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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 06/12/2026 in response to the Final office action mailed on 04/15/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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 NON-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
NON-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 Villar et al. (US 2017/0303123 A1, hereinafter “Villar”).
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”).
However, Thiele does not explicitly state:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function, 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 environmental control maneuver process,
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;
obtaining, from the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, an instruction to activate or deactivate 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; and
executing, by the semi-autonomous aircraft, the instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function in response to the obtaining the instruction.
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, Villar teaches:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function (Villar at para. [0048]: “To maintain a set of valid data links inside of a multi-path scheme, it is proposed using a MPTCP feature to help connectivity between the UAV and ground”; para. [0055]: “FIG. 5 shows a schematic example of validation of a new data link for a new mission or for a mission which is in progress”; para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”; Without the validation process, the new data link will not be established), 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 environmental control maneuver process,
establishing an alternate communication channel (Villar at para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”),
establishing an alternate communication bearer,
switching to an established alternate communication channel (Villar at para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”),
switching to an established alternate communication bearer,
a takeoff rejection process, or
a missed approach process;
obtaining, from the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, an instruction to activate or deactivate 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 (Villar at para. [0052]: “If a new data link is presented during the flight/mission, an approval from ground control is needed. The mechanism to obtain an approval is to re-transmit the new SSID together with credentials to the ground control and wait for approval”; para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”); and
executing, by the semi-autonomous aircraft, the instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function in response to the obtaining the instruction (Villar at para. [0056]: “A new data link 51, approved by ground control, can be added into the database 30 by the UAV communication unit and considered secure”).
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 Villar with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Thiele in view of Villar is to provide enhanced security communication mechanism between ground stations and UAVs.
Regarding claim 2, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiele further discloses wherein the aircraft function further comprises at least one of:
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 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”), or
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”).
Regarding claim 9, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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”).
However, Thiele does not explicitly state:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function, 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 environmental control maneuver process,
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;
obtaining, from the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, an instruction to activate or deactivate 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; and
executing, by the semi-autonomous aircraft, the instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function in response to the obtaining the instruction.
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, Villar teaches:
wherein the reallocating does not result in activation or deactivation of the aircraft function (Villar at para. [0048]: “To maintain a set of valid data links inside of a multi-path scheme, it is proposed using a MPTCP feature to help connectivity between the UAV and ground”; para. [0055]: “FIG. 5 shows a schematic example of validation of a new data link for a new mission or for a mission which is in progress”; para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”; Without the validation process, the new data link will not be established), 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 environmental control maneuver process,
establishing an alternate communication channel (Villar at para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”),
establishing an alternate communication bearer,
switching to an established alternate communication channel (Villar at para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”),
switching to an established alternate communication bearer,
a takeoff rejection process, or
a missed approach process;
obtaining, from the other of the semi-autonomous aircraft or the ground pilot station, an instruction to activate or deactivate 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 (Villar at para. [0052]: “If a new data link is presented during the flight/mission, an approval from ground control is needed. The mechanism to obtain an approval is to re-transmit the new SSID together with credentials to the ground control and wait for approval”; para. [0059]: “If the UAV detects a new data link is available, the first step before being used, is checking whether is listed as a secure data links in the onboard database 30”); and
executing, by the semi-autonomous aircraft, the instruction to activate or deactivate the aircraft function in response to the obtaining the instruction (Villar at para. [0056]: “A new data link 51, approved by ground control, can be added into the database 30 by the UAV communication unit and considered secure”).
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 Villar with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the system of Thiele in view of Villar is to provide enhanced security communication mechanism between ground stations and UAVs.
Regarding claim 12, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the aircraft function further comprises at least one of:
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 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”), or
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”).
Regarding claim 19, Thiele in view of Villar teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the first 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 Villar teaches the system of claim 11.
Thiele further discloses wherein the first 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 Villar further in view of Aalund et al. (US 10,124,893 B1, hereinafter “Aalund”).
Regarding claim 6, Thiele in view of Villar teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Regarding claim 7, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Regarding claim 16, Thiele in view of Villar teaches the system of claim 11.
However, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Regarding claim 17, Thiele in view of Villar 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 Villar 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 Villar further in view of Aalund is to provide a preventive measure for safety critical systems.
Conclusion
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