DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 21-22 have been newly added.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejection: Applicant requests withdrawal of the 101 rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examine will explain the 101 analysis: STEP One: The claim is directed to a statutory category, because a series of steps for processing/facilitating data satisfies the requirements of a process (a series of acts) (Step 1 : YES). STEP 2A Prong One: Next, the claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a method of an abstract idea of comparing new operational indent to each relevant operational intent based on determining a geographic index value, which concludes that the claims include an abstract idea. This idea is similar to the basic concept of a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, which has been found by the courts to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES). STEP 2A Prong Two: Now, the claim is analyzed to determine where the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The receiving, retrieving, and transmitting limitations involve mere gather of data which are insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the additional elements, processors and memory, are recited at a high level of generality to simply perform the generic computer functions. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two: NO) STEP 2B: Finally, the claim does not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of comparing new operational indent to each relevant operational intent based on determining a geographic index value. The additional elements, processors and memory, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an incentive concept. Therefore, the claim does not amount to more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the 101 rejection for claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 is maintained.
****Examiner Note: Examiner would like to indicate that the subject matter in paragraph [0018] of the instant application provides a control aspect that would be efficient enough to overcome the current abstract idea. The paragraph states “transmit commands to various devices to cause UAVs of the fleet of UAVs to execute operational intents that are found to be permissible”. This aspect that execute control to the UAV and not just providing/displaying information would distinguish from the abstract idea itself. If Applicant incorporates this control aspect that is based on the information already provided in the claim, then the claim would not fall under an abstract idea, and it would overcome the current 101 rejection.
Regarding the 103 rejection: Applicant’s amendment and arguments to claims 1-20 have overcome the 103 rejections raised in the previous action; therefore the 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1 and 11.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1 and 11 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“comparing the new operational intent to each relevant operational intent of the set of relevant operational intents to detect conflicts": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally compare information based on data. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. “determining a geographic index value associated with the new operation intent”: A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a value based on information provided. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “receiving a new operational intent from a rule engine of the first USS”, “retrieving a set of relevant operational intents that are relevant to the new operational intent from a geographic information data store”, “transmitting an approval request to a discovery and synchronization service (DSS)”, and “retrieving data from the geographic information data store using the geographic index value”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “computing system” and “processors” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. As per claims 1 and 11, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest:The prior art fails to explicitly teach or suggest or render obvious the retrieving, by the interoperability computing system, a set of relevant operational intents that are relevant to the new operational intent from a geographic information data store; comparing, by the interoperability computing system, the new operational intent to each relevant operational intent of the set of relevant operational intents to detect conflicts; and in response to detecting no conflicts, transmitting, by the interoperability computing system, an approval request to a discovery and synchronization service (DSS); wherein retrieving the set of relevant operational intents that are relevant to the new operational intent from the geographic information data store includes; determining a geographic index value associated with the new operational intent; and retrieving data from the geographic information data store using the geographic index value.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 21-22 and 14-22 depend from claim 1 and claims 12 and 14-20 depend from claim 11 would also be allowed by virtue of their dependencies.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2024/0349026 – Provides a 5G or 6G communication system for supporting a higher data transmission rate. Embodiments herein disclose systems and methods for ensuring that a Network Function (NF) supporting correct Uncrewed Aerial System Network Function (UAS NF) functionality is selected by an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) and/or Session Management Function during authentication and authorization of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV). USPGPub 2024/0322898 – Provides wireless communications and more particularly relates to receiving authorization for an unmanned aerial vehicle or uncrewed aerial vehicle (“UAV”) (e.g., from a 3GPP network).
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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662