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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 3/4/2026. Claims 1, 11 & 20 have been amended. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's representative argues, in substance, that neither Bennington nor winkle disclose providing the modified travel pathway to the one or more zone-remote control systems configured to control the vehicle.
In response to applicant’s argument the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that Winkle’s disclosure of generating and/or changing routes—whether the changes require reconfiguring features within the drone and/or how the drone communicates with a remote computing device—of an aerial drone to ensure an optimal drone path through a limited coverage zone reads on the instantly contested limitation(s) (See Winkle at least fig 2-3). For further clarification see rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1- 6, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennington et al. (hereinafter Bennington US11536855 B2) in view of Winkle et al. (hereinafter Winkle US2019/0043372 A1).
Bennington discloses: a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a travel pathway for a vehicle (see Bennington at least Abstract & fig. 6A-17 & col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; plan a path or route of a vehicle);
generating a plurality of signal strength indications for the travel pathway based at least in part on the travel pathway and satellite-based positioning data obtained from a remote computing environment (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, GNSS ME and acquisition of satellite signals);
generating, based at least in part on the plurality of signal strength indications for the travel pathway, a plurality of zones along the travel pathway, wherein the plurality of zones comprises at least one zone associated with poor signal strength (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; GNSS Heat map and/or point cloud, GNSS satellite signal strength, LOS and NLOS, DOP and degradation and reliability);
generating, based at least in part on the plurality of signal strength indications and the plurality of zones, one or more visual observer indications that indicate a position along the travel pathway at which a transition of the vehicle from a beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) mode to a visual observer mode is initiated, wherein the visual observer mode enables backup control of the vehicle by a viewing entity while the vehicle is within a predetermined proximity of the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, using GNSS forecast, alerting drivers of GNSS degradation, signaling driver to take over manual control).
Bennington further discloses transitioning from an autonomous mode to a manual mode of controlling the vehicle—i.e., modifying the travel pathway based on the mode—and furthermore discloses providing updates to changes in the environment (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, using GNSS forecast, alerting drivers of GNSS degradation, signaling driver to take over manual control).
However, Bennington, does not appear to explicitly disclose modifying the travel pathway based at least in part on the one or more visual observer indications; and providing the modified travel pathway to one or more external zone-remote control systems configured to exercise override control of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Winkle—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses modifying the travel pathway based at least in part on the one or more visual observer indications; and providing the modified travel pathway to one or more external zone-remote control systems configured to exercise override control of the vehicle (see winkle at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 2-3 & ¶31-39; updating changing navigation route to optimal signal strength path/coverage zones sending updated info to vehicles).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine Winkle’s system for generating routes within limited communication zones with those of Bennington’s path planning in order to form a more robust, reliable and overall safer system (i.e., by facilitating the generation of navigation routes in order to relay information between vehicles while within a limited coverage area/zone, minimizing chances for collisions etc.).
Motivation to combine Bennington with Winkle not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Winkle (see Winkle par. 12-20).
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 2: generating the one or more visual observer indications further based at least in part on a real-time monitored position of the vehicle along the travel pathway (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 3: further comprising: causing rendering of a graphical user interface (GUI) at a computing device of the one or more zone-remote control systems, wherein the GUI comprises: a mapping of the travel pathway, a set of indicia based at least in part on the plurality of zones rendered along the travel pathway, and one or more additional indicia based at least in part on the one or more visual observer indications (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 4: further comprising: in response to determining the vehicle is located within the predetermined proximity of the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength, transitioning the vehicle from the BVLOS mode to the visual observer mode to enable the backup control of the vehicle by the viewing entity (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 5: further comprising: establishing a connection between the one or more zone-remote control systems and the vehicle to enable control and monitoring of the vehicle by the one or more zone-remote control entities, wherein: transitioning the vehicle from the BVLOS mode to the visual observer mode comprises establishing a connection between a computing device of the viewing entity to enable the backup control of the vehicle by the viewing entity (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 6: wherein: while the vehicle is in the visual observer mode, the connection between the one or more zone-remote control systems and the vehicle is maintained to continue outputting of vehicle data via the one or more zone-remote control systems and granting an override of control of the vehicle to the one or more zone-remote control systems (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 9: further comprising: in response to determining that no viewing entity is available to exercise the backup control of the vehicle while the vehicle is within the predetermined proximity of the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength: generating an augmentation system indication, wherein: the augmentation system indication indicates a position along the travel pathway at which a connection between the vehicle and an augmentation system is established; and the augmentation system is located within the predetermined proximity of the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength and provides positioning data to the vehicle via the connection; and modifying the travel pathway further based at least in part on the augmentation system indication (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 10: further comprising: generating an estimated travel time of the vehicle based at least in part on the modified travel pathway; and providing the estimated travel time to the one or more zone-remote control systems (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 11: an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory having computer-coded instructions stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive a travel pathway for a vehicle (see Bennington at least Abstract & fig. 6A-17 & col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; plan a path or route of a vehicle); generate a plurality of signal strength indications for the travel pathway based at least in part on the travel pathway and satellite-based positioning data obtained from a remote computing environment (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, GNSS ME and acquisition of satellite signals); generate, based at least in part on the plurality of signal strength indications for the travel pathway, a plurality of zones along the travel pathway, wherein the plurality of zones comprises at least one zone associated with poor signal strength (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; GNSS Heat map and/or point cloud, GNSS satellite signal strength, LOS and NLOS, DOP and degradation and reliability); generate, based at least in part on the plurality of signal strength indications and the plurality of zones, one or more visual observer indications that indicate a position along the travel pathway at which a transition of the vehicle from a beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) mode to a visual observer mode is initiated, wherein the visual observer mode enables backup control of the vehicle by a viewing entity while the vehicle is within a predetermined proximity of the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, using GNSS forecast, alerting drivers of GNSS degradation, signaling driver to take over manual control); modify the travel pathway based at least in part on the one or more visual observer indications; and provide the modified travel pathway to one or more external zone-remote control systems configured to exercise override control of the vehicle (see winkle at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7; updating route based upon coverage zones sending updated info to vehicles).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 12: wherein the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: cause provision of a visual observation request to the viewing entity; receive a response to the visual observation request comprising availability data associated with the viewing entity; determine the availability of the viewing entity based at least in part on the availability data; and generate the one or more visual observer indications further based at least in part on the availability of the viewing entity (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 13: wherein the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: generate a travel pathway adjustment based at least in part on the availability of the viewing entity; and modify the travel pathway further based at least in part on the travel pathway adjustment (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 14: wherein: the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: determine an unavailable period of the viewing entity; and modify the travel pathway to direct movement of the vehicle through the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength during a time interval outside of the unavailable period (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 16: wherein: the computer-coded instructions, in execution with the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: obtain metadata associated with the travel pathway, wherein the satellite-based positioning data is further based at least in part on the metadata (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 17: wherein: the metadata comprises a travel date (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7; ambient condition data).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 18: wherein: the travel pathway comprises an origin point and a destination point for the vehicle; and the metadata comprises a target travel time between the origin point and the destination point (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 19: wherein: the metadata comprises at least one of one or more weather conditions or a mapping of ground infrastructure and topography along the travel pathway (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Bennington and Winkle disclose claim 20: A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, is configured to: receive a travel pathway for a vehicle (see Bennington at least Abstract & fig. 6A-17 & col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; plan a path or route of a vehicle); generate a plurality of signal strength indications for the travel pathway based at least in part on the travel pathway and satellite-based positioning data obtained from a remote computing environment (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, GNSS ME and acquisition of satellite signals); generate, based at least in part on the plurality of signal strength indications for the travel pathway, a plurality of zones along the travel pathway, wherein the plurality of zones comprises at least one zone associated with poor signal strength (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; GNSS Heat map and/or point cloud, GNSS satellite signal strength, LOS and NLOS, DOP and degradation and reliability); generate, based at least in part on the plurality of signal strength indications and the plurality of zones, one or more visual observer indications that indicate a position along the travel pathway at which a transition of the vehicle from a beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) mode to a visual observer mode is initiated, wherein the visual observer mode enables backup control of the vehicle by a viewing entity while the vehicle is within a predetermined proximity of the at least one zone associated with poor signal strength (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67; LOS, NLOS, using GNSS forecast, alerting drivers of GNSS degradation, signaling driver to take over manual control); modify the travel pathway based at least in part on the one or more visual observer indications; and provide the modified travel pathway to one or more external zone-remote control systems configured to exercise override control of the vehicle (see Bennington at least fig. 6A-17 and col. 38 line 32-col. 39 line 17, col. 41 line 48-67, col. 43 line 35- col. 44 line 67, col. 49 line 26-35, col. 56 lines 50-57, col. 70 line 10-67 and see Winkle at least at least fig. 1-7 and in particular fig. 1-4 & 7).
Motivation to combine Bennington and Winkle, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights