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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on July 11, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on July 11, 2024.
Claims 1-24 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-24 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim(s) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0233559) in view of Ferguson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0114564).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the following limitation:
“UAV-obtained flight information related to a flight of another UAV to and in the geographical region”.
The phrase “to and in” renders the claim limitation to be unclear. Specifically, the singular “another UAV” cannot simultaneously be traveling to the geographical region and be in the geographical region. If the UAV is traveling to the geographical region, it is not currently in the geographical region. On the other hand, if the UAV is in the geographical region, it is not traveling toward the geographical region.
Should the intended interpretation be directed to another UAV traveling in the geographic region, the Examiner suggests amending the limitation to recite “UAV-obtained flight information related to a flight of another UAV
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication module” in claims 13, 15, 21, and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “communication module” in claims 13, 15, 21, and 22 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited units are not defined in the claims or specification as having a specific technological structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 14-24 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they rely on and are thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
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, 4-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A flight path optimization method utilized by a computing device in communication with one or more components of an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising:
obtaining map information defining mapping coordinates of a geographical region;
obtaining historical UAV-obtained flight information related to a first autonomous flight of a respective UAV in the geographical region, wherein the first autonomous flight of the UAV is based on a first flight plan provided to the UAV;
storing, in a memory unit, the map information, the historical UAV-obtained flight information, the first flight plan, and current values of a set of external factors that are separate from the flight information;
generating, using a processor, a second flight plan for a second autonomous flight of the UAV, the generating including:
processing the map information, the historical UAV-obtained flight information, and the current values of the set of external factors, and
updating the first flight plan based on the processing to generate the second flight plan, wherein the second flight plan is separate and distinct from the first flight plan; and
transmitting, using the processor, the second flight plan to the UAV for a second autonomous flight of the UAV in the geographical region.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of generating ... a second flight plan for a second autonomous flight of the UAV.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “using a processor”. That is, other than reciting “using a processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “using a processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. For example, the claim encompasses a person using existing map information of a geographic region and creating, either mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, a second flight plan for the vehicle. The mere nominal recitation of “using a processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of obtaining map information defining mapping coordinates of a geographical region; obtaining historical UAV-obtained flight information related to a first autonomous flight of a respective UAV in the geographical region, wherein the first autonomous flight of the UAV is based on a first flight plan provided to the UAV; storing, in a memory unit, the map information, the historical UAV-obtained flight information, the first flight plan, and current values of a set of external factors that are separate from the flight information; ...; processing the map information, the historical UAV-obtained flight information, and the current values of the set of external factors, and updating the first flight plan based on the processing to generate the second flight plan, wherein the second flight plan is separate and distinct from the first flight plan; and transmitting, using the processor, the second flight plan to the UAV for a second autonomous flight of the UAV in the geographical region.
The obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering map information for the generating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending data), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “memory unit” and “processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 13
Independent claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements “a communication module,” “one or more processors,” and “a memory unit storing instructions” are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14, 16-20, and 22-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 22-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0233559) in view of Ferguson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0114564).
Regarding claim 1, Ali discloses a flight path optimization method utilized by a computing device in communication with one or more components of an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Ali ¶ 33) comprising:
obtaining map information defining mapping coordinates of a geographical region; (Ali ¶ 36 discloses virtualizing “data in a map,” thereby having obtained map information, and partitioning “a map of a region into geographic cells,” the geographic cells being used to execute route instructions 148 which include waypoints marked by GPS coordinates)
obtaining historical UAV-obtained flight information related to a first autonomous flight of a respective UAV in the geographical region, (Ali ¶ 72 discloses “the distributed computing network could create [i.e., obtain] ... a near real-time history of transactions from the UAV,” the transaction messages including telemetry data of the UAV, wherein the flight may be autonomous, see ¶ 23, and the route information 110 indicates an area of the flight path, see ¶ 30)
wherein the first autonomous flight of the UAV is based on a first flight plan provided to the UAV; (Ali ¶ 29 discloses “The route information (110) may indicate a flight path for the UAV (102) to follow,” also see ¶ 23)
storing, in a memory unit, the map information (Ali Fig. 1 depicts the route information 110 within memory 106), the historical UAV-obtained flight information, the first flight plan, and current values of a set of external factors that are separate from the flight information; (Ali ¶ 77 discloses “having a permanent, unalterable record could be particular useful with the generation of detailed histories associated with a UAV's flight history,” including “telemetry data” to establish a logbook, the telemetry data including GPS coordinates [i.e., historical UAV flight information], also see weather data server 170 having memory 174 depicted to be separate from flight information 110)
generating, using a processor, a second flight plan for a second autonomous flight of the UAV (Ali ¶ 33 discloses “providing, to at least one of the first UAV and the second UAV, rerouting instructions for a rerouted flight path [i.e., a second flight path] that avoids the conflict), the generating including: processing the map information, the historical UAV-obtained flight information, and the current values of the set of external factors, and (Ali ¶ 33 discloses “The processor (122) is configured to execute instructions from the memory (124) to perform various operations,” and using aggregated information from various sources, such as the weather data server 170 and the UAV 102, to “plan and select a flight path for the UAV,” see ¶ 62)
transmitting, using the processor, the second flight plan to the UAV for a second autonomous flight of the UAV in the geographical region. (Ali ¶ 36 discloses determining an alternative flight path and selecting “a new optimal flight path from the at least one alternative flight paths” and “transmit the route information (110) to the UAV (102)” through server 140, the server 140 receiving data over network 119, see Fig. 1)
Ali does not expressly disclose:
wherein the second flight plan is separate and distinct from the first flight plan; and
However, Ferguson discloses:
wherein the second flight plan is separate and distinct from the first flight plan; and (Ferguson ¶ 18 discloses “Based on determining that the route plan needs to be ... abandoned, a new route plan ... may be implemented,” wherein “the new route plan ... may be implemented by determining a set of candidate route plans,” wherein “candidate route plans may be isolated or interdependent,” see ¶ 68)
transmitting, using the processor, the second flight plan to the UAV for a second autonomous flight of the UAV in the geographical region. (Ferguson ¶ 7 discloses “A route plan may be selected or otherwise determined from the ranked set and implemented or communicated through a network to one or more parcel transporters for implementation”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the second flight plan of Ali with the second flight plan being separate and distinct from the first flight plan, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, so that the plan would not affect another plan, and to optimize route generation (Ferguson ¶¶ 21 and 68), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the obtaining the historical UAV-obtained flight information includes: processing real-time UAV-obtained flight information related to flights of a plurality of UAVs to the geographical region, the real-time UAV-obtained flight information including at least one of: digital images, radar data, and Lidar data obtained by the plurality of UAVs, and (Ali ¶ 54 discloses “provide the air traffic data (167) about the flight paths of other aircraft in a region, including those of other UAVs. The air traffic data may also include real-time radar data indicating the positions of other aircraft)
generating the historical UAV-obtained flight information based on the processed real-time UAV-obtained flight information. (Ali ¶ 72 discloses “the distributed computing network could create and store a near real-time history of transactions from the UAV in the blockchain data structure,” the transactions including telemetry data of the UAV)
Regarding claim 3, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, using the processor, the first flight plan based on the map information and previous values of the set of external factors; (Ali ¶ 53 discloses “the route instructions (148) cause the server (140) to plan a flight path, generate route information, dynamically reroute the flight path and update the route information based on data aggregated from a plurality of data servers”)
providing, using the processor, the first flight plan to the UAV; and (Ali ¶ 49 discloses “the control device or the server may transmit to the UAV, updated route information, control data, or navigation information,” also see ¶ 38)
launching the first autonomous flight of the UAV based on the first flight plan. (Ali ¶ 38 discloses that “The UAV (102) may include one or more actuators, such as one or more flight control actuators, one or more thrust actuators, etc., and execution of the operation instructions (108) may cause the processor (104) to control the one or more actuators to perform the flight control operations”)
Regarding claim 4, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the historical UAV-obtained flight information (Ferguson ¶ 6 discloses retrieving historical information which includes weather patterns and conditions) includes information related to a deviation from the first flight plan during the first autonomous flight of the UAV. (Ferguson ¶ 39 discloses that collected weather information and terrestrial information is used to determining historical patterns and may be utilized the evaluating an implemented route plan, wherein the implemented route plan may be determined to be deviating from the route plan, see ¶ 77)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the historical UAV-obtained flight information of Ali with including information related to a deviation, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, to monitor for unpredicted events that would require a failsafe procedure response (Ferguson ¶ 19 and MPEP 2143.01(G)), and because an alternate route plan may be quicker or more likely to have successful deliveries to recipients (Ferguson ¶ 49), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 5, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein:
the deviation is caused due to an obstacle in a flight path detected by the UAV. (Ferguson ¶ 39 discloses collecting terrestrial information such as a presence of “ground obstacles ... that may impact movement of a parcel transporter 150,” wherein the information is used to determining historical patterns and may be utilized the evaluating an implemented route plan, wherein the implemented route plan may be determined to be deviating from the route plan, see ¶ 77. Also see ¶ 18 “adjusted route plan”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight information of Ali with information related to a deviation due to an obstacle, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, to monitor for unpredicted events that would require a failsafe procedure response (Ferguson ¶ 19 and MPEP 2143.01(G)), and to avoid collisions with, for example, structures, people, or animals (Ferguson ¶ 19), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 6, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 5, wherein:
the information related to the deviation includes an avoidance technique employed by the UAV to avoid the obstacle in the flight path. (Ferguson ¶ 18 discloses determining that the route plan needs to be modified [i.e., a deviation] as a result from implemented failsafe procedures, such as initiating obstacle avoidance to avoid collisions, see ¶ 19)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight information of Ali with information related to a deviation due to an obstacle, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, to monitor for unpredicted events that would require a failsafe procedure response (Ferguson ¶ 19 and MPEP 2143.01(G)), and to avoid collisions with, for example, structures, people, or animals (Ferguson ¶ 19), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 7, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein:
the deviation is caused due to one or more environmental conditions including a weather condition experienced by the UAV during the first autonomous flight. (Ferguson ¶ 39 discloses collecting weather information such as a presence of “rain or snow,” wherein the information is used to determining historical patterns and may be utilized the evaluating an implemented route plan, wherein the implemented route plan may be determined to be deviating from the route plan, see ¶ 77. Also see ¶ 43 “to avoid adverse weather conditions”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight information of Ali with information related to a deviation due to an obstacle, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, to monitor for unexpected weather that would require a failsafe procedure response (Ferguson ¶ 19 and MPEP 2143.01(G)), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 8, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 2, wherein:
the historical UAV-obtained flight information (Ali ¶ 72 discloses “the distributed computing network could create and store a near real-time history of transactions from the UAV in the blockchain data structure”) includes digital images (Ali ¶ 26 discloses capturing “images or video”), radar data (Ali ¶ 54 “radar data”), Lidar data (Ali ¶ 26 “LiDAR”), or a combination thereof, obtained by the UAV during the first autonomous flight. (Ali ¶ 26 discloses that the camera 112 of “different sensors” may be used “during performance of one or more [flight] operations”)
Regarding claim 9, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the set of external factors includes one or more of weather information, real-time UAV-obtained flight information related to a flight of another UAV to and in the geographical region, and a set of predefined flight restrictions for the geographical region. (Ali ¶ 43 discloses “the UAV (102) may be temporarily stopped, such as during an emergency condition, for recharging, for refueling, to avoid adverse weather conditions”)
Regarding claim 10, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting an instruction to the UAV to abort the first autonomous flight and land at a specified location; and (Ferguson ¶ 18 discloses “landing a UAV in a safe area or ceasing navigation by a transporter” as a result from implemented failsafe procedures)
transmitting the second flight plan to the UAV after the UAV lands at the specified location, (Ferguson ¶ 71 discloses dynamic re-ranking or dynamic evaluation of candidate routes after receiving notification of implemented failsafe procedures)
wherein the UAV is launched for the second autonomous flight according to the second flight plan. (Ferguson ¶ 72 discloses that a “candidate route plan evaluator 250 may determine if an indicated goal may be accomplished by any of the candidate route plans,” such that “a highest ranked route plan is implemented,” see ¶ 74.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight plan of Ali with aborting the first autonomous flight, transmitting a second flight plan after the UAV lands, wherein the UAV is launched for the second flight according to the second autonomous flight plan, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, because the route plan starts at a beginning parcel location and terminates at an ending parcel location (Ferguson ¶ 17). Should the UAV necessitate a failsafe procedure including ceasing navigation, launching the UAV on a second autonomous flight after the UAV landed would enable the UAV to
Regarding claim 11, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting an instruction to the UAV to implement the second flight plan during the first autonomous flight without prematurely terminating the first autonomous flight of the UAV. (Ferguson ¶ 18 “Based on determining that the route plan needs to be modified or abandoned, a new route plan or adjusted route plan may be implemented,” and implementing the new route plan, see ¶ 77)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight plan of Ali with aborting the first autonomous flight, transmitting a second flight plan after the UAV lands, wherein the UAV implements the second flight according to the second autonomous flight plan without prematurely terminating the first autonomous flight, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, because adjusting the candidate route without premature termination may be based on a goal of minimizing transportation time, so that the UAV may still complete its objective for delivery when the predicted time is still within a threshold time frame (Ferguson ¶¶ 17 and 55), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
establishing a communication channel with a network hub, which is communicatively connected with the UAV, (Ali ¶ 63 discloses “the network (418) may include a satellite network or another type of network that enables wireless communication between the UAVs (102, 103, 105), the provider participant device (450), and the distributed computing network (151), also see at least Fig. 4)
wherein the obtaining map information, the obtaining historical UAV-obtained flight information, and (Ali ¶ 72 discloses “the distributed computing network could create [i.e., obtain] ... a near real-time history of transactions from the UAV,” the transaction messages including telemetry data of the UAV, wherein the flight may be autonomous, see ¶ 23, and the route information 110 indicates an area of the flight path, see ¶ 30)
the transmitting the second flight plan to the UAV is performed via the network hub. (Ali ¶ 36 discloses determining an alternative flight path and selecting “a new optimal flight path from the at least one alternative flight paths” and “transmit the route information (110) to the UAV (102)” through server 140, the server 140 receiving data over network 119, see Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the system comprising: a communication module in communication with an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Ali ¶ 25 “communication circuitry 116”); one or more processors (Ali ¶ 25 “processor 104”); and a memory unit storing instructions operable to cause the one or more processors to implement operations included in the limitations of claim 1. (Ali ¶ 28 “instructions stored in and retrieved from the memory (106) to perform various operations”)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses transmitting, via the communication module, an instruction to the UAV (Ali ¶ 25 “communication circuitry 116”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses transmitting, via the communication module, an instruction to the UAV (Ali ¶ 25 “communication circuitry 116”). In addition, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses transmitting, via the communication module, an instruction to the UAV (Ali ¶ 25 “communication circuitry 116”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Ali and Ferguson discloses a network hub (Ali Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Ali in combination with Ferguson discloses the system of claim 13, wherein:
the processing the map information, the historical UAV-obtained flight information, and the current values of the set of external factors, includes: applying a predictive machine learning model to the map information and the current values of the set of external factors to determine optimized flight information, (Ferguson ¶ 56 discloses that the route planning logic 215 includes prediction models which utilizes “machine learning techniques” to “predict ... potential routes” and to “assemble routes into route plans based on predicted navigation data” for a “particular location within a particular timeframe,” including using “navigation data received from sensors 120 and data collectors 140,” which includes maps, see ¶ 30).
wherein the predictive machine learning model was previously trained by analyzing historical UAV-obtained flight information to determine the optimized flight information representing improved flight information for subsequent flight plans. (Ferguson ¶ 50 discloses “candidate-route plans engine 240 may utilize route prediction logic to determine a set of candidate route plans, which may be based on historical data and prediction models derived from supervised and unsupervised training”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the processor of Ali to incorporate applying predictive machine learning to the map information and the current values of the set of external factors to determine optimized flight information, wherein the predictive machine learning model was previously trained by analyzing historical UAV-obtained flight information to determine the optimized flight information representing improved flight information for subsequent flight plans, as disclosed by Ferguson, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate the inclusion of a wider range of logistics variables and other enriched data in the computer-performed decision making and transportation optimization (Ferguson ¶ 20), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haider et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0125507) discloses a system for a UAV flight highway comprising a ground control station, a cloud server, a geographic locator communication device, and one or more UAVs. The system uses flight plans to output trajectories and adjusting the trajectories to avoid collision or weather systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662