DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This final action is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 03/16/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1-3 and 11-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the inventions recites patent eligible subject matter by virtue of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to technology. Particularly, the claimed invention attempts to solve the technical problem of processing a large amount of flight telemetry data while increasing processing efficiency and maintaining accuracy.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s disclosure and technical improvement ultimately reduces the processing of fleet telemetry data to a binary state: either data is conformant or non-conformant. While certain processing volumes of data can supersede the ability for a human mind to process – as is addressed by the technical problem – a human mind is capable of performing a mental process where a simple binary categorization is made to broadly aggregate data into either meeting or failing to meet conformance to operational intents. Therefore this claimed “improvement to technology” is not observed in the claims cited for failing to present eligible subject matter.
The Examiner reiterates, here and in the rejection below, that claims 8-9 and 18-19 further limit the “performing…one or more actions” limitation by reciting the action taken is to present a notification to an operator of non-conformance results (claims 8 and 18) and prevent the fleet of UAVs from flying if non-conformance exceeds a threshold amount of time (claims 9 and 19). Both of these limitations integrate the abstract idea into practical application, with claims 9 and 19 indicating a stronger practical application as a direct and tangible consequence to the operation of the fleet of UAVs and the determination of their non-conformance.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 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 1-7, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to corresponding computer implemented method and non-transitory computer-readable medium for monitoring aggregate conformance of a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method of claim 1 is directed toward a mental process and, therefore, an abstract idea. It consists of:
“…
for each flight of the plurality of flights:
comparing, by the computing system, the telemetry data associated with the flight to the operational intent associated with the flight;
based on the comparing, creating, by the computing system, a label for each data point of the telemetry data that indicates whether the data point is conformant or non-conformant;
and generating, by the computing system, a set of excursions based on the labels created for the data points, wherein each excursion includes one or more consecutive data points that have labels indicating the data points are non-conformant;
determining, by the computing system, a level of aggregate conformance based on the set of excursions;
and performing, by the computing system, one or more actions in response to the level of aggregate conformance.”
The “comparing,” “creating,” “generating,” and “determining” steps underlined above are actions that can be performed in the human mind. Particularly, a person can compare flight telemetry data, create labels for the telemetry data, generate a set of excursions based on labeled data points, and determine conformance based on the excursions. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961,1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person in an operating role can review telemetry data to see if they meet operational intents, create labels for the data and a set of excursions based on the data, and determine if those exclusions collectively conform to flight parameters. The mere nominal recitation that these steps are being executed by a computing system does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
Claim 11 recites similar steps and/or actions as disclosed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is examined under the same criteria as claim 1 above.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 further recites the limitations:
“A computer-implemented method of efficiently and accurately monitoring aggregate conformance with operational intents for a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, telemetry data and operational intents for a plurality of flights during a monitoring period;
for each flight of the plurality of flights:
…
and performing, by the computing system, one or more actions in response to the level of aggregate conformance.”
The “receiving” step is recited a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting telemetry data and operational intents), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity.
Additionally, the “performing…one or more actions” step is recited at a high level of generality (as a general action being taken in response to the judicial exception being performed without specific implementation) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, all of these additional limitations do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites similar steps and/or actions as disclosed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is examined under the same criteria as claim 1 above.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the aforementioned computer implemented method being performed by a computing system (claim 1) using non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 11) storing logic that causes one or more processors of the computing system to perform the aforementioned method. The computing system and corresponding processors are used to merely automate the comparing, generating, and determining steps that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e. WURC) activities that a computing system and corresponding processors are well known to be able to perform. Therefore, these limitations to not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, since claims 1 and 11 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 11 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, and 20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, 2-3 and 12-13 further limit the “generating” step with “adding” steps that append or concatenate excursion data and/or data points to the set of excursions or corresponding data to a particular excursion. This merely represents data manipulation that can be performed in the human mind, in commensurate fashion to the analysis above, without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Additionally, claims 10 and 20 further limit the “performing…one or more actions” limitation by reciting the non-conformance information is presented on a dashboard of historical determinations. This is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic means of presenting results of data processing) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
The Examiner notes that claims 8-9 and 18-19 further limit the “performing…one or more actions” limitation by reciting the action taken is to present a notification to an operator of non-conformance results (claims 8 and 18) and prevent the fleet of UAVs from flying if non-conformance exceeds a threshold amount of time (claims 9 and 19). Both of these limitations integrate the abstract idea into practical application, with claims 9 and 19 indicating a stronger practical application as a direct and tangible consequence to the operation of the fleet of UAVs and the determination of their non-conformance.
As such, claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 20230035682 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 07/23/2025) in view of Vacek (US 20200043346 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Seo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having logic stored thereon (claim 11; see at least ¶ [0115]) that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, causes the computing system to perform a computer-implemented method of efficiently and accurately monitoring aggregate conformance with operational intents for a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (claim 1; see at least ¶ [0005-0007], [0033], and [0112] discloses observing and controlling drones’ flight paths and times to avoid drone collisions), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, telemetry data and operational intents for a plurality of flights during a monitoring period (see at least ¶ [0053] and [0056-0058] disclosing a path setting device including a data collection unit and an error analysis unit that collects and processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path);
for each flight of the plurality of flights:
comparing, by the computing system, the telemetry data associated with the flight to the operational intent associated with the flight (see at least ¶ [0056-0059] disclosing an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path by comparing planned GPS coordinates against data received from the drone);
determining, by the computing system, a level of aggregate conformance based on the set of excursions (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores);
and performing, by the computing system, one or more actions in response to the level of aggregate conformance (see at least ¶ [0080] and Table 1 disclosing the flight path error score calculated determines a corresponding adjustment in airspace).
While Seo discloses based on the comparing, determining, by the computing system, each data point of the telemetry data as conformant or non-conformant (see at least ¶ [0058-0059] and [0075] and Table 1 disclosing an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path to calculate a flight path error score and determines the change in air space required);
and generating, by the computing system, a set of excursions based on the data points, wherein each excursion includes one or more consecutive data points that are non-conformant (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] and Figs. 4A-4D disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores), Seo does not explicitly disclose based on the comparing, creating, by the computing system, a label for each data point of the telemetry data that indicates whether the data point is conformant or non-conformant;
and generating, by the computing system, a set of excursions based on the labels created for the data points, wherein each excursion includes one or more consecutive data points that have labels indicating the data points are non-conformant.
However, Vacek suggests creating, by the computing system, a label for each data point of the telemetry data that indicates whether the data point is conformant or non-conformant (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0054-0057] disclosing an unmanned aerial vehicle detection and mitigation system taking a detection data set for the UAV determines flight risk level and compliance and labels it as compliant flight behavior, unintentional noncompliant flight behavior, or intentional noncompliant flight behavior);
and generating, by the computing system, a set of excursions based on the labels created for the data points, wherein each excursion includes one or more consecutive data points that have labels indicating the data points are non-conformant (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0054-0057] disclosing an unmanned aerial vehicle detection and mitigation system taking a detection data set for the UAV determines flight risk level and compliance and labels it as compliant flight behavior, unintentional noncompliant flight behavior, or intentional noncompliant flight behavior).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the labeled compliance classification of Vacek into the deviation processing of Seo with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using UAV flight data to determine if a UAV is complying with flight operations. This would help the UAV avoid restricted airspace and remain in designated areas according to regulations (see at least Vacek ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Seo discloses generating the set of excursions based on the labels created for the data points includes:
adding, by the computing system, a first new excursion to the set of excursions (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] and Equation 1 disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores);
adding, by the computing system, the first non-conformant data point to the first new excursion (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] and Equation 1 disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores);
finding, by the computing system, one or more consecutive non-conformant data points that consecutively follow the first non-conformant data point, such that the first non-conformant data point and the one or more consecutive non-conformant data points are together less than or equal to a maximum excursion size (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], [0082], and [0088] and Fig. 6 disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores; total deviations then are compared to allocated airspaces for the drone, including a preset upper limit of airspace allocated to the drone);
and adding, by the computing system, the first non-conformant data point and the one or more consecutive non-conformant data points to the first new excursion (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] and Equation 1 disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores).
While Seo discloses detecting, by the computing system, a first non-conformant data point of the telemetry data (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores), it does not do so based on the labels.
However, Vacek suggests detecting, by the computing system, a first non-conformant data point of the telemetry data based on the labels (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0054-0057] disclosing an unmanned aerial vehicle detection and mitigation system taking a detection data set for the UAV determines flight risk level and compliance and labels it as compliant flight behavior, unintentional noncompliant flight behavior, or intentional noncompliant flight behavior).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the labeled compliance classification of Vacek into the deviation processing of Seo with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using UAV flight data to determine if a UAV is complying with flight operations. This would help the UAV avoid restricted airspace and remain in designated areas according to regulations (see at least Vacek ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Seo discloses generating the set of excursions based on the labels created for the data points further includes:
searching, by the computing system, for a next non-conformant data point of the data points starting with a data point that consecutively follows the last non-conformant data point added to the new excursion (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores);
and in response to finding a next non-conformant data point of the data points, adding, by the computing system, a second new excursion to the set of excursions that starts with the next non-conformant data point (Application’s specification ¶ [0005] defines ‘excursions’ as departures from a reserved airspace – without reading the specification into the claims, see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] and Equation 1 disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path, where number and distance are calculated in discrete areas bounded by time intervals that are summed to determine the totals and flight path error scores).
Seo does not explicitly disclose searching and finding a non-conformant data point of the labeled data points based on the labels.
However, Vacek suggests searching and finding a non-conformant data point of the labeled data points based on the labels (see at least ¶ [0037] and [0054-0057] disclosing an unmanned aerial vehicle detection and mitigation system taking a detection data set for the UAV determines flight risk level and compliance and labels it as compliant flight behavior, unintentional noncompliant flight behavior, or intentional noncompliant flight behavior).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the labeled compliance classification of Vacek into the deviation processing of Seo with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward using UAV flight data to determine if a UAV is complying with flight operations. This would help the UAV avoid restricted airspace and remain in designated areas according to regulations (see at least Vacek ¶ [0003]).
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo and Vacek, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in view of rationale of obviousness.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Seo discloses determining the level of aggregate conformance based on the set of excursions includes:
determining, by the computing system, a total number of flight hours indicated by at least one of the operational intents or the telemetry data (see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path).
The combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose determining, by the computing system, a flight time conformance percentage and a per-flight-hour excursion number;
and determining, by the computing system, the level of aggregate conformance based on the flight time conformance percentage and the per-flight-hour excursion number.
However, Seo discloses a path setting device including a data collection unit and an error analysis unit that collects and processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path (see at least ¶ [0053] and [0056-0058]). Applicant’s specification defines “characteristics” flight time conformance percentage as “divid[ing] the total duration of excursions by the total number of flight hours”, and the per-flight-hour excursion number as “divid[ing the] number of excursions by the total number of flight hours” (see ¶ [0062-0063]). These “characteristics” are composed of data that is readily gathered according to Seo, and one of ordinary skill in the art could manipulate these values mathematically into the desired characteristics. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to derive desired calculations from collected data with a reasonable expectation of success because the necessary information for performing the calculations are readily collected in Seo. One of ordinary skill may then use this gathered information or derive metrics according to design choice to characterize a drone’s deviated flight path.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Seo discloses determining the flight time conformance percentage includes:
determining, by the computing system, a total duration of the excursions in the sets of excursions (see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path).
The combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose dividing, by the computing system, the total duration of the excursions by the total number of flight hours to determine the flight time conformance percentage.
However, Seo discloses a path setting device including a data collection unit and an error analysis unit that collects and processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path (see at least ¶ [0053] and [0056-0058]). Applicant’s specification defines “characteristics” flight time conformance percentage as “divid[ing] the total duration of excursions by the total number of flight hours”, and the per-flight-hour excursion number as “divid[ing the] number of excursions by the total number of flight hours” (see ¶ [0062-0063]). These “characteristics” are composed of data that is readily gathered according to Seo, and one of ordinary skill in the art could manipulate these values mathematically into the desired characteristics. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to derive desired calculations from collected data with a reasonable expectation of success because the necessary information for performing the calculations are readily collected in Seo. One of ordinary skill may then use this gathered information or derive metrics according to design choice to characterize a drone’s deviated flight path.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Seo discloses determining the per-flight-hour excursion number includes:
counting, by the computing system, a total number of excursions in the sets of excursions (see at least ¶ [0058], [0061-0066], [0071], and [0088] disclosing a path setting device including an error analysis unit that processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path).
The combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose dividing, by the computing system, the total number of excursions by the total number of flight hours to determine the per-flight hour excursion number.
However, Seo discloses a path setting device including a data collection unit and an error analysis unit that collects and processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path (see at least ¶ [0053] and [0056-0058]). Applicant’s specification defines “characteristics” flight time conformance percentage as “divid[ing] the total duration of excursions by the total number of flight hours”, and the per-flight-hour excursion number as “divid[ing the] number of excursions by the total number of flight hours” (see ¶ [0062-0063]). These “characteristics” are composed of data that is readily gathered according to Seo, and one of ordinary skill in the art could manipulate these values mathematically into the desired characteristics. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to derive desired calculations from collected data with a reasonable expectation of success because the necessary information for performing the calculations are readily collected in Seo. One of ordinary skill may then use this gathered information or derive metrics according to design choice to characterize a drone’s deviated flight path.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Seo suggests determined level of aggregate conformance is one of an over-conformance level, a conformance level, a near non-conformance level, and a non-conformance level (see at least ¶ [0078-0080] and Table 1 depicting the path error score mapping different score values to different airspace adjustments);
and wherein determining the level of aggregate conformance number includes:
comparing, by the computing system, the number to a set of number thresholds associated with the over-conformance level, the conformance level, the near non-conformance level, and the non-conformance level (see at least ¶ [0078-0080] and Table 1 depicting the path error score mapping different score values to different airspace adjustments);
and determining the level of aggregate conformance to be a lowest level of aggregate conformance indicated by the comparisons (see at least ¶ [0074] and [0078-0080] and Table 1 depicting the path error score mapping different score values to different airspace adjustments, where path error score is weighted to increase the score based on environmental factors, thereby enforcing greater adjustments to airspace).
The combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the level of aggregate conformance based on the flight time conformance percentage and the per-flight-hour excursion number includes:
comparing, by the computing system, the flight time conformance percentage to a set of percentage thresholds associated with the over-conformance level, the conformance level, the near non-conformance level, and the non-conformance level;
and comparing, by the computing system, the per-flight-hour excursion number to a set of number thresholds associated with the over-conformance level, the conformance level, the near non-conformance level, and the non-conformance level.
However, Seo discloses a path setting device including a data collection unit and an error analysis unit that collects and processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path (see at least ¶ [0053] and [0056-0058]). Applicant’s specification defines “characteristics” flight time conformance percentage as “divid[ing] the total duration of excursions by the total number of flight hours”, and the per-flight-hour excursion number as “divid[ing the] number of excursions by the total number of flight hours” (see ¶ [0062-0063]). These “characteristics” are composed of data that is readily gathered according to Seo, and one of ordinary skill in the art could manipulate these values mathematically into the desired characteristics. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to derive desired calculations from collected data with a reasonable expectation of success because the necessary information for performing the calculations are readily collected in Seo. One of ordinary skill may then use this gathered information or derive metrics against thresholds according to design choice to characterize a drone’s deviated flight path.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Vacek, as applied to claims 1, 7, 11, and 17 above, and in further view of Gu et al. (US 20220076583 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 07/23/2025).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Seo suggests the determined level of aggregate conformance is the near non-conformance level or the non-conformance level (see at least ¶ [0078-0080] and Table 1 depicting the path error score mapping different score values to different airspace adjustments).
The combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more actions include:
presenting, by the computing system, a notification of the determined level of aggregate conformance to an operator.
However, Gu suggests presenting, by the computing system, a notification of the determined level of aggregate conformance to an operator (see at least ¶ [0060-0061] and Figs. 8-9 disclosing a user interface displaying flight information for an aircraft, including flight path deviation from a route).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the user interface display of Gu into the combination of Seo and Vacek with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring deviations in flight parameters of airborne vehicles along a designated path. This would allow the drone operators to be aware of deviations in the drone’s flight and allow them to respond accordingly.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose the actions include presenting a dashboard of historical determinations of levels of aggregate conformance.
However, Gu suggests presenting a dashboard of historical determinations of levels of aggregate conformance (see at least ¶ [0060-0061] and Figs. 8-9 disclosing a user interface displaying flight information for an aircraft, including flight path deviation from a route).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the user interface display of Gu into the combination of Seo and Vacek with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward monitoring deviations in flight parameters of airborne vehicles along a designated path. This would allow the drone operators to be aware of deviations in the drone’s flight and allow them to respond accordingly.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo in view of Vacek, as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and in view of Zhang et al. (US 20180362158 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Seo discloses the determined level of aggregate conformance is the non-conformance level;
and wherein the actions include:
determining, by the computing system, an amount of time for which the non-conformance level has persisted (see at least ¶ [0053] and [0056-0058] disclosing a path setting device including a data collection unit and an error analysis unit that collects and processes total deviation number, distance, and time of the drone from its planned flight path).
The combination of Seo and Vacek does not explicitly disclose, in response to determining, by the computing system, that the non-conformance level has persisted for more than a threshold amount of time, automatically preventing further flights by the fleet of UAVs.
However, Zhang suggests , in response to determining, by the computing system, that the non-conformance level has persisted for more than a threshold amount of time, automatically preventing further flights by the fleet of UAVs (see at least ¶ [0100] and [0121] disclosing preventing modifications to a UAV’s flight path when it deviates from the flight path for more than a threshold amount of time, including disrupting the autonomous flight of the UAV by making it land).
While Zhang is directed toward operating one UAV as opposed to a fleet, the features for directing a single UAV’s flight path and monitoring deviations from that path can be applied and scaled up to a fleet of UAVs without undue experimentation by merely replicating the control and monitor operations to multiple UAVs. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the flight disruption response of Zhang into the combination of Seo and Vacek with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring and ensuring an aircraft maintains a flight path with minimal deviation. This will help prevent the UAV from deviating too far from the flight path if it deviates for an extended period of time.
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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights