DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed April 14th, 2026. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12 lines 2-4 the claim recites “execute the instruction to and output” which is likely a typo with the “and” not being properly cancelled;
In claim 14 lines 12 recite “, and,” which is poor grammar and is likely a typo of “, and” without the comma at the end of “and”.
Appropriate correction is recommended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "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" (emphasis added) even though the same ratio is now recited in claim 1 which claim 4 depends upon. This creates an antecedent basis issue for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear if the ratios from this claim and the one in claim 1 are the same or different and, if different, how do they differ. For the sake of the prior art rejection below, the examiner interprets that the ratio recited in claim 4 is the same ratio as the one recited in claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 112(b) for depending upon claim 4 which was rejected under 112(b).
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 1-7, 10-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Kusumi et al. (US Pub. No. 20210225176 A1), herein after Kusumi, in further view of in view of previously cited of record Gong et al. (US Pub. No. 20180068567 A1), herein after Gong, and further in view of Molnar et al. (US Pub. No. 20190266902 A1), herein after Molnar.
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… for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor…; 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); 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); acquire transmitted information including position information from drones navigating inside the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0086, teaching sending and receiving information to/from a server about the flight path and position information of the UAV); calculate real-time positions of the drones based on the transmitted information (Kusumi: Para. 0087, teaching determining the UAV's current location); output a reservation status of the corridor to a terminal device used by a user who has applied for the usage plan…; display 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; Para. 0083, teaching a display that displays whether permission for a reservation has been granted; and Para. 0091, teaching that the display also displays if the permission for the reservation has been rejected); and acquire the usage plan input according to an operation on the reservation status of the corridor displayed on the terminal device (Kusumi: Para. 0092, teaching that the server receives information on whether the user accepts or rejects a flight path).
Kusumi is silent to the corridor is physically defined by a plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps; the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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; congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions; and the reservation status includes a visual map showing the plurality of corridor regions and identification information of drones scheduled to use the corridor at a selected time, the reservation status being updated based on the calculated real-time positions of the drones navigating inside the corridor.
In a similar field, Gong teaches acquire a usage plan of a corridor physically defined by a plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps (Gong: Para. 0630, teaching the use of geo-fencing devices that utilize visual markers; Para. 0651, teaching that the visual markers include lights with colors and visual patterns that can be controlled; and Para. 0744, teaching that the geo-fencing devices define a region that a UAV will experience restrictions during its flight path through the region); and the reservation status includes a visual map showing the plurality of corridor regions and identification information of drones scheduled to use the corridor at a selected time, the reservation status being updated based on the calculated real-time positions of the drones navigating inside the corridor (Gong: Para. 0923, teaching displaying the boundaries of an airspace defined by geo-fencing devices; Para. 0933, teaching displaying information related to a UAV's flight path; Para. 0997, teaching that the display may display any information relevant to a moveable object like a UAV; and Para. 0387, teaching that the UAVs have identifiers tied to each one that are stored in the user's device and are displayed as needed) for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations in situations.
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 through airspace that is bounded by visual markers that convey navigation restrictions within the airspace the flight plan goes through and displaying the UAV’s flight path through the restricted airspace, as taught by Gong, for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations in situations where wireless communication is unreliable or unreasonable.
Kusumi in view of Gong are silent to the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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; and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions.
In a similar field, Molnar teaches the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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 (Molnar: Para. 0016, teaching determining a ratio of a number of assigned aircraft to an airspace volume over the capacity of the volume to hold aircraft); and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions (Molnar: Para. 0019, teaching that the ratio is used to determine if the airspace is congested based on how many aircraft are in the volume in relation to its capacity) for the benefit of identifying and reducing congestion in the airspace.
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 reservation through airspace from Kusumi in view of Gong to determine how congested an airspace is by calculating a ration of the number of aircraft in the airspace over the airspace’s capacity, as taught by Molnar, for the benefit of identifying and reducing congestion in the airspace.
Regarding claim 2, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Kusumi 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, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Kusumi 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 4, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Molnar goes on to further 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 (Molnar: Para. 0016, teaching determining a ratio of a number of assigned aircraft to an airspace volume over the capacity of the volume to hold aircraft).
Regarding claim 5, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 4, and Molnar 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 (Molnar: Para. 0019, teaching that the ratio is used to determine if the airspace is congested based on how many aircraft are in the volume in relation to its capacity).
Regarding claim 6, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain 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 in view of Gong in further view of Molnar 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, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 6, and Kusumi 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).
Regarding claim 10, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Kusumi 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 12, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Kusumi goes on to further teach [t]he determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to 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, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Kusumi 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 18, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, and Gong goes on to further teach [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).
Regarding claim 19, Kusumi teaches [a] determination method causing a computer to execute; acquiring a usage plan of a corridor… for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor…; storing reservation information of the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0030, teaching that the server receives information on a flight request); 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); 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); 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); 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); outputting a reservation status of the corridor to a terminal device used by a user who has applied for the usage plan…; displaying 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; Para. 0083, teaching a display that displays whether permission for a reservation has been granted; and Para. 0091, teaching that the display also displays if the permission for the reservation has been rejected); and acquiring the usage plan input according to an operation on the reservation status of the corridor displayed on the terminal device (Kusumi: Para. 0092, teaching that the server receives information on whether the user accepts or rejects a flight path).
Kusumi is silent to the corridor is physically defined by a plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps; the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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; congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions; and the reservation status includes a visual map showing the plurality of corridor regions and identification information of drones scheduled to use the corridor at a selected time, the reservation status being updated based on the calculated real-time positions of the drones navigating inside the corridor.
In a similar field, Gong teaches acquiring a usage plan of a corridor physically defined by a plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps (Gong: Para. 0630, teaching the use of geo-fencing devices that utilize visual markers; Para. 0651, teaching that the visual markers include lights with colors and visual patterns that can be controlled; and Para. 0744, teaching that the geo-fencing devices define a region that a UAV will experience restrictions during its flight path through the region); and the reservation status includes a visual map showing the plurality of corridor regions and identification information of drones scheduled to use the corridor at a selected time, the reservation status being updated based on the calculated real-time positions of the drones navigating inside the corridor (Gong: Para. 0923, teaching displaying the boundaries of an airspace defined by geo-fencing devices; Para. 0933, teaching displaying information related to a UAV's flight path; Para. 0997, teaching that the display may display any information relevant to a moveable object like a UAV; and Para. 0387, teaching that the UAVs have identifiers tied to each one that are stored in the user's device and are displayed as needed) for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations in situations.
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 through airspace that is bounded by visual markers that convey navigation restrictions within the airspace the flight plan goes through and displaying the UAV’s flight path through the restricted airspace, as taught by Gong, for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations in situations where wireless communication is unreliable or unreasonable.
Kusumi in view of Gong are silent to the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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; and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions.
In a similar field, Molnar teaches the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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 (Molnar: Para. 0016, teaching determining a ratio of a number of assigned aircraft to an airspace volume over the capacity of the volume to hold aircraft); and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions (Molnar: Para. 0019, teaching that the ratio is used to determine if the airspace is congested based on how many aircraft are in the volume in relation to its capacity) for the benefit of identifying and reducing congestion in the airspace.
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 reservation through airspace from Kusumi in view of Gong to determine how congested an airspace is by calculating a ration of the number of aircraft in the airspace over the airspace’s capacity, as taught by Molnar, for the benefit of identifying and reducing congestion in the airspace.
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… for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor…; 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); 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); a process of acquiring transmitted information including position information from drones navigating inside the corridor (Kusumi: Para. 0086, teaching sending and receiving information to/from a server about the flight path and position information of the UAV); a process of calculating real-time positions of the drones based on the transmitted information (Kusumi: Para. 0087, teaching determining the UAV's current location); a process of outputting a reservation status of the corridor to a terminal device used by a user who has applied for the usage plan…; a process of displaying 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; Para. 0083, teaching a display that displays whether permission for a reservation has been granted; and Para. 0091, teaching that the display also displays if the permission for the reservation has been rejected); and a process of acquiring the usage plan input according to an operation on the reservation status of the corridor displayed on the terminal device (Kusumi: Para. 0092, teaching that the server receives information on whether the user accepts or rejects a flight path).
Kusumi is silent to the corridor is physically defined by a plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps; the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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; and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions; and the reservation status includes a visual map showing the plurality of corridor regions and identification information of drones scheduled to use the corridor at a selected time, the reservation status being updated based on the calculated real-time positions of the drones navigating inside the corridor.
In a similar field, Gong teaches a process of acquiring a usage plan of a corridor physically defined by a plurality of guide lamps for navigation of a drone that navigates inside the corridor according to light emitting colors of the plurality of guide lamps (Gong: Para. 0630, teaching the use of geo-fencing devices that utilize visual markers; Para. 0651, teaching that the visual markers include lights with colors and visual patterns that can be controlled; and Para. 0744, teaching that the geo-fencing devices define a region that a UAV will experience restrictions during its flight path through the region); and the reservation status includes a visual map showing the plurality of corridor regions and identification information of drones scheduled to use the corridor at a selected time, the reservation status being updated based on the calculated real-time positions of the drones navigating inside the corridor (Gong: Para. 0923, teaching displaying the boundaries of an airspace defined by geo-fencing devices; Para. 0933, teaching displaying information related to a UAV's flight path; Para. 0997, teaching that the display may display any information relevant to a moveable object like a UAV; and Para. 0387, teaching that the UAVs have identifiers tied to each one that are stored in the user's device and are displayed as needed) for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations in situations.
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 through airspace that is bounded by visual markers that convey navigation restrictions within the airspace the flight plan goes through and displaying the UAV’s flight path through the restricted airspace, as taught by Gong, for the benefit of ensuring compliance with restricted airspace regulations in situations where wireless communication is unreliable or unreasonable.
Kusumi in view of Gong are silent to the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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; and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions.
In a similar field, Molnar teaches the determination parameter is calculated as a ratio of a number of drones that made reservations 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 (Molnar: Para. 0016, teaching determining a ratio of a number of assigned aircraft to an airspace volume over the capacity of the volume to hold aircraft); and congestion is predicted not to occur in the corridor when the ratio is less than or equal to 1 for each of the plurality of corridor regions, and congestion is predicted to occur in the corridor when the ratio exceeds 1 for any of the plurality of corridor regions (Molnar: Para. 0019, teaching that the ratio is used to determine if the airspace is congested based on how many aircraft are in the volume in relation to its capacity) for the benefit of identifying and reducing congestion in the airspace.
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 reservation through airspace from Kusumi in view of Gong to determine how congested an airspace is by calculating a ration of the number of aircraft in the airspace over the airspace’s capacity, as taught by Molnar, for the benefit of identifying and reducing congestion in the airspace.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi in view of Gong in further view of Molnar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Yamamoto et al. (US Pub. No. 20230035476 A1), herein after Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 8, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are 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 in view of Gong in further view of Molnar 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, Gong, Molnar, 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 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusumi in view of Gong in further view of Molnar as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Faccin et al. (US Pub. No. 20210343154 A1), herein after Faccin.
Regarding claim 14, Kusumi, Gong, and Molnar remain as applied as in claim 13, and Kusumi 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, control the drone according to the 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).
They are 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 in view of Gong in further view of Molnar 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, Gong, Molnar, 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 number 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, Gong, Molnar, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Kusumi, Gong, Molnar, and Faccin remain as applied as in claim 15, and Gong goes on to further teach [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 control the detected drone according to the control information 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's amendments filed April 14th, 2026 with respect to the objection of claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as noted in the claim objection section above.
Applicant’s amendments filed April 14th, 2026 with respect to the 101 rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 have been fully considered and have rendered the 101 rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 moot. The 101 rejections of claims 1-10 and 13-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 14th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 10-13, 19, and 20 under 102(a)(1) in view of Kusumi in light of the amendments filed have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claims 1-7, 10-13, 18-20 under 103 in view of Kusumi in further view of Gong and further in view of Molnar.
Applicant contends (see page 20 lines 4-12 and page 22 lines 7-10, filed April 14th, 2026) that Kusumi is deficient in teaching the usage corridor being defined by a plurality of guide lamps and that no other cited prior art cures this deficiency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the prior art of Gong teaches in at least paragraphs 0630 and 0651 the use of geo-fencing devices that can be visual markers similar to the claimed guide lamps and in paragraph 0744 Gong further teaches that the geo-fencing devices define a region that a UAV will experience restrictions during its flight path through the region. As such, the prior art of Gong does cure this deficiency of Kusumi.
Applicant contends (see page 20 line 22 through page 21 line 8 and page 22 lines 7-10, filed April 14th, 2026) that Kusumi is deficient in teaching the display of the reservation status and a map of the usage corridors with information on the location and identification of the UAVs and that the other prior arts of record do not cure this deficiency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Kusumi teaches the display of the reservation status of the UAV in at least paragraphs 0106, 0083, and 0091 as noted in the updated 103 rejection above and the prior art of Gong cures the deficiency of displaying the usage corridors and information on the UAV in at least paragraphs 0923, 0933, 0997, and 0387 as noted in the updated 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights