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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on March 17, 2026.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0247544) in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0247544) in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933), further in view of Oksenhorn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0140123).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0247544) in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933) and Oksenhorn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0140123), further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0410666).
Response to Argument
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on March 17, 2026, with respect to the claim objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 102
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on March 17, 2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933).
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 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0247544) in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933).
Regarding claim 1, Mustafic discloses a flight management system that manages flight of an unmanned aircraft flying according to a flight plan, the flight management system comprising:
at least one unmanned aircraft (Mustafic in at least ¶ 3) that holds shared information in which transmission information including identification information (Mustafic in at least ¶ 145 “the UAV 105 may include the identifier(s) associated with the UAV 105,” such that “the network management system 135 may provide one or more identifiers to the UAVs [i.e., shared information]”), position information (Mustafic in at least ¶ 47 discloses a payload unit of the UAV, which includes “a global positioning system (GPS) that provides a current position of the UAV 105”), and time information about the unmanned aircraft and flight plan information including a flight plan are associated with each other (Mustafic in at least ¶ 83 discloses that “the UAV 105 receives flight plan information that includes a flight route,” the flight plan information further providing “a start time and/or an end time (e.g., expected end time) at which the flight plan may be implemented,” such that the “UAV 105 is traversing the flight route in accordance with the flight plan,” see ¶ 89) and that flies according to the flight plan while transmitting the transmission information at a predetermined timing (Mustafic ¶ 67 discloses that the “UAV may provide (e.g., ... transmit at a later time) the determined characteristics to the network management system 135”), the shared information is shared between a flight management device, an operation device, and the unmanned aircraft in a three-way sharing configuration; and (Mustafic Fig. 1 depicts that information is shared between network management system 135 [i.e., flight management device], the UAV 105 [i.e., the unmanned aircraft], and user device 120 [i.e., an operation device]. Also see corresponding ¶ 42.)
a flight management device (Mustafic in at least ¶ 42 “a network management system 135,” also see Fig. 1) that comprises a memory storing instructions (Mustafic in at least ¶ 182 discloses electronic system 1100 which “can be a part of ... network management system 135” and includes memory 1150, see Fig. 11), and a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105) to share the shared information with the unmanned aircraft to be managed, and (Mustafic ¶ 56 discloses “the network management system 135 may transmit information directly to the UAV 105”)
acquire the transmission information transmitted from the unmanned aircraft flying according to the flight plan to update the shared information ... (Mustafic ¶ 67 discloses “The UAV may also provide to the network management system 135 a position, heading, and/or speed of the UAV” such that “In response to receiving the [UAV] operator's proposed flight plan, the network management system 135 may “provide authorization for the operator's proposed flight plan, provide authorization for an adjusted [i.e., updated] version of the operator's proposed flight plan,” see ¶ 73, and “adjust flight plans received from operators,” see ¶¶ 121 and 123, wherein the management of the flight plans is centralized [i.e., shared], see ¶ 123).
Mustafic does not expressly disclose:
acquire the transmission information transmitted from the unmanned aircraft flying according to the flight plan to update the shared information in real time to manage a flight situation of the unmanned aircraft including determining which specific flight route the unmanned aircraft is flying when multiple flight routes intersect.
However, Mercep discloses:
acquire the transmission information transmitted from the unmanned aircraft flying according to the flight plan to update the shared information in real time (Mercep ¶ 60 discloses that the vehicle trajectory followed by the AV is “dynamically generated,” also see ¶ 67) to manage a flight situation of the unmanned aircraft including determining which specific flight route the unmanned aircraft is flying when multiple flight routes intersect. (Mercep ¶ 31 discloses “using the vehicle trajectory, at least one possible object trajectory, and/or the inferred probabilities to determine whether there is a threshold probability that a collision will occur between the vehicle 102.sub.1 and the object” including determining “If the two trajectories 420, 422 do intersect,” see ¶ 60. Also see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight plan of Mustafic with managing a flight situation of the unmanned aircraft including determining which specific flight route the unmanned aircraft is flying when multiple flight routes intersect, as disclosed by Mercep, with reasonable expectation of success, to improve the accuracy of collision prediction (Mercep ¶ 222) and to select a most favorable solution after making various candidate solutions as an optimal way of finding the safest avoidance path (Mercep ¶ 173), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 1, wherein:
the flight plan information includes identification information (Mustafic ¶ 163 “the network management system 135 may have knowledge of one or more identifiers associated with the UAV 105 (e.g., for identifying the UAV 105 in the cellular network)”), a departure place (Mustafic in at least ¶ 23 “A flight plan may be based on geographic information associated with a geographic region that encompasses a starting point”), a scheduled departure time, a destination place (Mustafic in at least ¶ 23 “A flight plan may be based on geographic information associated with a geographic region that encompasses a ... destination point”), and a scheduled arrival time of the flight plan. (Mustafic in at least ¶ 122 discloses generating a flight plan based on provided information pertaining to the flight plan such as “starting point, destination point, departure and arrival time”)
Regarding claim 3, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 2, wherein:
the flight plan information includes identification information of a flight route from the departure place to the destination place, and (Mustafic in at least ¶ 122 discloses generating a flight plan based on provided information pertaining to the flight plan such as “starting point, destination point, departure and arrival time”)
the processor of the flight management device is configured to execute the instructions (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105 and ¶ 184) to manage flight of the unmanned aircraft assigned to the flight plan in accordance with the identification information of the flight route. (Mustafic in at least ¶ 187 discloses “The processor(s) 1105 may process the text input into commands to adjust the flight path of the UAV and facilitate implementation of the commands,” such that the “UAV 105 is following the flight route of the flight plan information,” see ¶ 95)
Regarding claim 4, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 1, further comprising:
an operation device that comprises a memory storing instructions, and (Mustafic ¶ 49 discloses a user device 120 which includes a computer. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a computer includes a memory storing instructions)
a processor connected to the memory and configured to execute the instructions (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105 and ¶ 182 disclosing that the electronic system 1100 containing processor 1105 may be “a part of ... user device 120”) to: assign the flight plan included in the flight plan information to the unmanned aircraft to be managed in response to an input of the flight plan information, (Mustafic ¶ 49 discloses “the operator may issue commands via the user device 120 to instruct the UAV 105 to fly in certain directions and/or at certain speeds and/or to perform activities,” the activities including a flight plan to perform deliveries, see at least ¶ 33, wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that instructing the UAV to perform activities would include assigning the flight plan to the UAV.)
generate the shared information in which the transmission information of the unmanned aircraft to which the flight plan is assigned and the flight plan information are associated with each other, (Mustafic ¶ 73 discloses that “the user device 120 may generate a flight plan [i.e., the shared information],” such that “communication transceiver 905 may allow the UAV 105 to ... receive messages from the user device 120,” see ¶ 141, wherein “the operator may issue commands via the user device 120 to instruct [i.e., assign] the UAV 105 to fly in certain directions and/or at certain speeds and/or to perform activities,”)
transmit the generated shared information to the flight management device, and (Mustafic ¶ 73 discloses “the user device 120 may generate a flight plan and transmit the flight plan to the network management system 135”)
transmit the flight plan information to the unmanned aircraft to which the flight plan is assigned, (Mustafic ¶ 165 discloses that the UAV may “receive messages from the user device 120,” the user device thereby having transmitted the message to the UAV, wherein the message includes the flight plan information, see ¶ 141)
wherein the processor of the operation device is configured to execute the instructions to activate the unmanned aircraft in accordance with the flight plan, and (Mustafic ¶ 165 discloses that the UAV may “receive messages from the user device 120,” wherein the user device 120 includes processor 1105, see Fig. 11, and the message includes the flight plan information, see ¶ 141, and the “flight plan may specify a start time [i.e., instruction to activate the UAV] at which the UAV 105 is to depart from the starting point 140A,” see ¶ 100)
transmit an operation signal for operating the unmanned aircraft to the activated unmanned aircraft. (Mustafic ¶ 49 discloses “the operator may issue commands via the user device 120 to instruct the UAV 105 to fly in certain directions and/or at certain speeds and/or to perform activities”)
Regarding claim 5, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 4, wherein:
the processor of the operation device (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105 and ¶ 182) is configured to execute the instructions to generate update information of the flight plan in accordance with a change in the flight plan, and (Mustafic ¶ 73 discloses “the user device 120 may generate a flight plan” including “authorization for an adjusted version of the operator's proposed flight plan”)
transmit the generated update information of the flight plan to the flight management device and the unmanned aircraft. (Mustafic ¶ 163 discloses “the user device 120 may manually adjust flight of the UAV 105 by communicating directly with the UAV 105. Beyond the line of sight, in an embodiment, the user device 120 may transmit control commands to the UAV 105 via ... the network management system 135”)
Regarding claim 6, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim, wherein:
the processor of the operation device is configured to execute the instructions (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105 and ¶ 182) to acquire the transmission information transmitted from the unmanned aircraft flying according to the flight plan, (Mustafic ¶ 165 discloses a “communication transceiver 905 may allow the UAV 105 to transmit messages to... the user device 120,” the user device thereby having acquired the transmitted messages which includes the flight plan information, see ¶ 165)
update the shared information using the acquired transmission information, and (Mustafic ¶ 67 discloses “The UAV may also provide to the network management system 135 a position, heading, and/or speed of the UAV” such that “In response to receiving the [UAV] operator's proposed flight plan, the network management system 135 may provide authorization for the operator's proposed flight plan, provide authorization for an adjusted [i.e., updated] version of the operator's proposed flight plan” and “adjust flight plans received from operators,” see ¶¶ 121 and 123, wherein the management of the flight plans is centralized [i.e., shared], see ¶ 123)
transmit the acquired transmission information to the flight management device. (Mustafic ¶ 163 discloses “the user device 120 may manually adjust flight of the UAV 105 by communicating directly with the UAV 105. Beyond the line of sight, in an embodiment, the user device 120 may transmit control commands to the UAV 105 via ... the network management system 135.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for the user device to transmit the adjusted flight via the network management device, the adjusted flight would have been transmitted to the network management device)
Regarding claim 7, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 4, wherein:
the processor of the operation device is configured to execute the instructions (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105 and ¶ 182) to receive the transmission information transmitted from a plurality of the unmanned aircrafts flying according to the flight plan, and (Mustafic ¶ 165 discloses “The communication transceiver 905 may allow the UAV 105 to transmit messages to and/or receive messages from the user device 120,” wherein the process such as example process 600 may utilize “one or more [i.e., a plurality of]... UAVs” and is “performed by ... user device 120.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “one or more” at least teaches or suggests a plurality.)
transmit a guidance signal for changing a positional relationship of the plurality of unmanned aircrafts to each of the plurality of unmanned aircrafts according to the position information included in the transmission information transmitted from each of the plurality of unmanned aircrafts. (Mustafic ¶ 73 discloses “the user device 120 may generate a flight plan” including “authorization for an adjusted version of the operator's proposed flight plan,” wherein “the change in the geographic information may be provided by the UAV 105 and/or other UAVs, such as in a request for authorization to adjust a flight plan,” see ¶ 143)
Regarding claim 11, Mustafic discloses the flight management method of managing flight of an unmanned aircraft that flies according to a flight plan, the flight management method comprising:
by a computer (Mustafic Fig. 11 processor 1105), sharing shared information (Mustafic ¶ 145 “the network management system 135 may provide one or more identifiers to the UAVs [i.e., sharing shared information]”) in which
transmission information including identification information (Mustafic in at least ¶ 145 “the UAV 105 may include the identifier(s) associated with the UAV 105”), position information (Mustafic in at least ¶ 47 discloses a payload unit of the UAV, which includes “a global positioning system (GPS) that provides a current position of the UAV 105”), and time information about the unmanned aircraft to be managed and flight plan information including the flight plan are associated with each other with the unmanned aircraft, (Mustafic in at least ¶ 83 discloses that “the UAV 105 receives flight plan information that includes a flight route,” the flight plan information further providing “a start time and/or an end time (e.g., expected end time) at which the flight plan may be implemented,” such that the “UAV 105 is traversing the flight route in accordance with the flight plan,” see ¶ 89), the shared information is shared between a flight management device, an operation device, and the unmanned aircraft in a three-way sharing configuration; (Mustafic Fig. 1 depicts that information is shared between network management system 135 [i.e., flight management device], the UAV 105 [i.e., the unmanned aircraft], and user device 120 [i.e., an operation device]. Also see corresponding ¶ 42.)
acquiring the transmission information transmitted from the unmanned aircraft that flies according to the flight plan while transmitting the transmission information at a predetermined timing; and (Mustafic ¶ 67 discloses “The UAV may also provide to the network management system 135 a position, heading, and/or speed of the UAV” such that “In response to receiving the [UAV] operator's proposed flight plan, the network management system 135 may provide authorization for the operator's proposed flight plan, wherein the “UAV may provide (e.g., ... transmit at a later time) the determined characteristics to the network management system 135,” see ¶ 67)
updating the shared information using the acquired transmission information ... (Mustafic ¶ 73 discloses that the network management system 135 may “provide authorization for the operator's proposed flight plan, provide authorization for an adjusted [i.e., updated] version of the operator's proposed flight plan,” and “adjust flight plans received from operators,” see ¶¶ 121 and 123, wherein the management of the flight plans is centralized [i.e., shared], see ¶ 123)
Mustafic does not expressly disclose:
updating the shared information using the acquired transmission information in real time to manage a flight situation of the unmanned aircraft including determining which specific flight route the unmanned aircraft is flying when multiple flight routes intersect.
However, Mercep discloses:
updating the shared information using the acquired transmission information in real time (Mercep ¶ 60 discloses that the vehicle trajectory followed by the AV is “dynamically generated,” also see ¶ 67) to manage a flight situation of the unmanned aircraft including determining which specific flight route the unmanned aircraft is flying when multiple flight routes intersect. (Mercep ¶ 31 discloses “using the vehicle trajectory, at least one possible object trajectory, and/or the inferred probabilities to determine whether there is a threshold probability that a collision will occur between the vehicle 102.sub.1 and the object” including determining “If the two trajectories 420, 422 do intersect,” see ¶ 60. Also see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight plan of Mustafic with managing a flight situation of the unmanned aircraft including determining which specific flight route the unmanned aircraft is flying when multiple flight routes intersect, as disclosed by Mercep, with reasonable expectation of success, to improve the accuracy of collision prediction (Mercep ¶ 222) and to select a most favorable solution after making various candidate solutions as an optimal way of finding the safest avoidance path (Mercep ¶ 173), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Mustafic further discloses a non-transitory recording medium storing a program for managing flight of an unmanned aircraft that flies according to a flight plan (Mustafic in at least ¶ 190), the program causing a computer to execute the processing of the limitations provided in claim 11 (Mustafic in at least ¶ 190. Also see the citations provided in claim 11.)
Regarding claim 13, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. Mustafic further discloses the non-transitory recording medium (Mustafic in at least ¶ 190).
Regarding claim 18, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. Mustafic further discloses the non-transitory recording medium (Mustafic in at least ¶ 190).
Regarding claim 19, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. Mustafic further discloses the non-transitory recording medium (Mustafic in at least ¶ 190).
Regarding claim 20, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. Mustafic further discloses the non-transitory recording medium (Mustafic in at least ¶ 190).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0247544) in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933), further in view of Oksenhorn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0140123).
Regarding claim 8, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 1, wherein:
the unmanned aircraft that includes a memory storing instructions, and (Mustafic in at least ¶ 182 discloses electronic system 1100 which “can be a part of ... the UAV 105” and includes memory 1150, see Fig. 11)
The combination of Mustafic and Mercep does not expressly disclose:
a processor connected to the memory and is configured to execute the instructions to receive the transmission information transmitted from another unmanned aircraft flying around the unmanned aircraft,
calculate a control target position for providing a distance from the another unmanned aircraft in accordance with the position information included in the received transmission information, and
perform control to move the unmanned aircraft toward the calculated control target position.
However, Oksenhorn discloses:
a processor connected to the memory and is configured to execute the instructions (Oksenhorn ¶ 53) to receive the transmission information transmitted from another unmanned aircraft flying around the unmanned aircraft, (Oksenhorn ¶ 70 discloses “the UAV 200 may receive flight information for surrounding UAVs using other methods of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) or other communications”)
calculate a control target position for providing a distance from the another unmanned aircraft in accordance with the position information included in the received transmission information, and (Oksenhorn ¶ 43 discloses “To avoid the UAV 102 (e.g. stay within a safety perimeter) and the UAV 108, the UAV 100 may calculate a safe region 118 [i.e., a control target position], defined by a lower bound 116 and an upper bound 114,” such as a “minimum distance 110 may be equal to the shortest desirable or allowable distance between the UAV 100 and the UAV 102”)
perform control to move the unmanned aircraft toward the calculated control target position. (Oksenhorn ¶ 43 discloses “The altitude adjustment of the UAV 100 includes changing the altitude of the UAV 100 such that the UAV 100 is within the safe region 118”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the communication network of Mustafic, of the combination of Mustafic and Mercep, with a UAV receiving transmission information from another UAV, as disclosed by Oksenhorn, with reasonable expectation of success, because the substitution would result in the UAVs within the network of Mustafic to communicate with not only the network management device but receive information from each other. This would ensure that the UAVs are adequately spaced to avoid intersection of flight paths of the UAVs while flying along the flight path (Oksenhorn ¶ 35), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 9, Mustafic in view of Mercep discloses the flight management system according to claim 1, wherein:
the processor of the unmanned aircraft is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether the flight plan is allowed to be executed according to a situation recognized by a sensor mounted on the unmanned aircraft, (Mustafic ¶ 34 discloses “The implementation of the flight plans may be supplemented by onboard sensors of the UEs ... the onboard sensors of the UEs may be operated to maintain a minimum distance separation between the UEs and other UEs ... such as minimum distance separation requirements or recommendations from FAA [i.e., whether the flight plan is allowed]”)
continue flight according to the flight plan in a case where it is determined that the flight plan is allowed to be executed, (Mustafic ¶ 74 “the UAV 105 is operated to maintain a minimum distance separation between the UAV 105 and other UAVs, and/or between the UAV 105 and obstacles, e.g. such as minimum distance separation requirements or recommendations from the FAA”)
The combination of Mustafic and Mercep does not expressly disclose:
execute control different from the flight plan in a case where it is determined that the flight plan is not allowed to be executed, and
However, Oksenhorn discloses:
execute control different from the flight plan in a case where it is determined that the flight plan is not allowed to be executed, and (Oksenhorn ¶ 43 discloses “The altitude adjustment of the UAV 100 includes changing the altitude of the UAV 100 [i.e., control different from the flight plan] such that the UAV 100 is within the safe region 118,” also see Fig. 4)
transmit a notification that the control different from the flight plan has been executed to the flight management device. (Oksenhorn ¶ 80 discloses “The flight controller 210 may utilize the calculated adjustment to provide instructions [i.e., a notification] to other components of the UAV control systems 201 to effectuate the adjustment.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the flight plan of Mustafic, of the combination of Mustafic and Mercep, with expressly disclosing executing a control different from the flight plan in a case where it is determined that the flight plan is not allowed to be executed, as disclosed by Oksenhorn, with reasonable expectation of success, to increase safety and account for unexpected movement by a particular UAV (Oksenhorn ¶ 50), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mustafic et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0247544) in view of Mercep (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0073933) and Oksenhorn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0140123), further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0410666).
Regarding claim 10, Mustafic in combination with Mercep and Oksenhorn discloses the flight management system according to claim 9, wherein:
the processor of the unmanned aircraft is configured to execute the instructions (Mustafic in at least ¶ 182 discloses electronic system 1100 which “can be a part of ... the UAV 105” and includes memory 1150, see Fig. 11) to determine whether the unmanned aircraft allowed to be autonomously controlled according to a situation recognized by the sensor mounted on the unmanned aircraft, in a case where it is determined that the autonomous control is allowed to be executed, execute the autonomous control (Mustafic ¶ 110 discloses “the flight rules may be indicative of autonomy allowed for the UAV 105 during flight using the flight plan”),
Mustafic in combination with Mercep and Oksenhorn does not expressly disclose:
in a case where it is determined that the autonomous control is not allowed to be executed, execute emergency landing control, and
transmit a notification that the emergency landing control has been executed to the flight management device.
However, Park discloses:
in a case where it is determined that the autonomous control is not allowed to be executed, execute emergency landing control, and (Park ¶¶ 295-296 discloses “perform an emergency landing procedure if [propulsion force] offset is not possible,” while the vehicle is performing a mission, wherein the aerial vehicle is in “autonomous flight,” see at least ¶ 62. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that performing an emergency landing when an offset is not possible indicates that the autonomous flight under normal operation is not possible (i.e., allowed), and to execute an emergency landing procedure.)
transmit a notification that the emergency landing control has been executed to the flight management device. (Park ¶ 174 discloses “When the PSU 102 identifies that the off-nominal operation according to the first case has occurred in the PIC/UAM aerial vehicle 152, the PSU 102 distributes ... information (event type) notifying a type of off-nominal situations, etc.) notifying that an off-nominal operation status has occurred in the PIC/UAM aerial vehicle 152,” which includes a “forced landing,” see ¶ 176. Also see ¶ 178.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the UAV control disclosed by Mustafic, from the combination of Mustafic, Mercep, and Oksenhorn, with executing emergency landing control in a case where it is determined that the autonomous control is not allowed to be executed, as disclosed by Park, with reasonable expectation of success, to avoid collision damage (Park ¶ 179), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0166572) discloses a method for predicting and avoiding collisions and conflicts between multiple moving bodies.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights