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 § 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 method for dividing a corridor of UAM (urban air mobility) into a plurality of regions by a corridor dividing device, the method comprising:
acquiring information on a flight operation area of the UAM (urban air mobility); and
dividing a corridor defined in the flight operation area into a plurality of regions based on the information on the flight operation area, wherein the information on the flight operation area includes at least one of information on a region of interest in the flight operation area and information on an event which occurs in the flight operation 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 “dividing” step encompasses a user, based on the information acquired on the operation flight, divides the flight path into regions. For example, using pen and a paper, the user can draw regions that are considered no-go zones or restricted zones. 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 method for dividing a corridor of UAM (urban air mobility) into a plurality of regions by a corridor dividing device, the method comprising:
acquiring information on a flight operation area of the UAM (urban air mobility); and
dividing a corridor defined in the flight operation area into a plurality of regions based on the information on the flight operation area, wherein the information on the flight operation area includes at least one of information on a region of interest in the flight operation area and information on an event which occurs in the flight operation 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.
The claim recites additional elements or step of acquiring … The acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and environment condition data for use in the dividing step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative 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, the additional element of “by a first (second and third) GPS)” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similar rejection as to claims 12 and 13. Furthermore, regarding the additional limitations of “transceiver”, “memory”, “processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the dividing step, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor/transceiver are 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. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer.
Dependent claims 2-11, 14-19 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claims 1-19 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, 3, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (20160373892) in view of Kingston (US 20220366794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gotoh discloses a method for dividing a corridor into a plurality of regions by a corridor dividing device (¶0021, “The system 100 is operable to divide the geographic space into a plurality of regions”), the method comprising:
acquiring information on a flight operation area (¶0024, “The system 100 acquires the positions of a moving object 10 from the moving object 10, and the subsystem 200 managing the region that includes the acquired position of the moving object 10 within the map area may manage the movement of this moving object 10”); and
dividing a corridor defined in the flight operation area into a plurality of regions ¶0021, “The system 100 is operable to divide the geographic space into a plurality of regions”), based on the information on the flight operation area (FIG. 2, “Acquiring section 110”, “dividing section 130”, ¶0031, “ The dividing section 130 may be operable to communicate with the acquiring section 110 and divide the map area into a plurality of regions.”), wherein the information on the flight operation area includes at least one of information on a region of interest in the flight operation area and information on an event which occurs in the flight operation area (¶0037, “The receiving section 150 may receive position information of the moving objects 10 and event information observed by the moving objects 10.”, ¶0050, “ The dividing section may divide the map area such that each of the first regions covers an intersection point of the borders of at least two second regions and/or each of the second regions covers an intersection point of the borders of at least two first regions”).
Gotoh does not explicitly disclose but, Kingston teaches UAM (urban air mobility) (abstract, “automated flight management of urban air mobility vehicles… determining whether the ground control system is connected to an UAM vehicle… automatically and remotely controlling the UAM vehicle using localized temporal data including the data”)
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the UAM flight management taught in Kingston with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an efficient use of payload capacity and energy consumption.
Regarding claim 2, Gotoh discloses wherein the dividing of the corridor into the plurality of regions includes: deciding whether each of a first region and a second region among the plurality of regions corresponds to the region of interest based on the information on the region of interest, and determining a first size of the first region corresponding to the region of interest and a second size of a second region not corresponding to the region of interest so that the first size is smaller than the second size (¶0050, “the dividing section may divide the map area such that each of the first regions covers an intersection point of the borders of at least two second regions and/or each of the second regions covers an intersection point of the borders of at least two first regions. The dividing section may divide the map region such that the size and shape of each of the first regions and each of the second regions”¶0089, “the size of each of the second regions may be larger than the size of each of the first regions”).
Regarding claim 3, Gotoh discloses wherein the dividing of the corridor into the plurality of regions includes: deciding whether an event occurs in each of the first region and the second region among the plurality of regions based on the information on the event, and determining a first size of the first region where the event occurs and a second size of a second region where the event does not occur so that the first size is smaller than the second size (¶0089, “instead of the first subsystems managing small regions, the second subsystems managing large regions may manage broad tasks, thereby enabling handling events occurring across the plurality of small regions and improving efficiency of the event management.”).
Regarding claim 11, Gotoh discloses dividing, when the information on the flight operation area is changed, the corridor into the plurality of regions again based on the changed information on the flight operation area (¶0083).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, claims 12 and 13 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Claims 4, 5, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (20160373892) in view of Kingston (US 20220366794 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of SEKIYAMA (20200241573).
Regarding claim 4, Gotoh does not explicitly disclose but, SEKIYAMA teaches wherein the dividing of the corridor into the plurality of regions includes: deciding whether each of a first region and a second region among the plurality of regions corresponds to the region of interest based on the information on the region of interest, deciding whether the event occurs in each of the first region and the second region based on the information on the event, and determining a location of and a size of each of the first region and the second region so that the first region corresponding to the region of interest or where the event occurs further overlaps with an adjacent region than the second region not corresponding to the region of interest and where the event does not occur (abstract, “manage a plurality of regions that the virtual space is divided into, the plurality of divided regions each having a predetermined three-dimensional shape, place the object in the virtual space, set a region that overlaps the object among the plurality of divided regions as a no-go zone where the moving body is not allowed to pass, and set a region that does not overlap the object among the plurality of divided regions as an available zone where the moving body is allowed to move.”).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the different regions taught in SEKIYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in stability of the system in case of a failure or multiple failures.
Regarding claim 5, SEKIYAMA further teaches wherein the dividing of the corridor into the plurality of regions includes: determining a start point and an end point of each of the plurality of regions so that the plurality of respective regions do not overlap with each other when the plurality of regions are formed in a form of a rectangular parallelepiped (¶0063, and FIG. 9 shows start point and end point as well as the rectangular shape. Furthermore, ¶0100 “The three-dimensional shape that divides the virtual space 20 is not limited to the cubic block 25, and may be another three-dimensional shape. For example, the virtual space 20 may be divided by a rectangular parallelepiped or a triangular pyramid.”).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the different regions taught in SEKIYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in stability of the system in case of a failure or multiple failures.
Regarding claim 15, SEKIYAMA teaches wherein the dividing of the corridor into the plurality of regions includes: identifying of a type of the corridor, and determining locations and sizes of the plurality of regions (abstract).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the different regions taught in SEKIYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in stability of the system in case of a failure or multiple failures.
Regarding claim 16, SEKIYAMA teaches wherein the determining of the locations and sizes of the plurality of regions, when the identified type of the corridor is a tube, and the plurality of regions are formed in the form of the rectangular parallelepiped, a start points and an end points of the plurality of regions are determined so that an upper surface of a region located at an upper portion and an outer surface of the corridor are in contact with each other, and a lower surface of a region located at a lower portion and the outer surface of the corridor are in contact with each other so that the plurality of regions do not overlap with an adjacent region while including a part of the corridor (abstract).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the different regions taught in SEKIYAMA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in stability of the system in case of a failure or multiple failures.
Claims 6, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (20160373892) in view of Kingston (US 20220366794 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jones (US 20180324546 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gotoh does not explicitly disclose but, Jones teaches wherein each of the plurality of regions is expressed by an identifier, a center point, and a radius when the plurality of regions are formed in a form of a sphere (FIG. 3).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the identifier, center point, etc… of the regions taught in Jones with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a desired demographic with high cost efficiency and flexibility.
Regarding claim 18, Jones teaches wherein the determining of the locations and sizes of the plurality of regions, when the identified type of the corridor is the tube, and the plurality of regions are formed in the form of the sphere, center points and radii of the plurality of regions are determined so that one surface of each of a plurality of regions is in contact with an inner surface of the corridor so that the plurality of regions overlap with the adjacent region without deviating from the corridor (FIG. 10A, 10B, FIG. 10C, FIG. 11A, FIG. 11B).
Regarding claim 19, Jones teaches wherein the determining of the locations and sizes of the plurality of regions, when the identified type of the corridor is a layer, and each of the plurality of regions is formed in the form of the sphere, center points and radii of the plurality of regions are determined so that the corridor meets the center points of the plurality of respective regions formed parallel to each other in line so that the plurality of regions of each layer are formed in line to be parallel to the extension direction of the corridor, and do not overlap with an adjacent region while including a part of the corridor (FIG. 10A, 10B, FIG. 10C, FIG. 11A, FIG. 11B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (20160373892) in view of Kingston (US 20220366794 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nishita (US 20220307833 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Gotoh does not explicitly disclose but, Nishita teaches wherein each of the plurality of regions is expressed by an identifier, a start point corresponding to any one vertex of the rectangular parallelepiped, and an end point corresponding to a vertex located in a diagonal direction of the start point when the plurality of regions are formed in the form of the rectangular parallelepiped (¶0146, ¶0170).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the identifier, center point, etc… of the regions taught in Nishita with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a desired demographic with high cost efficiency and flexibility.
Claims 8, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (20160373892) in view of Kingston (US 20220366794 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Venkatraman (US 20180061251 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gotoh does not explicitly disclose but, Venkatraman teaches wherein the region of interest is determined based on at least one of presence or absence of a vertiport, presence or absence of a high-rise building, whether a region to be the region of interest is a dense residential area, and a migratory bird movement path (¶0033).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the obstacles such as buildings taught in Venkatraman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a desired demographic with high cost efficiency and flexibility.
Regarding claim 9, Venkatraman teaches wherein the information on the event is determined based on at least one of a fire in a high-rise building, presence or absence of another aircraft, and whether a migratory bird moves (¶0033).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the obstacles such as buildings taught in Venkatraman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a desired demographic with high cost efficiency and flexibility.
Regarding claim 17, Venkatraman teaches wherein the determining of the locations and sizes of the plurality of regions, when the identified type of the corridor is a layer, and each of the plurality of regions is formed in the form of the rectangular parallelepiped, a start points and an end points of the plurality of regions are determined so that the corridor meets center points of a plurality of respective regions formed parallel to each other in line so that the plurality of regions of each layer are formed in line to be parallel to an extension direction of the corridor, and do not overlap with an adjacent region while including a part of the corridor (¶0071, ¶0058, FIG. 3, and FIG. 4).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with the obstacles such as buildings taught in Venkatraman with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted a desired demographic with high cost efficiency and flexibility.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotoh (20160373892) in view of Kingston (US 20220366794 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of SABIRIN (JP2016071534A).
Regarding claim 10, Gotoh does not explicitly disclose but, SABIRIN teaches allocating an object to any one of the plurality of regions based on the location of the object in the flight operation area; and defining the object by a time of confirming the object, an identifier of the any one allocated region, a location vector of the object, and a size of the object (¶0020).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with allocating an object… based on the flight operation taught in SABIRIN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted correctly tracking an object regardless of the presence or absence of an occlusion, while respecting the privacy of an object.
Regarding claim 14, SABIRIN teaches allocating an object to any one of the plurality of regions based on a location of the object in the flight operation area; and defining the object by an identifier of the any one allocated region (¶0033).
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 MANAGEMENT OF MOVING OBJECTS disclosed in Gotoh with allocating an object… based on the flight operation taught in SABIRIN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted correctly tracking an object regardless of the presence or absence of an occlusion, while respecting the privacy of an object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saha (US 20220353697 A1) discloses Methods, computer program products, and systems can include, for example: receiving a plurality of signal instances of a signal emitted by a transmitter, wherein respective signal instances of the plurality of signal instances are collected at different positions. There is also set forth herein receiving by a movable receiver moving within a first location a plurality of signal instances of a signal emitted by a transmitter, wherein signal instances defining the plurality of signal instances are collected by the moveable receiver at different respective receiver positions within the first location. There is also set forth herein discovering a direction of arrival parameter value that specifies a direction of arrival of the signal emitted by the transmitter, wherein the discovering includes using a set of signal instances from the plurality of signal instances (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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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 3664