Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2026 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 have been amended and are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim is integrated into the practical because the claim provides an improvement to the operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle by controlling vehicle to travel on routes that are not a risk of collision. Examiner disagrees. The claims detail route generation for UAVs, and a vehicle traveling on a generated route does constitute an improvement in a UAV, but following rules or instructions (certain methods of organizing human activity) and improvement in observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion (mental processes) since the claim limitations detail evaluating data (schedule data, etc.) to determine a flight path of the candidate route to pass through the toll section at times when the UAV is permitted to pass. At best, the improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. The UAV is not being improved, just route generation based on observed data. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a memory (claim 1), at least one processor (claim 1), a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 11), a computer (claim 11), and an unmanned aerial vehicle. The additional elements of the memory, at least one processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, and computer are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The unmanned aerial vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (route generation). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2B and the additional elements amount to significantly more because features of claim ae not disclosed in prior art. Examiner disagrees. The amended limitations are disclosed in updated prior art references. However, whether the prior art references disclose claim limitations is not relevant for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 101. Whether prior art references disclose claim limitations is an evaluation for novelty and obviousness. Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-15 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.
Claims 1-5 recite a route generation device (i.e. machine), claims 6-10 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 11-15 recite non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-15 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 recite the limitations: acquiring departure location information indicating a departure location and destination location information indicating a destination location of an [unmanned aerial vehicle]; generating a plurality of candidate routes from the departure location to the destination location of the [unmanned aerial vehicle] that pass through a toll section provided above a railway track, based on a train operation plan such that the [unmanned aerial vehicle] passes over the railway during times in which trains are not passing over the railway, wherein each of the generated candidate routes includes a flight path; executing processes for outputting route information indicating candidate routes that satisfy a predetermined condition among the plurality of generated candidate routes; outputting the route information in a format capable of outputting the route, which is indicated by the candidate routes satisfying the predetermined condition, according to a predetermined format; and based on a candidate route selected by a user, controlling the [unmanned aerial vehicle] to fly along a flight path of the candidate route so as to pass through the toll section only during times in which the [unmanned aerial vehicle] is permitted to pass through the toll section. The invention and claims are drawn towards generating a route or flight plan for an unmanned aerial vehicle, and the claims recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal interactions or behavior, following rules or instructions), as shown by limitations detailing acquiring departure location information indicating a departure location and destination location information indicating a destination location of an [unmanned aerial vehicle], and outputting the route information in a format capable of outputting the route (corresponding to a request of a user who operates an unmanned aerial vehicle), controlling the [unmanned aerial vehicle] to fly along a flight path of the candidate route so as to pass through the toll section only during times in which the [unmanned aerial vehicle] is permitted to pass through the toll section. The claims also recite limitations directly corresponding to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by the above-mentioned limitations indicating observing or evaluating data, and making a decision (judgment or opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a memory (claim 1), at least one processor (claim 1), a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 11), a computer (claim 11), and an unmanned aerial vehicle. The additional elements of the memory, at least one processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, and computer are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The unmanned aerial vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (route generation). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 7, and 12 recite the limitations: the [processor] is capable of generating a candidate route in which the [unmanned aerial vehicle] use a [charging facility], and the at least one [processor] is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating a usage fee of the [charging facility] when generating the candidate route that uses the [charging facility], and outputting usage fee information indicating a calculation result. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the processor, a charging facility, and the unmanned aerial vehicle. The route generation means and processor amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The charging facility and the unmanned aerial vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-15 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (2018/0061251) in view of Kuzmanovic (2020/0072624).
Claim 1: Venkatraman discloses: A route generation device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and (Venkatraman ¶0103 disclosing computing system may further comprise a working memory, which can include a RAM or ROM device; ¶0106 disclosing components that can include memory can include non-transitory machine-readable media; various machine-readable media might be involved in providing instructions/code to processing units and/or other device(s) for execution)
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform: (Venkatraman ¶0103 disclosing method(s) discussed above might be implemented as code and/or instructions executable by a computer (and/or a processor within a computer))
acquiring departure location information indicating a departure location and destination location information indicating a destination location of an unmanned aerial vehicle; (Venkatraman ¶0060 disclosing source and destination of the flight and one or more characteristics of the UAV may be provided to a server)
executing processes for outputting route information indicating candidate routes that satisfy a predetermined condition among the plurality of generated candidate routes; (Venkatraman ¶0066 disclosing receiving the flight route or relevant NAD regarding the area near the current location of the UAV from the server as the UAV moves to each new area during the flight; UAV may then dynamically change the flight plan using the NAD, based on the real-time airspace conditions, such as weather conditions or traffic conditions; the server may send real-time instructions to the UAV to avoid hazards such as lightning or storm or avoid areas where emergency clearance is ordered; ¶0067 disclosing the server may provide the UAV with NAD including all available air routes; ¶0077 the UAV may receive the flight-specific NAD from the server including physical obstacles, restricted areas, permission requirements, potential hazards, height limits, speed limits, charging stations, parking spots, safe landing spots, weather conditions, and air traffic information; ¶0078 disclosing the UAV may select a flight route from a plurality of possible routes based on a sum of the flight-specific ranking data for all zones on each route of the plurality of possible routes; ¶0082 the server may sent the determined flight-specific NAD for the flight to the UAV; the flight-specific NAD may include a flight-specific route determined by the server for the flight)
outputting the route information in a format capable of outputting the route, which is indicated by the candidate routes satisfying the predetermined condition, according to a predetermined format; and (Venkatraman ¶0063 disclosing the server may determine which layer(s) of data to transmit to the UAV based on the characteristics of the UAV; the server may only provide the UAV with NAD including one or more but not all layers, based on the flight-specific information sent by the UAV which may include the characteristics of the specific UAV and the specific flight; e.g., if a UAV is a fixed wing UAV that will fly at a high altitude, a data layer for physical obstacles may not be needed in certain area; server may provide the UAV with NAD that does not include layers associated with charging stations and parking spots if the range of the UAV is much longer than the distance of the specific flight; ¶0069 disclosing each tile or geographic zone in a layer of the flight-specific NAD may include a ranking of the tile for the specific flight; a ranking may be assigned to each tile on each layer of the flight-specific navigation assistance data; a NAD layer including potential hazards information, the ranking may indicate the level of risk. A “1” for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a low level of risk, while a larger number may indicate a higher level of risk; for a NAD layer including permission requirements, a lower number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a lower level of permission requirement or the UAV or the operator the UAV has the required permissions, and a higher number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a higher level of permission requirement (same for traffic conditions); ¶0070 the server or the UAV may calculate flight-specific ranking data for each tile of a plurality of tiles by adding the flight-specific ranking data in all layers in the received NAD for each tile near the determined or actual current location of the UAV; ¶0076 the UAV may request NAD for a specific flight from a server; the flight-specific information may include the source and destination of the flight and one or more characteristics of the UAV; one or more characteristics may include, for example, special privileges of the UAV or its operator, the type of the UAV (e.g., fixed wing or rotor based UAV), the physical dimensions of the UAV, the flying range, speed, and height capabilities of the UAV, the load that the UAV may carry for the specific flight, and the communication capabilities of the UAV; server may maintain a database that includes various types of NAD as described above; based on the flight-specific information provided by the UAV in the request, the server may determine the appropriate flight-specific NAD to the UAV; ¶0077 the UAV may receive the flight-specific NAD from the server; flight-specific NAD may include flight-specific ranking data for each zone of a plurality of geographic zones; flight-specific NAD may include data associated with various types of NAD selected from, for example, physical obstacles, restricted areas, permission requirements, potential hazards, height limits, speed limits, charging stations, parking spots, safe landing spots, weather conditions, and air traffic information)
Venkatraman in view of Kuzmanovic discloses:
generating a plurality of candidate routes from the departure location to the destination location of the unmanned aerial vehicle that pass through a toll section provided above a railway track, based on a train operation plan such that the unmanned aerial vehicle passes over the railway during times in which trains are not passing over the railway, wherein each of the generated candidate routes includes a flight path;
Venkatraman discloses generating a plurality of candidate routes from the departure location to the destination location of the unmanned aerial vehicle that pass through a toll section, and that the candidate routes includes a flight path: (Venkatraman ¶0067 disclosing the server may provide the UAV with NAD including all available air routes for the flight; ¶0071 disclosing the server or the UAV may calculate a sum of the flight-specific ranking data of all tiles through which each route of the plurality of possible routes passes between a start node and an end node in an area, and select the route with the lowest sum as the route in the area for the flight; ¶0078 disclosing the UAV may select a flight route from a plurality of possible routes based on a sum of the flight-specific ranking data for all zones on each route of the plurality of possible routes; ¶0069 disclosing for a NAD layer including permission requirements, a lower number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a lower level of permission requirement or the UAV or the operator the UAV has the required permissions, and a higher number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a higher level of permission requirement, it may cost more to acquire the permission, or it may require a higher toll fee for flying over the area; ¶0045 further discloses restriction zones having different privilege levels for different drones or users and the permission requirement may be different at different times thus the NAD information may include information regarding the corresponding time of the permission requirements a fee may be collected each time a UAV passes one of these areas). While Venkatraman discloses a toll fee for traveling certain routes, including routes where permissions or restrictions occur, Venkatraman does not explicitly disclose that the toll section (corresponding to the restricted zone and/or zone where permissions are required) is provided above a railway track, based on a train operation plan such that the unmanned aerial vehicle passes over the railway during times in which trains are not passing over the railway. Kuzmanovic suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kuzmanovic ¶0027 disclosing the system providing underground and/or interior routing for drones; ¶0028 disclosing generating underground and/or interior drone routes or flight plans; ¶0029 the underground passageways includes tunnels (e.g., for underground transport such as subways); see also Fig. 2A; ¶0030 disclosing the underground passageway can be an active underground pubic transport tunnel (e.g., a subway train tunnel); ¶0032 disclosing the system can create routes based on real-time data (e.g., subway train scheduled) to ensure the path(s) remain free of any transient obstruction (e.g., trains) that may lead to a potential collision with of otherwise obstruct the operation of a drone). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the section provided above a railway track of the secondary reference(s) for the toll section of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
based on a candidate route selected by a user, controlling the unmanned aerial vehicle to fly along a flight path of the candidate route so as to pass through the toll section only during times in which the unmanned aerial vehicle is permitted to pass through the toll section.
Venkatraman discloses selecting a flight path for the UAV to travel and that the flight path may travel through a toll section: (Venkatraman ¶0071 disclosing selecting a route for the flight; ¶0078 disclosing the UAV may select a flight route from a plurality of possible routes based on a sum of the flight-specific ranking data for all zones on each route of the plurality of possible routes; ¶0069 disclosing for a NAD layer including permission requirements, a lower number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a lower level of permission requirement or the UAV or the operator the UAV has the required permissions, and a higher number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a higher level of permission requirement, it may cost more to acquire the permission, or it may require a higher toll fee for flying over the area; ¶0045 further discloses restriction zones having different privilege levels for different drones or users and the permission requirement may be different at different times thus the NAD information may include information regarding the corresponding time of the permission requirements a fee may be collected each time a UAV passes one of these areas). Venkatraman does not explicitly disclose controlling the UAV so as to pass through the toll section only during times in which the unmanned aerial vehicle is permitted to pass through the toll section. Kuzmanovic discloses controlling the UAV to travel through a section provided above a railway track (which in a previous limitation is substituted for the toll section) only during times in which the unmanned aerial vehicle is permitted to pass through: (Kuzmanovic ¶0052 in non-drone traffic tunnels, the routing module 305 can determine a time slot for drone operation or travel so that the non-drone traffic is the tunnels or passageways can be avoided based on the schedule data for the non-drone or sensed/reported real-time locations of the non-drone traffic; the route can be generated to avoid tunnels with detected non-drone traffic (e.g., train traffic, elevator traffic, etc.) when travel at another time slot is not possible or not desired; ¶0053 routing module 305 can determine at least one waypoint in or near the at least one underground passageway where the drone has to wait for the availability of the at least one underground/interior passage based on the real-time data; the availability is limited only for later sections of the route, the routing module can create a route that starts immediately but then directs the drone to wait or pause at certain waypoints to allow the upcoming passageway to become available for drone travel (e.g., wait for a train/elevator to pass); route can specify the time period for the drone to wait based on schedule data; ¶0054 disclosing an underground route being selected, and directing the drone to navigate (even in different modes) on the route segments; ¶0058 the drone is a UAV capable of operating autonomously or via a remote pilot using UE to fly the drone or configure a flight path or route for the drone. In one embodiment, the drone is configured to travel using one or more modes of operation through underground and/or interior passageways). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the section provided above a railway track of the secondary reference(s) for the toll section of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 6 and 11 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 6 and 11 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a device. Claims 6 and 11 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 2: The route generation device according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is capable of generating a candidate route in which the unmanned aerial vehicle uses a charging facility, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: (Venkatraman ¶0067 disclosing the server may provide the UAV with NAD including all available air routes for the flight; ¶0071 disclosing the server or the UAV may calculate a sum of the flight-specific ranking data of all tiles through which each route of the plurality of possible routes passes between a start node and an end node in an area, and select the route with the lowest sum as the route in the area for the flight; ¶0078 disclosing the UAV may select a flight route from a plurality of possible routes based on a sum of the flight-specific ranking data for all zones on each route of the plurality of possible routes; ¶0050 disclosing the NAD may include information regarding available services, such as charging stations; e.g., a UAV may need to be recharged or refueled en route because, for example, the distance of the flight is over the range of the UAV or the UAV is not fully charged or fueled before the flight; thus, the UAV may need information regarding available charging stations on the route; see also ¶0051; ¶0052 disclosing UAVs may use parking spots en route; these parking spots may or may not have charging facilities; ¶0073-¶0074)
calculating a usage fee of the charging facility when generating the candidate route that uses the charging facility, and outputting usage fee information indicating a calculation result. (Venkatraman ¶0052 disclosing in some cases, UAVs may use parking spots en route; these parking spots may have charging facilities; thus, in some cases, the NAD may include information regarding the parking spots; such information may include the locations of public or private parking stations, the number of available spots at the stations, current wait time if all spots are occupied, parking costs)
Claims 7 and 12 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 7 and 12 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a device. Claims 7 and 12 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 5: The route generation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform:
predicting occurrence of a traffic jam in the plurality of candidate routes based on a flight plan of another unmanned aerial vehicle, and generating a candidate route including a detour that bypasses the traffic jam when the occurrence of the traffic jam is predicted, and outputting the route information of the candidate route including the detour. (Venkatraman ¶0032 the drone may need to find a charging station, a parking spot, a safe landing spot, or an alternative route when a condition of an area changes; ¶0033 determining, dynamically during a flight or in advance before the flight, a flight-specific route for a UAV using navigation assistance data that includes flight-specific data for a plurality of geographic zones determined based on flight-specific information; navigation assistance data may include one or more of… air traffic information; the flight-specific ranking data comprises data or information to allow a server or the UAV to determine a flight path by identifying zones that are good candidates for the flight path to pass through as well as identifying zones that are not good candidates for the flight path to pass through; ¶0042 the information may also include real time information regarding the weather conditions and air traffic information in the areas and the information is collectively referred to as NAD; ¶0046 the NAD may include information regarding potential hazards in the areas, e.g., certain areas may have high drone loss/damage/loss of contact rate due to, for example, busy traffic; ¶0052 UAVs may use parking spots en route, e.g., a UAV may use the parking spots when there is traffic jam thus, in some cases, the NAD may include information regarding rest areas or parking spots; ¶0054 NAD may also include information regarding air traffic information, e.g., as in ground transportations, the NAD may include information regarding congested areas, travelling speeds in the congested areas, alternative routes to the congested areas; ¶0066 UAV may then dynamically change the flight plan using the NAD, based on the real-time airspace conditions, such as weather conditions or traffic conditions)
Claims 10 and 15 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 10 and 15 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a device. Claims 10 and 15 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claim(s) 3, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (2018/0061251) in view of Kuzmanovic (2020/0072624) further in view of Tran (20210089055).
Claim 3: The route generation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform:
Venkatraman discloses collecting real-time UAV data during the flight from origin to destination and altering the flight path as necessary, but does not explicitly disclose acquiring departure date and time information indicating a departure date and time of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and predicting a date and time of arrival at the destination location when the unmanned aerial vehicle departs at the date and time indicated by the departure date and time information and flies along a route indicated by the candidate route, and outputs arrival date and time information indicating a prediction result. Tran suggests or discloses this limitation/concept:
acquiring departure date and time information indicating a departure date and time of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and predicting a date and time of arrival at the destination location when the unmanned aerial vehicle departs at the date and time indicated by the departure date and time information and flies along a route indicated by the candidate route, and outputting arrival date and time information indicating a prediction result. (Tran ¶0145 once approved the system can generate graphical depictions such as a depiction of a lateral profile of a flight plan, a vertical profile of a flight plan, and a speed profile associated with the lateral portion of the flight plan; automation is the preferred method to detect the flights and flight information that is of closet match; the options can be configured by similar flight route, portion of a flight route, speeds, altitude, aircraft type, date range, origin, destination, departure time, arrival time, tail number, pilot's name, or flight number. In one illustrative example, a flight plan includes an estimated time to reach a waypoint; when the aircraft actually crosses the waypoint, the event is captured by cell towers on the ground to determine the actual crossing time and send a message including the actual crossing time to the server; the actual crossing time can be displayed and recorded automatically on the user's computing device by mobile application, and an update to the original flight plan is generated and made available for viewing on the user's computing device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkatraman in view of Kuzmanovic to include acquiring departure date and time information indicating a departure date and time of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and predicting a date and time of arrival at the destination location when the unmanned aerial vehicle departs at the date and time indicated by the departure date and time information and flies along a route indicated by the candidate route, and outputs arrival date and time information indicating a prediction result as taught by Tran. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Venkatraman in view of Kuzmanovic in order to revise a flight plan when needed (see ¶0144 of Tran).
Claims 8 and 13 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 8 and 13 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a device. Claims 8 and 13 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (2018/0061251) in view of Kuzmanovic (2020/0072624) further Chan (20160117929).
Claim 4: The route generation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform:
Venkatraman discloses generating and outputting data indicating a higher toll amount for certain routes: (Venkatraman ¶0067 disclosing the server may provide NAD in all relevant areas from the source to the destination of the flight; ¶0069 disclosing for a NAD layer including permission requirements, a lower number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a lower level of permission requirement or the UAV or the operator the UAV has the required permissions, and a higher number for a tile may indicate that the corresponding area has a higher level of permission requirement, it may cost more to acquire the permission, or it may require a higher toll fee for flying over the area). Venkatraman, although strongly suggested, does not explicitly disclose generating a candidate route on which the unmanned aerial vehicle passes through a toll section, and calculating a toll of the toll section when generating a candidate route that passes through the toll section, and outputs toll information indicating a calculation result. Chan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept:
generating a candidate route on which the unmanned aerial vehicle passes through a-the toll section, and calculating a toll of the toll section when generating a-the candidate route that passes through the toll section, and outputting toll information indicating a calculation result. (Chan ¶0155 the system comprises a monitoring system (e.g. detectors and data links/communications) to monitor UAV/drone craft operating in the airspace (e.g. including position/location, speed, time, time of day, etc.) so that the system can determine rates to be charged; the detectors may comprise transceiver/transponder technology such as used in toll roads with the EZ-PASS system)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkatraman in view of Kuzmanovic to include generating a candidate route on which the unmanned aerial vehicle passes through a toll section, and calculating a toll of the toll section when generating a candidate route that passes through the toll section, and outputs toll information indicating a calculation result as taught by Tran. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Venkatraman in view of Kuzmanovic in order to determine rates to be charged (see ¶0155 of Chan).
Claims 9 and 14 are directed to a method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively. Claims 9 and 14 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a device. Claims 9 and 14 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628