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 .
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 7 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. More specifically, the phrase “continues measurement in the area by replacing the flight vehicle staying in the area” is unclear as to what is being replaced and how is it replaced i.e. manually once UAV lands or in the air.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A control device that controls a flight path of a flight vehicle that flies in a predetermined area to perform measurement, the control device comprising: a collection unit, including one or more processors, configured to collect wind conditions in the area; and a planning unit, including one or more processors, configured to that plan, based on the wind conditions, a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area from windward or leeward and flies directly against the wind in the area.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “planning” step encompasses a user/pilot watching the screen or the interface and making observation, evaluation or judgement about the path the vehicle should take based on wind conditions”. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A control device that controls a flight path of a flight vehicle that flies in a predetermined area to perform measurement, the control device comprising: a collection unit, including one or more processors, configured to collect wind conditions in the area; and a planning unit, including one or more processors, configured to that plan, based on the wind conditions, a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area from windward or leeward and flies directly against the wind in the area.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “collect wind condition” the examiner submits that these limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore., the limitation “processor, planning and collection unit” is also recited at a high level of generality. In addition, the additional elements in claim 1, “first receiver”, “processor”, “transmitter” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of determining the type of attack. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. More specifically, the limitations of collecting, planning..,.. are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the determining steps in the dependent claims constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Independent claims 7 and 8 are also rejected using the same reasons and rationale used to reject claim 1. In addition, the additional elements in claim 1, replacing.., the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. The replacement flight vehicle is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception 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 exception.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim]. Therefore, claim(s) 1-8 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (20200108931) in view IZU (JP2019127155A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a control device that controls a flight path of a flight vehicle that flies in a predetermined area (¶0008, “an information processing device for controlling a flight of an aircraft”, ¶0052, “The UAV 100 may move along a predetermined flight path,”) to perform measurement (¶0116, “the controller 110 may obtain the wind information such as the current wind speed and wind direction from other measurement devices”), the control device comprising:
a collection unit, including one or more processors, configured to collect wind conditions in the area (¶0116, “the controller 110 may obtain the wind information such as the current wind speed and wind direction from other measurement devices”); and
a planning unit, including one or more processors, configured to plan, based on the wind conditions a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area (¶0077, “The controller 110 may control at least one of an altitude of the UAV 100 during the spread operation, a starting location of the spread operation, an ending location, and a flight path of the spread operation,”, ¶0077, “The controller 110 may estimate a spread region of the spreading object in an operation region of the spread operation based on latitude, longitude, and altitude of the location of the UAV 100… wind speed information and the wind direction information of the UAV”),
Zhou does not explicitly disclose but, IZU teaches a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area from windward or leeward and flies directly against the wind in the area (¶0015, “In a windless state or when the wind direction is the direction indicated by the arrow Xl, the unmanned aircraft 1 deploys the kite section 30 by flying the nose 31 of the kite section 30 in a direction (the direction indicated by the arrow X2) opposite to the direction indicated by the arrow XI”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle enters based on the wind direction taught in IZU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing maneuverability of the UAV by operating at operational levels that in order to mitigate drift.
Regarding claim 2, IZU further teaches wherein the planning unit is configured to set a passing point on a windward side of a straight line connecting the flight vehicle and an entry point into the area, and plan a flight path via the passing point (¶0015, ¶0043).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle enters based on the wind direction taught in IZU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing maneuverability of the UAV by operating at operational levels that in order to mitigate drift.
Regarding claim 5, IZU teaches wherein a passing point is set on a windward side of a straight line connecting the flight vehicle and an entry point into the area, and a flight path via the passing point is planned (FIG. 1).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle enters based on the wind direction taught in IZU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing maneuverability of the UAV by operating at operational levels that in order to mitigate drift.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (20200108931) in view IZU (JP2019127155A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Levien (US 20140249692 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou does not explicitly disclose, but Levien teaches wherein the planning unit is configured to plan a flight path in which the flight vehicle flies in a layer with a wind speed close to a minimum safe speed at which the flight vehicle is capable of flying safely without stalling in the area (¶0071, “, a feasible velocity given prevailing winds, a velocity range, a designated permissible velocity level in accordance with a given set of operational parameters currently guiding the UFV, a safe velocity given current weather conditions, a minimum safe velocity to avoid stalls”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle minimum safe speed taught in Levien with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing the stability of the UAV during the wind conditions.
Regarding claim 4, IZU further teaches a control method performed by a computer for controlling a flight path of a flight vehicle that flies in a predetermined area, wherein the control method comprising: a computer collects collecting wind conditions in the area, and plans, planning, based on the wind conditions, a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area from windward or leeward and flies directly against the wind in the area (¶0015, FIG. 1).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle enters based on the wind direction taught in IZU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing maneuverability of the UAV by operating at operational levels that in order to mitigate drift.
Regarding claim 6, Levien teaches wherein a flight path in which the flight vehicle flies in a layer with a wind speed close to a minimum safe speed at which the flight vehicle is capable of flying safely without stalling is planned in the area (¶0071, “, a feasible velocity given prevailing winds, a velocity range, a designated permissible velocity level in accordance with a given set of operational parameters currently guiding the UFV, a safe velocity given current weather conditions, a minimum safe velocity to avoid stalls”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle minimum safe speed taught in Levien with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing the stability of the UAV during the wind conditions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (20200108931) in view IZU (JP2019127155A) and further in view of LIJIANG (JP 202159339 A).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses a measurement system (FIG. 3) comprising:
Flight vehicle configured to fly in a predetermined area to perform measurement (¶0116, “The controller 110 may determine the wind speed and the wind direction in the vicinity of the UAV 100 based on the detection result of the wind speed and wind direction gauge 190, thereby obtaining the current instant wind speed information and the wind direction information, as the wind information. In addition, the controller 110 may obtain the wind information such as the current wind speed and wind direction from other measurement devices”); and
a control device configured to control a flight path of the flight vehicles (¶0134, “ the controller 110 may set the operation region TA of the spread operation, the operation starting location (initial location) PS, the operation ending location (final location) PE, the flight path FR”), wherein the control device includes
a collection unit, including one or more processors, configured to collect wind conditions in the area (¶0116, “the controller 110 may obtain the wind information such as the current wind speed and wind direction from other measurement devices”), and
a planning unit, including one or more processors, configured to plan, based on the wind conditions, a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area (¶0077, “The controller 110 may control at least one of an altitude of the UAV 100 during the spread operation, a starting location of the spread operation, an ending location, and a flight path of the spread operation,”, ¶0077, “The controller 110 may estimate a spread region of the spreading object in an operation region of the spread operation based on latitude, longitude, and altitude of the location of the UAV 100… wind speed information and the wind direction information of the UAV”);
the flight vehicle is configured to fly according to the flight path to perform measurement in the area (¶0064, “measure a reflected wave that is reflected by the ground, an object, etc., to thereby detecting the location of the ground, object, and may output the detection result to the controller 110. The detection result may indicate the distance from the UAV 100 to the ground (i.e., height). In some embodiments, the detection result may also indicate the distance from the UAV 100 to the object. The detection result may indicate a terrain of an operation region where the UAV 100 performs a spread operation”), and
ZHOU does not explicitly disclose but, IZU teaches a flight path in which the flight vehicle enters the area from windward or leeward and flies directly against the wind in the area (¶0015, “In a windless state or when the wind direction is the direction indicated by the arrow Xl, the unmanned aircraft 1 deploys the kite section 30 by flying the nose 31 of the kite section 30 in a direction (the direction indicated by the arrow X2) opposite to the direction indicated by the arrow XI”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle enters based on the wind direction taught in IZU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing maneuverability of the UAV by operating at operational levels that in order to mitigate drift.
ZHOU does not explicitly disclose but, LIJIANG teaches flighting vehicles (¶0001, “plurality of flying objects”), the planning unit is configured to plan a flight path in which the flight vehicle continues measurement in the area by replacing the flight vehicle staying in the area (¶0027, “the first rotorcraft 10 can be replaced with another first rotorcraft”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control of the UAV in Zhou with the vehicle minimum safe speed taught in Levien with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhancing the stability of the UAV during the wind conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ulrich (US 20170043867 A1) discloses A spin stabilized aircraft may include a plurality of wings that passively spin stabilize the aircraft, causing the apparatus to move in a direction opposite that of a wind source. The aircraft may also include two or more propulsive arms that actively stabilize the aircraft in absence of wind or a decrease in altitude (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667