergency request) (Gong: Para. 0161, teaching that if a UAV enters a restricted area it is forced to exit the area by generating a flight path out of the restricted area) for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the UAV routing from Kusumi to have the UAV route outside of restricted airspace if it is inside of restricted airspace, as taught by Gong, for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kneuper et al. (US Pub. No. 20190057611 A1) discloses analyzing flight traffic in an area based on the volume of traffic in an area and its impact.
Sampigethaya; Radhakrishna G. (US Pub. No. 20150228196 A1) discloses determining the privacy of an airspace based on how congested the airspace is and adjusting the route of the aircraft to avoid areas of high traffic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663