CTNF 18/727,257 CTNF 91490 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-12 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-12 are pending examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-12 are 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ likely ” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ likely ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “likely to be a position” is relative term and has rendered the claim indefinite in regards to the position of the autonomous vehicle. For compact prosecution, it is being interpreted as a measured position . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1, 5 and 6 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma dar et al. (US2021/0035454) in view of Dolar et al. (US10650687) and herein after will be referred as Madar and Dolar. Re garding Claim 1, Mader teaches a position calculation device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (See Atleast Abstract : “A remote identification device (10) for a multirotor (1) comprises an EGNOS enabled GPS receiver (11) for determining a three-dimensional position (P) of the aircraft (1) and a radio transmitter (12) operating at 2.4 GHz for periodically transmitting a data package (D) comprising the determined three-dimensional position (P) of the aircraft (1), a unique identifier (ID) of the aircraft (1), and a timestamp”): Mader also teaches acquire identification information transmitted from an autonomous vehicle that transmits the identification information at predetermined transmission timings, the identification information including unique vehicle body information given to the autonomous vehicle, position information indicating a position of the autonomous vehicle, and time information (Para [0125] Line 4-20: “The first multirotor 1 is a ground-controlled UAV and it comprises an EGNOS enabled GPS receiver 11 (one GPS satellite shown for clarity) for determining its three-dimensional position P. It further comprises a 2.4 GHz transceiver 12 for—in additional to receiving control signals from the electronic flight controller in the pilot's hands on the ground (only schematically shown) and sending status data and a video image down to the flight controller— periodically transmitting data packages D comprising the multirotor's current position P and a unique identifier ID . In addition, air traffic control ATC can send an interrogation request which is then replied to with a data packages D comprising the multirotor's current position P and its unique identifier ID. The sent packages are cryptographically signed by means of a security device 14 and comprise ECC data (not shown) and a timestamp ”); and Dolar select a measured position likely to be a position of the autonomous vehicle using a standard movement pattern provided in advance from among measured positions that are positions of the autonomous vehicle indicated by the position information included in each of a plurality of pieces of the acquired identification information, and confirm the selected measured position as a position of the autonomous vehicle (Col.7 Line 43-Col.8 Line 29: “Thereafter, attempts are made to select one of the candidate longitude values from the pool as the actual longitude of the target aircraft. In particular, as illustrated in lines 11 - 19 of FIG. 4A, the candidate longitude values are tested with respect to each of the space-based ADS-B receivers that received the corresponding pair of surface position report messages to determine which, if any, of the candidate longitude values are located within the coverage area of each satellite that received the corresponding pair of surface position report messages. Specifically, as illustrated in line 12 , a maximum radius of the coverage area of one of the space-based ADS-B receivers that received the corresponding pair of surface position report messages is determined and converted to an arc length along the Earth's surface D max . (In line 12 of FIG. 4A, R ⊕ represents a value for the radius of the Earth.) Thereafter, as illustrated in FIG. 4A, lines 13 - 18 , the candidate longitude values are paired with the previously determined latitude for the target aircraft Rlat to create a pool of candidate latitude-longitude pair values (Rlat, Rlon k ), and the great-circle distance D between the sub-satellite point for the space-based ADS-B receiver (ϕ j , λ j ) and each candidate latitude-longitude pair (Rlat, Rlon k ) is determined and compared to the previously determined arc length along the Earth's surface D max corresponding to the maximum radius of the coverage area of the ADS-B receiver. If the great-circle distance D between the sub-satellite point for the space-based ADS-B receiver (ϕ j , λ j ) and a particular candidate latitude-longitude pair (Rlat, Rlon k ) exceeds the previously determined arc length along the Earth's surface D max corresponding to the maximum radius of the coverage area of the ADS-B receiver, a determination is made that the candidate latitude-longitude pair (Rlat, Rlon k ) is not within the coverage area of the ADS-B receiver, and the corresponding candidate longitude value is removed from the array of candidate longitude values. As illustrated in FIG. 4A, lines 11 - 19 , this process may be repeated for all of the space-based ADS-B receivers that received the corresponding pair of surface position messages with any remaining candidate longitude value, for example, until all of the candidate longitude values have been removed or the tests have been completed for all of the space-based ADS-B receivers that received the corresponding pair of surface position messages. Thereafter, as illustrated in FIG. 4A, lines 20 - 21 , if no candidate longitude values remain, a determination is made that an error has occurred and the attempt to determine a surface position for the target aircraft based on the particular pair of surface position messages may be abandoned. Alternatively, if only a single candidate longitude value remains, it may be selected as the actual longitude of the target aircraft and returned as Rlon, whereas if multiple candidate longitude values remain, additional steps may be performed in an effort to resolve the remaining candidate longitude values to a single longitude value.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mader to incorporate the teachings of Dolar to include a measured position likely to be a position of the autonomous vehicle using a standard movement pattern provided in advance from among measured positions that are positions of the autonomous vehicle indicated by the position information included in each of a plurality of pieces of the acquired identification information, and confirm the selected measured position as a position of the autonomous vehicle. Doing so would optimize determination of the position of AV. Similarly Claims 5 and 6 are rejected on the similar rational . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madar in view of Dolar and in further view of Wigren et al. (WO2022/010393) and herein after will be referred as Wigren . Regarding Claim 2, Madar in view of Dolar teaches the position calculation device according to claim 1. Wigren teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to calculate confirmation means calculates a movement trajectory of the autonomous vehicle using a plurality of confirmed positions of the autonomous vehicle (Page 5 Line 25-31: “The method may be performed iteratively such that, for example, the position (or kinematic state) of the moving UAV at a first time instance is itself determined (e.g. predicted) based on an estimate of the position of the moving UAV at a second, earlier time instance. The position of the UAV may thus be monitored over time, e.g., as it travels along a trajectory, at each of a plurality of time instances, by initially estimating the position of the UAV based on its previous position and then updating the initial estimate based on CFO measurements.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mader and Dolar to incorporate the teachings of Wigren to include the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to calculate confirmation means calculates a movement trajectory of the autonomous vehicle using a plurality of confirmed positions of the autonomous vehicle. Doing so would optimize determination of the position of AV. Similarly Claims 7 and 10 are rejected on the similar rational . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madar in view of Dolar and in further view of Postrel (US 2022/0058961 A1) and herein after will be referred as Postrel . Regarding Claim 3, Madar in view of Dolar teaches the position calculation device according to claim 1. Postrel teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to update the standard movement pattern using a detection trajectory that is a movement trajectory of the autonomous vehicle based on a detection position of the autonomous vehicle output from a detection device detecting a position of the autonomous vehicle (Para [0023] Line 24-30 : “In a simple , case , assuming that there are no substantial traffic management factors to consider , then the flight path will be calculated on a substantially straight line from the origin to the destination . The altitude of the flight may be a factor of various parameters as will be described, in addition to any regulatory parameters that may exist such as FAA regulations. These parameters would be programmed into or accessible remotely by the drone traffic management system 100 to ensure that the planned flight path is in compliance with such regulations. The drone traffic management system 100 interacts with the drone 2 to read its position in real time by receiving location data from the GPS and location services 706 of the drone 2 and re - calculating a preferred flight path of the drone as it travels. That is, traffic management factors may change as the drone travels from the origin to the destination, which may affect the flight path calculated by the drone traffic management system 100. Thus, instantaneous modifications may be made and communicated back to the drone as desired”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mader and Dolar to incorporate the teachings of Postrel to include the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to update the standard movement pattern using a detection trajectory that is a movement trajectory of the autonomous vehicle based on a detection position of the autonomous vehicle output from a detection device detecting a position of the autonomous vehicle. Doing so would optimize determination of the position of AV and the trajectory of the AV. Similarly Claims 8 and 11 are rejected on the similar rational . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madar in view of Dolar and in further view of Pasko et al. (US9334052) and herein after will be referred as Pasko . Regarding Claim 4, Madar in view of Dolar teaches the position calculation device according to claim 1. Pasko teaches the standard movement pattern is a movement pattern generated using at least one of information of a movement speed of the autonomous vehicle and weather (Col.2 Line 29-39: “In some implementations, UAV plat form 230 may determine that UAVs 220 in the pool are authenticated for using UAV platform 230 and/or one or more of networks 240-260 when UAVs 220 in the pool are regis tered with UAV platform 230, accounts of UAVs 220 are in good standing, etc. In some implementations, UAV platform 230 may determine that UAVs 220 in the pool are registered with an appropriate authority when UAVs 220 in the pool have government registration numbers that match govern ment registration numbers provided in data storage 235.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mader and Dolar to incorporate the teachings of Pasko to include the standard movement pattern is a movement pattern generated using at least one of information of a movement speed of the autonomous vehicle and weather. Doing so would optimize determination of the position of AV and the trajectory of the AV. Similarly Claims 9 and 12 are rejected on the similar rational . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pierce et al. (US12033516B1) discloses the present disclosure describe a secure, scalable and extensible unmanned aircraft system identity management (IdM) system that enables services for identity provisioning (idP), and identity validation, verification and authentication (idVV&A). The system uses dual-mode local broadcast and network connected UAS communication elements across a wide area network. The system serves as a Source System of Record (SSoR) that securely ingests private registration data, UAS identity verification and authentication requests and returns validated identity and flight information. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700. 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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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. /ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/727,257 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights