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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on September 10, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on September 10, 2024.
Claims 1-10 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-10 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0090800) in view of Haskins et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0148192).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the following limitation: “checking whether part of the trajectory, called common part, extending from the current position of the aircraft to the position of the selected integration point.”
The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to instead recite “checking whether part of the trajectory, called common part, extends from the current position of the aircraft to the position of the selected integration point.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
1. A method for monitoring a safety level of a trajectory followed by a flying aircraft, implemented by a Trajectory Conflict Detection and Alerting (TCDA) system comprising electronic circuitry on board the aircraft, the method comprising:
defining a set of integration points positioned along a trajectory, downstream of a current position of the aircraft on the trajectory;
a monitoring phase comprising at least one iteration, by initially selecting an integration point at a position farthest from a current position of the aircraft, with each iteration comprising:
determining whether the position of the selected integration point is different from a position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft, otherwise establishing a failure to compute a contingency trajectory;
when the position of the selected integration point is different from the position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft:
checking whether part of the trajectory, called common part, extending from the current position of the aircraft to the position of the selected integration point is safe if: (i) no conflict between an obstacle and the common part is detected, and (ii) a contingency trajectory exists from the position of the selected integration point,
otherwise carrying out a new iteration of the monitoring phase by selecting a next integration point toward the current position of the aircraft,
and the method further comprising:
establishing a safety level for the trajectory, with the safety level either corresponding to the position of the integration point at which failure to compute the contingency trajectory was established, or to the position of the integration point at which the common part is safe.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of defining a set of integration points positioned along a trajectory, downstream of a current position of the aircraft on the trajectory; a monitoring phase comprising at least one iteration, by initially selecting an integration point at a position farthest from a current position of the aircraft, with each iteration comprising: determining whether the position of the selected integration point is different from a position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft, otherwise establishing a failure to compute a contingency trajectory; when the position of the selected integration point is different from the position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft: checking whether part of the trajectory, called common part, extending from the current position of the aircraft to the position of the selected integration point is safe if: (i) no conflict between an obstacle and the common part is detected, and (ii) a contingency trajectory exists from the position of the selected integration point, otherwise carrying out a new iteration of the monitoring phase by selecting a next integration point toward the current position of the aircraft, and the method further comprising: establishing a safety level for the trajectory, with the safety level either corresponding to the position of the integration point at which failure to compute the contingency trajectory was established, or to the position of the integration point at which the common part is safe.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. For example, the claim encompasses a person defining points along a trajectory downstream from where an aircraft is reported to be located, and selecting a farthest point from the aircraft, such as a destination. The mental process would further encompass checking a conflict is detected along the trajectory from the position of the aircraft to the destination, and establishing a safety level for the trajectory accordingly.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not include additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the claim recites a “Trajectory Conflict Detection and Alerting (TCDA) system comprising electronic circuitry on board the aircraft,” this element is provided in the preamble of the claim and is not positively recited by the claim. Even so, the system comprising electronic circuitry does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer environment.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Independent claim 8 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 9
Claim 9 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims could be considered software per se. Claim 9 recites a computer program product comprising instructions that is not limited to non-transitory tangible media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 212 (2010). The computer readable medium recited in claim 1 encompasses a software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claim "covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories [and thus] falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 ." Id. at 1354.
Claim 10
Claim 10 does do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims could be considered signal per se. Claim 10 recites a storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions that is not limited to non-transitory tangible media. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Off. 212 (2010). The computer readable medium recited in claim 1 encompasses a transitory signal detached from any medium expressed as a set of instructions detached from any medium, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claim "covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories [and thus] falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 ." Id. at 1354.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-4 and 9-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 9-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-4, and 8-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0090800) in view of Haskins et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0148192).
Regarding claim 1, Bosworth discloses a method for monitoring a safety level of a trajectory followed by a flying aircraft, implemented by a Trajectory Conflict Detection and Alerting (TCDA) system (Bosworth ¶ 68) comprising electronic circuitry on board the aircraft, the method comprising:
defining a set of integration points positioned along a trajectory, downstream of a current position of the aircraft on the trajectory; (Bosworth ¶ 171 discloses that “the aircrew automation system 100 may navigate the aircraft to a predetermined waypoint,” wherein “predicted events as the aircraft proceeds through the flight plan, which can be entered as a series of waypoints (for instance), see ¶ 105. Also see Fig. 3A.)
a monitoring phase comprising at least one iteration (Bosworth Fig. 7 and at least ¶ 117), by initially selecting an integration point at a position farthest from a current position of the aircraft, (Bosworth ¶ 16 discloses navigating the aircraft “via the actuation system, from the predetermined altitude to a touchdown location,” which includes “a runway or another location deemed appropriate for landing the aircraft,” see ¶ 140. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that given the direction that the aircraft is traveling depicted in Fig. 3A, the destination point is at a farthest position from the current location of the aircraft 322 relative to the other waypoints. Also see ¶ 91 “The normal flight operation application 216 enables aircrew automation system 100 to fly a predetermined flight plan from takeoff to landing, assuming no contingencies [i.e., an initial selection]”)
Bosworth does not expressly disclose:
with each iteration comprising: determining whether the position of the selected integration point is different from a position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft, otherwise establishing a failure to compute a contingency trajectory;
when the position of the selected integration point is different from the position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft: checking whether part of the trajectory, called common part, extending from the current position of the aircraft to the position of the selected integration point is safe if: (i) no conflict between an obstacle and the common part is detected, and (ii) a contingency trajectory exists from the position of the selected integration point, otherwise carrying out a new iteration of the monitoring phase by selecting a next integration point toward the current position of the aircraft, and
the method further comprising: establishing a safety level for the trajectory, with the safety level either corresponding to the position of the integration point at which failure to compute the contingency trajectory was established, or to the position of the integration point at which the common part is safe.
However, Haskins discloses:
with each iteration comprising: determining whether the position of the selected integration point is different from a position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft, otherwise establishing a failure to compute a contingency trajectory; (Haskins ¶ 58 discloses that “If a route cannot be determined through the weather and/or no routes can be determined due to weather (e.g., all routes contain weather that prohibits routing), the processor 202 can expand the tolerance for the predefined condition (e.g., expand the tolerance for weather severity) until a route can be determined,” such that the route calculation process includes “route modifications” or a “recreated route [i.e., contingency trajectory],” see ¶ 79)
when the position of the selected integration point is different from the position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft: checking whether part of the trajectory, called common part, extending from the current position of the aircraft to the position of the selected integration point (Haskins ¶ 60 discloses “The autoland module 214 can create a route from the current position of the aircraft to the destination”) is safe if: (i) no conflict between an obstacle and the common part is detected, and (Haskins ¶ 78 discloses that the calculated route process includes creating “a route to the selected location that avoids potential threats (e.g., terrain, obstacles, weather, traffic, etc.)”) (ii) a contingency trajectory exists from the position of the selected integration point (Haskins ¶ 79 discloses that the “route calculation processes can also be used to create suggested route modifications. For example, the processor 202 can suggest a recreated route to avoid potential threats”), otherwise carrying out a new iteration of the monitoring phase by selecting a next integration point toward the current position of the aircraft, and (Haskins ¶ 79 discloses that “The system 100 can notify the user of the suggested re-created route, which can be accepted ... by the user,” such that “Once a route or re-created route has been calculated, the autoland module 214 can cause the aircraft to traverse the route,” see ¶ 64. The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to include a contingent limitation (e.g., “if”) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.)
the method further comprising: establishing a safety level for the trajectory, with the safety level either corresponding to the position of the integration point at which failure to compute the contingency trajectory was established, or to the position of the integration point at which the common part is safe. (Haskins ¶ 78 discloses “create a route to a predetermined location that avoids potential threats (e.g., terrain, obstacles, weather, traffic, etc.) [i.e., a safety level],” wherein the predetermined location includes a destination, see ¶ 28, and the route is “from the current position of the aircraft to the destination,” see ¶ 60, such that “The processor 202 can then create one or more waypoints to avoid the moderate and/or severe weather areas and/or predicted moderate and/or severe weather areas [i.e., position of the integration point at which the common part is safe],” see ¶ 62)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the operation of the aircraft disclosed by Bosworth with determining whether the position of the selected integration point is different from a position of the integration point closest to the current position of the aircraft, otherwise establishing a failure to compute a contingency trajectory, as disclosed by Haskins, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the runway is only selected if there are no available runways where all attributes are within limits (Haskins ¶ 57), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Bosworth in combination with Haskins discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
following the monitoring phase, a phase of alerting a crew of the aircraft comprising generating an alert message indicating a criticality level depending on the safety level (Bosworth ¶ 92 discloses generating “alerts or other messages in response to meeting predetermined or dynamically determined thresholds (e.g., warning thresholds, etc.)” such that “in order to maintain safe operation of the aircraft or safely divert the flight ... the pilot can be alerted to a non-normal condition”) with the criticality level determining at least one action to be implemented by the crew of the aircraft. (Bosworth ¶ 105 discloses “The HMI system 104 may give visual and auditory alerts to direct the pilot's attention to unattended checklist items,” such “a list of tasks may be provided,” and wherein “the pilot is responsible for a given task on the list”)
Regarding claim 3, Bosworth in combination with Haskins discloses the method of claim 2, comprising:
determining incapacitation of the crew of the aircraft in an event of failure, for a predefined period, to implement the at least one action (Bosworth ¶ 64 discloses “if the system determines the pilot is incapacitated or otherwise unable to control the aircraft, the system can control the aircraft to enter into an emergency mode, initiate an automated landing procedure”) or in an event of implementation of an action that is unsuitable for the criticality level of the alert message; and
automatically initiating a contingency trajectory if the crew is incapacitated. (Bosworth ¶ 141 discloses “auto-landing procedure is most applicable to emergency descent and landing situations, the actuation system 108 may be configured to quickly couple to the various flight controllers in lieu of the incapacitated pilot.” The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to include a contingent limitation (e.g., “if”) and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04.)
Regarding claim 4, Bosworth in combination with Haskins discloses the method of claim 2, wherein:
the alert message comprises a graphical notification, displayed on a screen of a human-machine interface in a cockpit of the aircraft. (Bosworth ¶ 105 discloses “The HMI system 104 may provide an intuitive display and interface that includes checklist verification and health alerts from the core platform 102 and predictions of aircraft state (e.g., fuel consumption and predicted remaining range), as well as failure prognosis and deviation alerts (e.g., “Left Engine EGT Is 5 Degrees Above Normal And Rising”))
Regarding claim 5, Bosworth in combination with Haskins discloses the method of claim 4, wherein:
the notification comprises a graphical representation of an operable button for deleting the notification. (Haskins ¶ 51 discloses “the autoland module 214 can cause the processor 202 to issue an electronic communication notification that can be dismissed by the pilot,” wherein “the autoland module 214 is configured to cause the generation of one or more displays at a display screen,” see ¶ 82. Further, Haskins ¶ 45 discloses “buttons, softkeys, keypads, knobs and so forth, may be used for entry of data and commands instead of or in addition to the touch screen 210.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the autoland module 214 of Haskins in place of the HMI of Bosworth, with reasonable expectation of success, because both the HMI of Bosworth and the autoland module of Haskins comprise a display screen. Therefore, the substitution would result in the HMI of Bosworth comprising a graphical representation of an operable button for deleting the notification.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the alert message of Bosworth with a graphical representation of an operable button for deleting the notification, as disclosed by Haskins, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow the aircraft's flight crew (e.g., a pilot and/or a co-pilot) to control the operation of the aircraft via the PFD and/or the MFD and to view navigation information related to the route the aircraft is traversing (Haskins ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 6, Bosworth in combination with Haskins discloses the method of claim 4, wherein:
the notification comprises a graphical representation of an operable button for going through the obstacle. (Haskins ¶ 79 discloses “The system 100 can notify the user of the suggested re-created route, which can be accepted or dismissed by the user.” Further, Haskins ¶ 45 discloses “buttons, softkeys, keypads, knobs and so forth, may be used for entry of data and commands instead of or in addition to the touch screen 210.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that dismissing a notification for a re-created route for avoiding potential threats would result in the aircraft continuing on its initial route, which would continue through an obstacle such as weather.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the alert message of Bosworth with a graphical representation of an operable button for going through the obstacle, as disclosed by Haskins, with reasonable expectation of success, allow the flight crew to control operation of the aircraft's systems manually via the PFD, the MFD, or other controls (Haskins ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 7, Bosworth in combination with Haskins discloses the method of claim 6, wherein:
when the button for going through the obstacle is activated, then the TCDA system considers that the obstacle is no longer an obstacle and the method comprises repeating the monitoring phase for monitoring the safety level of the trajectory. (Haskins ¶ 51 discloses “if the pilot dismisses the notification, the autoland module 214 can withhold activation of emergency autoland processes [i.e., not an emergency and therefore the obstacle is no longer an obstacle],” also see Fig. 13 that depicts the process continually repeating as necessary)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the alert message of Bosworth with the button for going through the obstacle being activated, then the TCDA system considers that the obstacle is no longer an obstacle and the method comprises repeating the monitoring phase for monitoring the safety level of the trajectory, as disclosed by Haskins, with reasonable expectation of success, allow the flight crew to control operation of the aircraft's systems manually via the PFD, the MFD, or other controls (Haskins ¶ 2), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bosworth and Haskins discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bosworth and Haskins discloses the computer program product, comprising instructions causing a processor to execute the method of claim 1 when the instructions are executed by the processor. (Bosworth in at least ¶ 10)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bosworth and Haskins discloses the storage medium, storing a computer program comprising instructions causing a processor to execute the method of claim 1 when the instructions are read and executed by the processor. (Bosworth in at least ¶ 55)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Winkle et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0009904) discloses methods and systems that provide for facilitating s safe emergency landing of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and that include UAVs configured to transport products to delivery destination via flight routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662