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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 02/26/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
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:
“communications unit” in claims 8 and 14
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.
Examiner notes that “communications unit” is being interpreted to cover the disclosure in 0032 in the specification (or equivalent thereof), which states that the communications unit may be a “network interface card or a wireless transceiver …” and that it may “utilize any suitable physical or wireless link …”, both of which recite sufficient structure for the claim elements at hand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis -Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within the one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
obtaining data associated with a specified airspace indicating or identifying manned flights within the specified airspace;
identifying one or more exclusion zones associated with one or more of the manned flights within the specified airspace based on the data, each exclusion zone identifying a volume from which one or more flight vehicles are excluded from operating within the specified airspace;
modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to randomly change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones;
and providing information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones to one or more flight vehicle operators who do not identify or modify the one or more exclusion zones so that the one or more flight vehicle operators are able to avoid operating the one or more flight vehicles in the one or more modified exclusion zones,
wherein the information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones lacks information identifying the one or more manned flights within the one or more exclusion zones.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “identifying” steps encompass a user observing one or more flights in an airspace and identifying a volume that indicates an exclusion zone associated with those flights.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
obtaining data associated with a specified airspace indicating or identifying manned flights within the specified airspace;
identifying one or more exclusion zones associated with one or more of the manned flights within the specified airspace based on the data, each exclusion zone identifying a volume from which one or more flight vehicles are excluded from operating within the specified airspace;
modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to randomly change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones;
and providing information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones to one or more flight vehicle operators who do not identify or modify the on or more exclusion zones so that the one or more flight vehicle operators are able to avoid operating the one or more flight vehicles in the one or more modified exclusion zones,
wherein the information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones lacks information identifying the one or more manned flights within the one or more exclusion zones.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining …” the examiner submits that this limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, notably pre-solution insignificant activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “modifying …” and “providing …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, notably post-solution insignificant activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “obtaining …” is considered insignificant pre-solution activity and would fall under well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of obtaining data about an airspace (see at least prior art of US 20193176530 A1 for obtaining data about an airspace). Additionally, the additional elements of “modifying …” and “providing …” are considered insignificant post-solution activity of modifying data and providing data to a user (see at least prior art of US 20193176530 A1 for modification of exclusion zones in an airspace and the providing of that data to a user).
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitations contain an additional element. However, the additional elements fall under insignificant post-solution activity of modifying airspace data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as can be seen in at least US 20193176530 A1 (see above claim 1 rationale as well). Therefore, claim 2 does not include additional limitations that amount to more than the abstract idea as disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitations contain an additional element. However, the additional elements fall under insignificant pre-solution activity of obtaining airspace data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as can be seen in at least US 20193176530 A1 (see above claim 1 rationale as well). Therefore, claim 3 does not include additional limitations that amount to more than the abstract idea as disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations contain an additional element. However, the additional elements fall under insignificant post-solution activity of modifying airspace data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as can be seen in at least US 20193176530 A1 (see above claim 1 rationale as well). Therefore, claim 4 does not include additional limitations that amount to more than the abstract idea as disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations contain an additional element. However, the additional elements fall under insignificant pre-solution activity of obtaining airspace data (subscription to receive data falls under obtaining data) which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as can be seen in at least US 20193176530 A1 (see above claim 1 rationale as well). Therefore, claim 5 does not include additional limitations that amount to more than the abstract idea as disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitations contain an additional element. However, the additional elements fall under insignificant pre-solution activity of obtaining airspace data (subscription and the length of subscription to receive data falls under obtaining data) which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as can be seen in at least US 20193176530 A1 (see above claim 1 rationale as well). Therefore, claim 6 does not include additional limitations that amount to more than the abstract idea as disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitations contain an additional element. However, the additional elements fall under the use of a generic computer component (one-way data diode is a well-known tool for transmitting data) in an apply-it level (one-way data diode is generically recited and merely automates the “obtaining …” step). Therefore, claim 7 does not include additional limitations that amount to more than the abstract idea as disclosed in claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-14, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1-7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1-7. Examiner notes that claim 1 additionally recites “a communications unit” and “at least one processing device”. However, these additional elements are generically recited computer components and are utilized at an apply-it level for automating the “obtaining”, “modifying”, and “providing” steps.
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 8-14 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 8-14.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation of “modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to randomly change a shape of the one or more exclusion zones …”. However, the term “to randomly change a shape” is unclear and is not defined sufficiently in the specification. For instance, the instant specification in 022 describes randomly modifying a polygon or other shape of an exclusion zone, however, the specification gives no bounds on the actual sizing of the shape and merely states that the lower and upper bounds may be “randomly” modified and that the shape may be “expanded”. Because no bounds on the shape or sizing are indicated, the claim effectively covers an infinite variety of exclusion zones, all with varying shapes and sizes.
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims ultimately depend from claim 1 and contain the same indefinite subject matter of claim 1. As such, claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Regarding claims 8-14, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1-7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1-7.
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1-7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1-7.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being obvious over Yang et al., US 20190317530 A1, herein referred to as Yang, and in view of Tazume, US 20220206514 A1, herein referred to as Tazume.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses obtaining data associated with a specified airspace indicating or identifying manned flights within the specified airspace (Paragraphs 0014, 0050, 0081; data about objects in an airspace may be obtained), identifying one or more exclusion zones associated with one or more of the manned flights within the specified airspace based on the data, each exclusion zone identifying a volume from which one or more flight vehicles are excluded from operating within the specified airspace (Paragraphs 0051-0052, 0091; restricted flight regions may be determined based on objects or locations; the regions may be 3 dimensional), modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones (Paragraphs 0013, 0091, 0106-0109; restricted flight regions may be changed based on a variety of factors such as how an aircraft is moving), and providing information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones to one or more flight vehicle operators who do not identify of modify the one or more exclusion zones so that the one or more flight vehicle operators are able to avoid operating the one or more flight vehicles in the one or more modified exclusion zones, wherein the information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones lacks information identifying the one or more manned flights within the one or more exclusion zones (Paragraphs 0011-0013, 0049-0052, 0091; restricted flight regions may be obtained from the UAV, the restricted flight regions indicate that a piloted aircraft is not able to operate in the respective region, restricted flight regions do not indicate a precise location or pathing of a flight vehicle within the region; the exclusion zones provided are not modified or identified by the operators as the data comes exclusively from the UAVs and not the operators), but fails to disclose modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to randomly change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones.
However, Tazume, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to randomly change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones (Paragraphs 0215, 0249, 0262; flight regions may be randomly selected, each flight region may have a given sizing and/or shape). Therefore, from the teaching of Tazume, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the flight system of Yang to include modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to randomly change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones, as taught/suggested by Tazume. The motivation to do so would be to try different shapes for the exclusion zones. This may allow for a better adaptation to varying changes in the environment. For instance, if an exclusion zone is moving with an object and encounters terrain or other physical limitations, the zone can better adapt to more reasonably define the exclusion zone.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Tazume renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Yang further discloses each of the one or more modified exclusion zones is modified so as to hide an actual location and an actual flight path of the one or more associated manned flights (Paragraphs 0011-0013, 0051-0052, 0091; restricted flight regions do not indicate an actual position or path of a vehicle within the region as they only indicate an area or volume).
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Tazume renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Yang further discloses the data includes at least one of: an aircraft identifier; an aircraft location within the specified airspace; an aircraft ground speed; and an aircraft type (Paragraphs 0014, 0026, 0081; data associated with a restricted airspace may include locations, speed, heading, etc. of aircraft within the airspace).
Regarding claim 4, Yang in view of Tazume renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Yang further discloses modifying each of the one or more exclusion zones in order to change a shape of each of the one or more exclusion zones and generate one or more modified exclusion zones (Paragraphs 0013, 0091, 0106-0109; restricted flight regions may be changed based on a variety of factors such as how an aircraft is moving), but fails to disclose wherein each of the one or more modified exclusion zones is generated by (i) randomly modifying a shape of the associated exclusion zone and (ii) randomly modifying upper and lower bounds of the associated exclusion zone. However, the obviousness of modifying the exclusion zones to randomly change a shape is shown in the rationale for claim 1 and would be applicable here as well. Additionally, Tazume teaches randomly modifying upper and lower bounds of the associated exclusion zone (Paragraphs 0215, 0249, 0262; flight regions may have varying heights which correspond to changes in the upper and lower bounds of the region). Therefore, from the teaching of Tazume, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the flight system of Yang and Tazume to include wherein each of the one or more modified exclusion zones is generated by (i) randomly modifying a shape of the associated exclusion zone and (ii) randomly modifying upper and lower bounds of the associated exclusion zone, as taught/suggested by Tazume. The motivation to do so would be to allow further modification of a restricted flight region. This can allow even greater flexibility in the system.
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Tazume renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Yang further discloses each of the one or more flight vehicle operators subscribes to receive at least one modified exclusion zone (Paragraph 0087; restricted flight regions may be obtained through broadcasted information; receiving this information through a broadcast can be considered a subscription to various operators).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Tazume renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Yang further discloses each subscription lasts only for an expected time period of an associated flight by a flight vehicle in the specified airspace (Paragraphs 0087, 0098; restricted flight regions may be determined based on the amount of time they are expected to be present; for instance, temporary objects of interest will eventually not have a given flight restriction region).
Regarding claim 8, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, Yang discloses at least one processing device (Paragraph 0022; system may include one or more processors).
Regarding claims 9-13, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2-6 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2-6.
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 8-13 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 8-13.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yang, in view of Tazume, and further in view of Valasek et al., US 20240171568 A1, herein referred to as Valasek.
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Tazume renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Yang further discloses obtaining data associated with a specified airspace indicating or identifying manned flights within the specified airspace (Paragraphs 0014, 0050, 0081; data about objects in an airspace may be obtained), but fails to disclose the data associated with the specified airspace being obtained through a one-way data diode. However, Valasek, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the data associated with the specified airspace being obtained through a one-way data diode (Paragraph 0031; a one-way data diode may be used for secure communication between two networks). Therefore, form the teaching of Valasek, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the flight system of Yang and Tazume to include the data associated with the specified airspace being obtained through a one-way data diode, as taught/suggested by Valasek. The motivation to do so would be to use a well-known circuitry device for transmitting data. Specifically, this can help ensure that the system is more secure as a one-way data diode can prevent bad actors from infiltrating the system.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but has not found them persuasive. Applicant is arguing that the process of “providing information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones …” is not something that can be mentally performed in the human mind. However, 2106.04(a)(2)(III.)(B.) recites that mental processes may still be performed mentally or ‘with pencil and paper’ or other physical aides. For instance, a user could write down the information defining the one or more exclusion zones and that can be considered the limitation of “providing information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones …”. Examiner suggests implementing a control step or implementing subject matter from 0027, 0048, etc. of the instant specification where the modified exclusion zones are provided through one or more USSs (UTM Service Suppliers) or through the volume publisher, both of which require specific tooling and processes that can not be performed in the human mind, or something similar.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but has not found them persuasive. Applicant is arguing that the specification in 0054 details how the exclusion zones can have their shape randomly modified and that one skilled in the art could implement this system. However, randomization of any kind requires specific bounds to be implemented, especially when the instant specification (at least 0054) only discloses that the expansion can be used to obfuscate the actual track. In essence, this covers every conceivable shape and every conceivable size of an exclusion volume, so long as the track is contained within. Examiner notes that the specification does not provide any sort of bounds for the randomization process. Furthermore, even if one were to implement a randomization for a polygonal shape (number of sides randomized, for example), the specification still fails to disclose a limit for the number of sides and what size limit is allowed for the shape.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but has not found them persuasive. Applicant is arguing that Yang fails to disclose “transmitting one or more modified exclusion zones to one or more flight vehicle operators not associated with control of the UAV”. However, this limitation is not claimed as claim 1 only ever discloses “providing information defining the one or more modified exclusion zones to one or more flight vehicle operators who do not identify or modify the one or more exclusion zones”. As can be seen, the providing of information is to operators who ‘do not identify or modify the exclusion zones’, not to operators who are not associated with control of the UAVs.
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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/C.A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658