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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 17 reciting a method, performed by a processor, comprises:
“receiving status information of the aircraft from the aircraft”; “transmitting the status information to an air traffic control tower”; “converting a voice command received from the air traffic control tower into a command keyword”; and “transmitting an instruction corresponding to the command keyword to the aircraft”, is directed to claims describing a series of mental steps.
That is each of the cited steps including “receiving status information”, “transmitting the status information”, “converting a voice command into command keyword” and “transmitting an instruction”, are under their broadest reasonable interpretation, mere mental steps performed in a human mind or actions that can practically be performed by a person, such as a remote aircraft pilot, using a pencil/paper or a general purpose computer with conventional communication means. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because other than the “processor”, the claim does not recite any limitation or element describing the specific hardware/software used to implement the various steps of the claim.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional limitations other than describing the process involves an aircraft and air traffic controller.
Claims 1 and 10 are analogous to claim 17, therefore rejected for the reason cited for claim 17.
The dependent claims describe the roles of the ATC and and the additional steps performed by the processor to achieve the abstract idea, therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to
fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fern et al. (US 2020/0258405) and in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0194576).
As to claim 1, Fern teaches a remote pilot station (ground control station Fig.1, 28; comprising a ground based computing system, Fig.2, 110 and remote operator interface 104) comprising: a communication device 24/25 configured to communicate with an aircraft 10 and an air traffic control tower 20 configured to control the aircraft; and a processor Fig.2, 110 configured to: transmit/transfer status information of the aircraft to the air traffic control tower (Fig.3, 208/214); receive instruction from the air traffic control tower, convert the instructions into sequences of actions (216); and control the communication device to transmit the instruction (222) to the aircraft 10 to remotely control (106) the aircraft (Pars.13-18, 27-34, 41-43, 48; Figs.1-3; claims 1-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that while Fern teaches receiving voice communications and instructions from the ATC, he doesn’t explicitly teach converting a voice command received from the air traffic controller into a command keyword (control command).
However, Yang in analogous art, teaches a system 200 (implemented at locations associated with ATC, such as an ATC tower), comprising: a communication device configured to communicate with an aircraft 102 and an air traffic control tower 104 configured to control the aircraft; and a processor configured to: transmit status information 108/225 to the air traffic control tower 104, receive voice instruction 202 from the air traffic controller, and transmit the instruction to be executed at the aircraft, where in the user voice instruction is converted into control command 210/213 through speech recognition module (Pars.16-20, 32-36, 39-40; Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
576
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of the analogous systems would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of providing the air traffic controller fast and efficient means to provide the instructions.
As to claim 2, Fern teaches sending status message to the ATC and Yang teaches wherein the processor is configured to convert the status information of the aircraft into voice information based on a natural language processing technique to transmit it to the air traffic control tower (Fig.1, 106; Pars.17-18).
As to claim 3, Yang teaches wherein the processor is configured to control the communication device to transmit the status information of the aircraft, including voice information and data information, to the air traffic control tower (Pars.33-36).
As to claim 4, Fern teaches further comprising an interface device (Fig2, 104) configured to display the command keyword on a screen (Pars.14, 18, 28-29).
As to claim 5, Fern teaches the remote pilot station comprising the interface device is configured to receive an instruction from a remote pilot/operator (Pars.18-22; Figs.1-2).
As to claim 6, Yang teaches wherein the processor is configured to convert the instruction transmitted to the aircraft (Fig.1, 106) into voice information to control the communication device to transmit it to the air traffic control tower (Fig.1, 108).
As to claim 7, Fern teaches wherein the processor is configured to monitor/detect a status of the aircraft by receiving the status information of the aircraft from the aircraft at predetermined intervals (Fig.1, 116, 102; Fig.3, 200).
As to claim 8, Fern teaches wherein the processor is configured to communicate with the air traffic control tower to request that the air traffic control tower performs priority control of the aircraft when an emergency (urgent maneuver) occurs in the aircraft (Fig.3, 210, 218, 222; Pars.14, 33-37).
As to claim 9, Fern teaches wherein the processor is configured to: in response to satisfying at least one of a section requiring air traffic control, a section where air traffic control communication is possible for the air traffic control tower, and a communication request for the air traffic control tower, to start a logic (sequences of actions) for controlling the aircraft (Pars.29, 32, 43, 51).
Regarding claims 10, 17-20, the corresponding, system and method comprising the steps similar to the claims addressed above are analogous, therefore rejected as being unpatentable over Fern et al. and Yang et al. for the foregoing reasons.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fern et al. (US 2020/0258405) in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0194576), as applied above and further in view of Ji et al. (US 2023/0208506).
As to claims 11-15, Fern teaches where multiple aircrafts are controlled by the remote station operator based on a need basis (Fig.1; Pars.32, 16-18), however he doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the remote pilot station is configured to: transmit control an instruction to a first aircraft designated as a control target among the multiple aircrafts, and control a second aircraft, which is not designated as the control target among the multiple aircrafts, to continue performing a previously assigned mission; display and transmit status information of the second aircraft to ATC.
However, Ji teaches a method for enabling remote pilot communication for communication between a remote pilot, air traffic controller and multiple aerial vehicles, including terminating the connection between the user device and the first ground communication device when the first vehicle approaches a second air traffic control sector, including a second ground communication device from the plurality of connected ground communication devices and a second air traffic control sector radio interfaced with the second ground communication device; and establishing a connection between the user device and the second ground communication device when the flight path of the first vehicle is in proximity to the second ground communication device and the second air traffic control sector.. transmit voice communication data received from the air traffic control station and/or the second vehicle to a ground communication device interfaced with the air traffic control sector radio; and receive voice communication data from the ground communication device interfaced with the air traffic control sector radio; and transmit voice communication data received from the ground communication device to the air traffic control station and/or the second vehicle, including a display configured to convert voice communication data to printed text and to display the printed text on the display (Figs.1-4; Pars.28-36; claims 1-9).
The combination of the analogous teachings would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of applicant’s invention for the purpose of efficiently controlling multiple aircrafts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL DEMELASH ABEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-7615. The examiner can normally be reached monday-friday 7-4.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/DANIEL ABEBE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657