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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 02/09/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/10/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele et al. (US 2016/0232795 A1, hereinafter “Thiele”) in view of Frey et al. (US 2025/0208619 A1, hereinafter “Frey”).
Regarding claim 1, Thiele discloses a method of operating a semi-autonomous aircraft according to a condition of a data communication channel, the method comprising:
detecting a condition of a data communication channel between a semi-autonomous aircraft and a ground pilot station for the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0037]: “As a second step, determining S2 an operation condition of the data link 30 during use of the data link 30 is conducted”; para. [0038]: “The invention applies to unmanned aerial vehicles 50, UAVs, but also can be applied to single piloted manned aircraft if the single pilot is no longer physically able to fly the aircraft and autonomous safe flight is needed or simply to reduce the work load for the single pilot and if the manned aircraft are at least partially remote controlled”);
reallocating a control authority for an aircraft function from one of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station to an other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, wherein the reallocating is performed automatically and in response to a fulfilment of a first predefined criteria comprising the condition of the data communication channel (Thiele at para. [0037]: “As a third step, issuing S3 at least one autonomous controlling command, if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined, is performed”; para. [0050]: “the command unit 230 is designed to issue at least one autonomous controlling command if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined”),
obtaining, from the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, an instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function (Thiele at para. [0079]: “A link loss routine 325 is started if the data link 30 between the aerial vehicle 50 and the ground segment 40 is lost. Then an autonomous approach and landing routine 315 for the aerial vehicle 50 may be started”),
executing, by the semi-autonomous aircraft, the instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function in response to the obtaining the instruction (Thiele at para. [0079]: “A link loss routine 325 is started if the data link 30 between the aerial vehicle 50 and the ground segment 40 is lost. Then an autonomous approach and landing routine 315 for the aerial vehicle 50 may be started”).
However, Thiele does not explicitly state:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function;
wherein the instruction is provided in response to a fulfilment of a second predefined criteria wherein the second predefined criteria is different from the first predefined criteria.
Nevertheless, Thiele at least suggests the idea of reallocation of the control authority and controlling aircraft function accordingly (Thiele at para. [0079]).
In the same field of endeavor, Frey teaches:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function (Frey at para. [0103]: “Lost Link Autonomy. The artificial intelligence system may enter special lost link autonomous modes upon detection of a loss of communications with the remote control station or the degradation of link quality”; para. [0126]: “While such a lost-link event is generally unpredictable and may catch the pilot off guard, the autopilot may be in position (within fully-stabilized mode) to immediately and safely stabilize the craft. The switching mechanism may also require that within semi-stabilized mode, the aircraft may not be allowed at any time to enter a state from which an immediate transition to fully-stabilized flight would be unsafe. This can be accomplished via "envelope-protection" within semi-stabilized mode, prohibiting the prescription of dangerous flight states”; In the lost link autonomous mode, the control authority is reallocated from the remote control station to the vehicle autopilot, and the reallocating does not by itself result in activation or deactivation of aircraft function because an immediate transition is not allowed via the envelope-protection);
wherein the instruction is provided in response to a fulfilment of a second predefined criteria wherein the second predefined criteria is different from the first predefined criteria (Frey at para. [0081]: “Autopilot 916. An onboard autopilot may reduce pilot workload by automating certain piloting functions such as maintaining a certain position or velocity profile. Examples of autopilot may include position hold (e.g., autohover) and velocity hold (e.g., "cruise control") functions, as well as the following of certain routes or flight paths that may be pre-determined or input by the pilot (e.g., waypoint following, automatic parking)”; The autopilot performs aircraft functions for maintaining the certain position or velocity profile (i.e., “second predefined criteria”), which is different from the lost link states (i.e., “first predefined criteria”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thiele by adding the second predefined criteria of Frey with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Thiele in view of Frey is to prohibit dangerous flight states.
Regarding claim 2, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the reallocating comprises reallocating the control authority from the ground pilot station to the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0037]: “As a third step, issuing S3 at least one autonomous controlling command, if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined, is performed”; para. [0050]: “the command unit 230 is designed to issue at least one autonomous controlling command if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined”; An autonomous controlling command reallocates the control authority to the aerial vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the reallocating comprises reallocating, automatically and in response to the detecting, a plurality of control authorities for a corresponding plurality of aircraft functions from the one of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station to the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station (Thiele at para. [0069]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”; para. [0071]: “Principally there are two ways to activate a C&C loss or emergency/crash route: first option, an autonomous activation by the aerial vehicle 50 is performed, based on position and air segment, AS, status criteria defined in the flight plan”).
Regarding claim 4, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the condition of the data communication channel comprises a change in operational status of the data communication channel (Thiele at para. [0043]: “There are at least four triggering conditions to declare link loss including the following network failure detection algorithm: BER (Bit Error Rate), PER/FER (Packet Error Rate/Frame Error Rate), BIT (Build In Test), Time-Out algorithm Parts of these checks could also be implemented on the ground in the aerial vehicle ground segment 40”).
Regarding claim 5, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 4.
Thiele further discloses wherein the change in operational status of the data communication channel comprises a change in an amount of loss, corruption, or interruption of data sent over the data communication channel (Thiele at para. [0043]: “There are at least four triggering conditions to declare link loss including the following network failure detection algorithm: BER (Bit Error Rate), PER/FER (Packet Error Rate/Frame Error Rate), BIT (Build In Test), Time-Out algorithm Parts of these checks could also be implemented on the ground in the aerial vehicle ground segment 40”).
Regarding claim 8, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the aircraft function comprises at least one of:
a hard geofence,
a soft geofence,
an onboard detect and avoidance process,
an onboard terrain avoidance process,
an onboard weather avoidance process,
an onboard risk reduction maneuver process (Thiele at para. [0069]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”),
an onboard environmental control maneuver process,
an onboard diversion process (Thiele at para. [0069]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”),
an onboard emergency or precautionary landing process (Thiele at para. [0079]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”),
establishing an alternate communication channel,
establishing an alternate communication bearer,
switching to an established alternate communication channel,
switching to an established alternate communication bearer,
a takeoff rejection process, or
a missed approach process.
Regarding claim 9, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the predefined criteria comprises a specified phase of flight of the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0040]: “autonomous reactions can be implemented and performed for situations which impact safety in an immediate manner, e.g., vertical deviations due to failure conditions or special external events, whereas the flight operator has an override capability as an exception of human control. For example, an autonomous go-around, which is an aborted landing of the aerial vehicle 50 that is on final approach, whereas the flight operator has an override capability by a dedicated override button which is connected to the system 200”).
Regarding claim 10, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the predefined criteria comprises a specified health status of a specified system of the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0076]: “The controlled crash function is activated autonomously (under C&C loss) if landing sites cannot be reached safely anymore, e.g., due to: double engine failure, backup battery is the last remaining electrical power source, critical double fuel failure, such that landing site is no longer in range, primary and secondary environmental control system, ECS, is lost or further issues”).
Regarding claim 11, Thiele discloses a system for operating a semi-autonomous aircraft according to a condition of a data communication channel, the system comprising: at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions; and at least one electronic processor that executes the instructions to perform operations (Thiele at para. [0054]: “The flight control system 51 might comprise the system for autonomous controlling of the aerial vehicle 50”; para. [0055]: “The aerial vehicle 50 may further be controlled by an air vehicle ground segment 40, wherein the air vehicle ground segment 40 and the aerial vehicle 50 are linked by means of a command & control chain data link 30. The air vehicle ground segment 40 may comprise a mission control element, MCE, and a Launch and recovery element, LRE”) comprising:
detecting a condition of a data communication channel between a semi-autonomous aircraft and a ground pilot station for the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0037]: “As a second step, determining S2 an operation condition of the data link 30 during use of the data link 30 is conducted”; para. [0038]: “The invention applies to unmanned aerial vehicles 50, UAVs, but also can be applied to single piloted manned aircraft if the single pilot is no longer physically able to fly the aircraft and autonomous safe flight is needed or simply to reduce the work load for the single pilot and if the manned aircraft are at least partially remote controlled”);
reallocating a control authority for an aircraft function from one of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station to an other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, wherein the reallocating is performed automatically and in response to a fulfilment of a first predefined criteria comprising the condition of the data communication channel (Thiele at para. [0037]: “As a third step, issuing S3 at least one autonomous controlling command, if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined, is performed”; para. [0050]: “the command unit 230 is designed to issue at least one autonomous controlling command if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined”),
obtaining, from the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, an instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function (Thiele at para. [0079]: “A link loss routine 325 is started if the data link 30 between the aerial vehicle 50 and the ground segment 40 is lost. Then an autonomous approach and landing routine 315 for the aerial vehicle 50 may be started”),
executing, by the semi-autonomous aircraft, the instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function in response to the obtaining the instruction (Thiele at para. [0079]: “A link loss routine 325 is started if the data link 30 between the aerial vehicle 50 and the ground segment 40 is lost. Then an autonomous approach and landing routine 315 for the aerial vehicle 50 may be started”).
However, Thiele does not explicitly state:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function;
wherein the instruction is provided in response to a fulfilment of a second predefined criteria wherein the second predefined criteria is different from the first predefined criteria.
Nevertheless, Thiele at least suggests the idea of reallocation of the control authority and controlling aircraft function accordingly (Thiele at para. [0079]).
In the same field of endeavor, Frey teaches:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function (Frey at para. [0103]: “Lost Link Autonomy. The artificial intelligence system may enter special lost link autonomous modes upon detection of a loss of communications with the remote control station or the degradation of link quality”; para. [0126]: “While such a lost-link event is generally unpredictable and may catch the pilot off guard, the autopilot may be in position (within fully-stabilized mode) to immediately and safely stabilize the craft. The switching mechanism may also require that within semi-stabilized mode, the aircraft may not be allowed at any time to enter a state from which an immediate transition to fully-stabilized flight would be unsafe. This can be accomplished via "envelope-protection" within semi-stabilized mode, prohibiting the prescription of dangerous flight states”; In the lost link autonomous mode, the control authority is reallocated from the remote control station to the vehicle autopilot, and the reallocating does not by itself result in activation or deactivation of aircraft function because an immediate transition is not allowed via the envelope-protection);
wherein the instruction is provided in response to a fulfilment of a second predefined criteria wherein the second predefined criteria is different from the first predefined criteria (Frey at para. [0081]: “Autopilot 916. An onboard autopilot may reduce pilot workload by automating certain piloting functions such as maintaining a certain position or velocity profile. Examples of autopilot may include position hold (e.g., autohover) and velocity hold (e.g., "cruise control") functions, as well as the following of certain routes or flight paths that may be pre-determined or input by the pilot (e.g., waypoint following, automatic parking)”; The autopilot performs aircraft functions for maintaining the certain position or velocity profile (i.e., “second predefined criteria”), which is different from the lost link states (i.e., “first predefined criteria”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thiele by adding the second predefined criteria of Frey with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Thiele in view of Frey is to prohibit dangerous flight states.
Regarding claim 12, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the reallocating comprises reallocating the control authority from the ground pilot station to the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0037]: “As a third step, issuing S3 at least one autonomous controlling command, if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined, is performed”; para. [0050]: “the command unit 230 is designed to issue at least one autonomous controlling command if, as a result of the determining, a loss of the data link 30 is determined”; An autonomous controlling command reallocates the control authority to the aerial vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the reallocating comprises reallocating, automatically and in response to the detecting, a plurality of control authorities for a corresponding plurality of aircraft functions from the one of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station to the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station (Thiele at para. [0069]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”; para. [0071]: “Principally there are two ways to activate a C&C loss or emergency/crash route: first option, an autonomous activation by the aerial vehicle 50 is performed, based on position and air segment, AS, status criteria defined in the flight plan”).
Regarding claim 14, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the condition of the data communication channel comprises a change in operational status of the data communication channel (Thiele at para. [0043]: “There are at least four triggering conditions to declare link loss including the following network failure detection algorithm: BER (Bit Error Rate), PER/FER (Packet Error Rate/Frame Error Rate), BIT (Build In Test), Time-Out algorithm Parts of these checks could also be implemented on the ground in the aerial vehicle ground segment 40”).
Regarding claim 15, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 14.
Thiele further discloses wherein the change in operational status of the data communication channel comprises a change in an amount of loss, corruption, or interruption of data sent over the data communication channel (Thiele at para. [0043]: “There are at least four triggering conditions to declare link loss including the following network failure detection algorithm: BER (Bit Error Rate), PER/FER (Packet Error Rate/Frame Error Rate), BIT (Build In Test), Time-Out algorithm Parts of these checks could also be implemented on the ground in the aerial vehicle ground segment 40”).
Regarding claim 18, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the aircraft function comprises at least one of:
a hard geofence,
a soft geofence,
an onboard detect and avoidance process,
an onboard terrain avoidance process,
an onboard weather avoidance process,
an onboard risk reduction maneuver process (Thiele at para. [0069]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”),
an onboard environmental control maneuver process,
an onboard diversion process (Thiele at para. [0069]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”),
an onboard emergency or precautionary landing process (Thiele at para. [0079]: “After a C&C loss, the aerial vehicle 50 can select which of the flight paths 101 pre-planned in the flight plan is selected and flown. Deviations from the flight plan due to failure conditions or special external events might be restricted to only vertical, e.g., altitude level, and not horizontal due to predictability. They are autonomously recovered by the aerial vehicle 50. Deviations of the aerial vehicle 50 due to S&A maneuvers for collision avoidance might be also horizontal or lateral”),
establishing an alternate communication channel,
establishing an alternate communication bearer,
switching to an established alternate communication channel,
switching to an established alternate communication bearer,
a takeoff rejection process, or
a missed approach process.
Regarding claim 19, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the predefined criteria comprises a specified phase of flight of the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0040]: “autonomous reactions can be implemented and performed for situations which impact safety in an immediate manner, e.g., vertical deviations due to failure conditions or special external events, whereas the flight operator has an override capability as an exception of human control. For example, an autonomous go-around, which is an aborted landing of the aerial vehicle 50 that is on final approach, whereas the flight operator has an override capability by a dedicated override button which is connected to the system 200”).
Regarding claim 20, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the predefined criteria comprises a specified health status of a specified system of the semi-autonomous aircraft (Thiele at para. [0076]: “The controlled crash function is activated autonomously (under C&C loss) if landing sites cannot be reached safely anymore, e.g., due to: double engine failure, backup battery is the last remaining electrical power source, critical double fuel failure, such that landing site is no longer in range, primary and secondary environmental control system, ECS, is lost or further issues”).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund et al. (US 10,124,893 B1, hereinafter “Aalund”).
Regarding claim 6, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Thiele in view of Frey teaches does not explicitly state wherein the condition of the data communication channel comprises a change in predicted operational status of the data communication channel.
In the same field of endeavor, Aalund teaches wherein the condition of the data communication channel comprises a change in predicted operational status of the data communication channel (Aalund at col. 6, ln. 55-57: “the UAV 102 may utilize various subsystems (e.g., avionics, propulsion, power, structure, navigation) to autonomously navigate toward the destination location”; col. 7, ln. 1-7: “At time 132, the onboard prognostics module 103 may determine that the output of the predictive models 126 has indicated that a likelihood of failure of a subsystem has breached a predetermined threshold (e.g., 80% likely, 90% likely, etc.). Additionally, the output may indicate a period of time by which the failure is predicted to occur (e.g., 30 seconds, five minutes, two hours, three days, etc.)”; col. 9, ln. 20-29: “The avionics system 206 may include one or more communications links and antennas ( e.g., modem, radio, network, cellular, satellite, and other links for receiving and/or transmitting information) (not shown), one or more navigation devices and antennas ( e.g., global positioning system (GPS), an inertial navigation system (INS), a range finder, a Radio Detection And Ranging (RADAR), and other systems to aid in navigating the UAV 200 and detecting objects) (not shown), and a radio-frequency identification (RFID) capability (not shown)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thiele in view of Frey by adding the change in predicted operational status of Aalund with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Regarding claim 7, Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund teaches the method of claim 6.
Aalund further teaches wherein the change in operational status of the data communication channel comprises a predicted change in an amount of loss, corruption, or interruption of data sent over the data communication channel (Aalund at col. 2, ln. 38-41: “"Failure" is intended to refer to a performance level that falls below a predetermined performance threshold, falls within a predetermined range, and/or meets a predetermined set of criteria”; col. 6, ln. 55-57: “the UAV 102 may utilize various subsystems (e.g., avionics, propulsion, power, structure, navigation) to autonomously navigate toward the destination location”; col. 7, ln. 1-7: “At time 132, the onboard prognostics module 103 may determine that the output of the predictive models 126 has indicated that a likelihood of failure of a subsystem has breached a predetermined threshold (e.g., 80% likely, 90% likely, etc.). Additionally, the output may indicate a period of time by which the failure is predicted to occur (e.g., 30 seconds, five minutes, two hours, three days, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund by adding the predicted change of Aalund with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Regarding claim 16, Thiele in view of Frey teaches the system of claim 11.
However, Thiele in view of Frey does not explicitly state wherein the condition of the data communication channel comprises a change in predicted operational status of the data communication channel.
In the same field of endeavor, Aalund teaches wherein the condition of the data communication channel comprises a change in predicted operational status of the data communication channel (Aalund at col. 6, ln. 55-57: “the UAV 102 may utilize various subsystems (e.g., avionics, propulsion, power, structure, navigation) to autonomously navigate toward the destination location”; col. 7, ln. 1-7: “At time 132, the onboard prognostics module 103 may determine that the output of the predictive models 126 has indicated that a likelihood of failure of a subsystem has breached a predetermined threshold (e.g., 80% likely, 90% likely, etc.). Additionally, the output may indicate a period of time by which the failure is predicted to occur (e.g., 30 seconds, five minutes, two hours, three days, etc.)”; col. 9, ln. 20-29: “The avionics system 206 may include one or more communications links and antennas ( e.g., modem, radio, network, cellular, satellite, and other links for receiving and/or transmitting information) (not shown), one or more navigation devices and antennas ( e.g., global positioning system (GPS), an inertial navigation system (INS), a range finder, a Radio Detection And Ranging (RADAR), and other systems to aid in navigating the UAV 200 and detecting objects) (not shown), and a radio-frequency identification (RFID) capability (not shown)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thiele in view of Frey by adding the change in predicted operational status of Aalund with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Regarding claim 17, Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund teaches the system of claim 16.
Aalund further teaches wherein the change in operational status of the data communication channel comprises a predicted change in an amount of loss, corruption, or interruption of data sent over the data communication channel (Aalund at col. 2, ln. 38-41: “"Failure" is intended to refer to a performance level that falls below a predetermined performance threshold, falls within a predetermined range, and/or meets a predetermined set of criteria”; col. 6, ln. 55-57: “the UAV 102 may utilize various subsystems (e.g., avionics, propulsion, power, structure, navigation) to autonomously navigate toward the destination location”; col. 7, ln. 1-7: “At time 132, the onboard prognostics module 103 may determine that the output of the predictive models 126 has indicated that a likelihood of failure of a subsystem has breached a predetermined threshold (e.g., 80% likely, 90% likely, etc.). Additionally, the output may indicate a period of time by which the failure is predicted to occur (e.g., 30 seconds, five minutes, two hours, three days, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund by adding the predicted change of Aalund with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Thiele in view of Frey further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights