DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7:
“if the charging location is below a preset value” should be rewritten for clarity. Based on the example presented on pg 36 lines 4-7 in the specification, the limitation could be rewritten as, “if the number of charging locations selected is below a preset value”
Claims 8:
“if the landing location is below a preset value” should be rewritten for clarity. Based on the example presented on pg 36 lines 4-7 in the specification, the limitation could be rewritten as, “if the number of landing locations selected is below a preset value”
Claims 7-8
“the temporary candidate destination” should be pluralized to allow designation of the two independent locations, a landing location and a charging location, as temporary candidate destinations. Two independent locations cannot both be selected as a single temporary candidate destination. Applicant could amend to describe “first” and “second” temporary candidate destinations.
Claim 4
If in claims 7 and 8 multiple single temporary candidate destinations can exist, “temporary candidate destination” could be changed to “first temporary candidate destination”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "if the vertical movement/horizontal movement ratio". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a ratio has not been introduced. Claim 1 includes “vertical movement and horizontal movement rates”, but not a ratio between vertical and horizontal movement. Furthermore, it is unclear which aspect of vertical movement and horizontal movement the ratio is describing. Is it a ratio of movement rates (see pg 26 line 14 of spec) or movement distance (see pg 20 lines 4-11 of spec)? Furthermore, what do the example percentages of movement ratio on pg 31 lines 7-12 represent? Does 130% describe: a) 30% more energy is required for vertical flight compared to horizontal flight, or the blades spin 30% faster for vertical vs horizontal flight, b), vehicle traveled 30% faster in the vertical direction than horizontal, c) the vehicle traveled 30% further in the vertical direction than the horizontal direction, d) the vehicle accelerated 30% more in the vertical direction than the horizontal direction, e) or something else?
Additionally, claim 3 recites the limitation “reflecting the vertical movement / horizontal movement ratio as the maximum value during the flight”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a maximum value has not been introduced. Pg 31 lines 10-12 describe the maximum value as a separate value from the flight plan ratio or the calculated current ratio, but the specification does not describe what the maximum value represents.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim 1 language below:
A method for managing a battery according to a flight plan using operational status information including takeoff and landing of an aircraft, comprising:
a step of calculating a battery consumption consumed during movement to a destination according to the flight plan, and obtaining the flight plan based on the battery consumption and current remaining battery capacity of the aircraft;
a step of generating a modified flight plan by modifying the flight plan based on aircraft movement information including vertical movement and horizontal movement rates of the aircraft; and
a step of determining the modified flight plan as a final flight plan.
The Process in claim 1, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of calculating battery consumption, obtaining a flight plan, generating a modified flight plan, and determining that the modified flight plan is a final flight plan. This is equivalent to calculating the amount of battery consumed based on the energy required to carry out the completed portion of the flight plan, such as takeoff, determining a flight plan to a destination based on the battery consumption reachable with the amount of charge remaining, modifying the flight plan by shortening the route if vertical or horizontal movement rates exceeded thresholds, and mentally identifying that the modified flight plan is a final flight plan.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, Claims 2-8:
fall within one of the statutory categories (Claims 2-8: Process)
directed toward an abstract idea (Mental Process),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that claims 2-8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasenthilnathan et al. (EP 3923260 A1) in view of Kurtz et al. (US 20220299569 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jayasenthilnathan teach A method for managing a battery (see at least [0023]: “battery”) according to a flight plan (see at least FIG. 3: flight plan 303) using operational status information including takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* of an aircraft (see at least FIG. 2: UAM vehicle 5), comprising:
a step of calculating a battery (see at least [0021]: “UAM vehicle-specific information includes … a maximum charge capacity”; [0030]: “determine an available charge for the UAM vehicle 5”) during movement (see at least [0040]: “the controller displays a map showing the UAM vehicle 5 at its current location, the intended trip, and renders an endurance line on the intended trip to show an estimated distance the UAM vehicle 5 can travel on the available charge”) to a destination according to the flight plan, and obtaining the flight plan based on the battery consumption and current remaining battery capacity of the aircraft (see at least [0030]: “determine an available charge for the UAM vehicle 5”; FIG. 6 step 604: “determining that available charge is not sufficient to complete trip” [Wingdings font/0xE0] [Wingdings font/0xE0] [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 618: “updating the intended trip”);
a step of generating a modified flight plan by modifying the flight plan based on aircraft movement information (see at least [0030]: “The controller 12 processes various geospatial … sensor 22 data … to determine an available charge for the UAM vehicle 5”) including vertical movement and horizontal movement rates (see at least [0023]: “geospatial sensors 22 supply various types of data or measurements to controller 12 during UAM vehicle flight. In various embodiments, the geospatial sensors 22 supply, without limitation, one or more of: … groundspeed data (including groundspeed direction), vertical speed data, vertical acceleration data”) of the aircraft; and
a step of determining the modified flight plan as a final flight (see at least FIG. 6 step 618, [0043]: “After 618, the method 600 may end”) plan.
However, Jayasenthilnathan does not explicitly teach consumption consumed.
Kurtz teach calculating a battery consumption consumed (see at least FIG. 3A: battery state prior to take-off minus current battery state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Kurtz to calculate a consumption consumed. Doing so would make it so that “it can be confirmed during the flight that the intended destination can be safely reached with the remaining accessible energy”, as recognized by Kurtz in paragraph [0092].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz teach The method of claim 1.
Jayasenthilnathan further teaches wherein the step of generating the modified flight plan comprises:
acquiring base information including information on charging locations and landing locations included in an area movable (see at least FIG. 6 step 608: “identifying recharge stations … within reach”) with the battery capacity of the aircraft, and determining a location among the base information that is close to the destination by a preset value (see at least FIG. 6 step 612: “optionally filtering identified recharge stations with predefined distance”) as a temporary candidate destination, and
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* of an aircraft.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasenthilnathan et al. (EP 3923260 A1) in view of Kurtz et al. (US 20220299569 A1) and Koo (US 20190135113 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz teach The method of claim 1.
Jayasenthilnathan further teaches wherein: the step of generating the modified flight plan comprises:
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* of an aircraft.
However, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz does not explicitly teach applying a predetermined rate to the battery consumption according to weather conditions.
Koo teach applying a predetermined rate to the battery consumption according to weather conditions (see at least [0056]: “determining a route between any initial location and destination location that includes sufficient intermediate charging locations … , taking into account the rate at which electrical power is consumed by such vehicle during travel, including for … different prevailing weather and atmospheric conditions, … or any other factor that may influence consumption rate of stored electrical power.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Koo to apply weather information to battery consumption calculation. Doing so would reduce costs by eliminating the need to install additional charging stations, as recognized by Koo in paragraph [0008].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasenthilnathan et al. (EP 3923260 A1) in view of Kurtz et al. (US 20220299569 A1) and Su et al. (US 20200097027 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz teach The method of claim 1.
Jayasenthilnathan further teaches wherein the step of generating the modified flight plan comprises:
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* of an aircraft.
Kurtz further teaches an amount of battery required to move to the destination is calculated by reflecting the vertical movement / horizontal movement ratio (see at least [0010]: “the required power is particularly high immediately after take-off”) as the maximum (see at least [0085]: “take into account the maximum possible error in prediction (“worst case overestimation”). Hence, if the predicted state at the destination exceeds the physical cell limit by both the safety margin and the surplus, even in case of the predicted energy being maximally overestimated, the physical limit is not reached.”) value during the flight from a current location to the destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Kurtz to calculate a battery required assuming maximum values. Doing so would make it so that “it can be confirmed during the flight that the intended destination can be safely reached with the remaining accessible energy”, as recognized by Kurtz in paragraph [0092].
However, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz does not explicitly teach if the vertical movement / horizontal movement ratio for a movement section up to current time during the flight of the aircraft is higher than a predetermined ratio compared to the vertical movement / horizontal movement ratio according to the flight plan.
Su teach if the vertical movement / horizontal movement ratio for a movement section up to current time during the flight of the aircraft is higher than (see at least [0068]: “in the case where the acceleration ratio between the vertical component and the horizontal component of the actual acceleration vector is greater than the acceleration ratio threshold, it may be determined that the direction of the acceleration may be substantially along the vertical direction.”) a predetermined ratio compared to the vertical movement / horizontal movement ratio according to the flight plan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Su to consider if a vertical to horizontal movement ratio exceeds a threshold. Doing so would help “to improve the conventional launch method of an UAV”, as recognized by Su in paragraph [0005].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasenthilnathan et al. (EP 3923260 A1) in view of Kurtz et al. (US 20220299569 A1) and Carver et al. (US 20230147814 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz teach The method of claim 4.
Jayasenthilnathan further teaches wherein the step of generating the modified flight plan comprises:
determining the candidate destination based on data (see at least FIG. 6 step 610: “updating identified recharge stations based on received status data”; [0031]: “The controller 12 receives real-time status data 50 from the nearby recharge stations 36.”), and
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* of an aircraft.
However, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz does not explicitly teach sending inquiry data for checking whether landing is possible for the temporary candidate destination;
response data to the inquiry data transmitted from the temporary candidate destination.
Carver teach sending inquiry data for checking whether landing is possible for the temporary candidate destination, and
determining the candidate destination based on response data (see at least [0055]: “if the docking/charging station 240a, for example, is initially arranged to accommodate the UAV 220, and the UAV 220 provides an API request that includes, for example, GPS coordinates near or associated with (e.g., within a threshold distance to) base station 212a, but the radio signal for the API request is instead received at base station 212c, then the routing/orchestration platform 218 and/or the docking/charging station 240a may deny the API request or may perform additional approval processing (e.g., by facilitating arrangement of docking/charging station 240c to accommodate the UAV 220).”) to the inquiry data transmitted from the temporary candidate destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Carver to determine candidate station availability based on request and approval. Doing so would reduce costs and enhance uav charging operations, as recognized by Carver in paragraph [0027].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan, Kurtz, and Carver teaches The method of claim 5.
Jayasenthilnathan further teach wherein the step of determining the modified flight plan comprises:
providing information on the candidate destination to a passenger, determining a location according to destination selection information (see at least FIG. 6 step 616: “displaying tabular views responsive to user selections”) selected by the passenger from among the provided candidate destination information as a landing destination, and
determining the landing destination as a destination (see at least FIG. 6 step 618: “updating the intended trip with a user-selected recharge station”) of the modified flight plan, and
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* of an aircraft.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayasenthilnathan et al. (EP 3923260 A1) in view of Kurtz et al. (US 20220299569 A1) and Araki (US 20170217319 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz teach The method of claim 4.
Jayasenthilnathan further teaches wherein the step of generating the modified flight plan comprises:
if priority stopover location selected (see at least FIG. 6 step 618: “updating the intended trip with a user-selected recharge station”) by a passenger from among the charging location and the landing location is a charging location (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land a recharge station in order to recharge. Therefore, a recharge station is also a landing site location.*,
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* by an aircraft.
However, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz does not explicitly teach selecting the charging location first as the temporary candidate destination, and if the charging location is below a preset value, additionally selecting a landing location as the temporary candidate destination.
Araki teach selecting the charging location first as the temporary candidate destination (see at least [0090]: “If the guidance route to another destination has already been set”), and if the charging location is below a preset value (see at least [0090]: “when the number of reachable charging stations is less than or equal to a threshold value Ts, the output unit 13 may set the nearest charging station as a destination and display a route to the charging station on the map.”), additionally selecting a landing location as the temporary candidate destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Araki to display an additional station if the number displayed is below a threshold. Doing so would “more reliably prevent a situation where the user encounters running out of battery power”, as recognized by Araki in paragraph [0090].
Regarding claim 8, Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz teach The method of claim 4.
Jayasenthilnathan further teaches wherein the step of generating the modified flight plan comprises:
if priority stopover location selected (see at least FIG. 6 step 618: “updating the intended trip with a user-selected recharge station”) by a passenger from among the charging location and the landing location is a landing location (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land a recharge station in order to recharge. Therefore, a recharge station is also a landing site location.*,
the flight plan includes takeoff and landing (see at least [0003]: “UAM vehicles such as e-VTOL (electric Vertical Take-off and Landing) vehicles”; FIG. 2: path deviations 214 and 216 to recharge station 212) *Examiner’s interpretation: UAM vehicle will have to land at charging site in order to re-charge, and then would have to take-off to continue on path.* by an aircraft.
However, the combination of Jayasenthilnathan and Kurtz does not explicitly teach selecting the landing location first as the temporary candidate destination, and if the landing location is below a preset value, additionally selecting the charging location as the temporary candidate destination.
Araki teach selecting the landing location first as the temporary candidate destination (see at least [0090]: “If the guidance route to another destination has already been set”), and if the landing location is below a preset value (see at least [0090]: “when the number of reachable charging stations is less than or equal to a threshold value Ts, the output unit 13 may set the nearest charging station as a destination and display a route to the charging station on the map.”), additionally selecting the charging location as the temporary candidate destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jayasenthilnathan to incorporate the teachings of Araki to display an additional station if the number displayed is below a threshold. Doing so would “more reliably prevent a situation where the user encounters running out of battery power”, as recognized by Araki in paragraph [0090].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ota et al. (US 20220129014 A1) teaches a transportation system including takeoff and landing site information for use by UAVs that identify presence of charging facilities and landing sites (see paragraph [0098]).
Lu et al. (US 20250094622 A1) teaches a vehicle charging system that requests approval from the charging station before charging (see paragraph [0073]).
Richter (US 20240127699 A1) teaches an electric aircraft that considers the impact of weather conditions in energy usage during flight (see paragraph [0049]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662