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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the two-dimensional live forecast data" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 of determining weather-based risks for UAV flight paths (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 system, comprising:
a data reception component configured to receive two-dimensional (2D) weather data for a geographic location;
a block component configured to determine one or more risk factors for three-dimensional (3D) blocks of space associated with the geographic location; and
an action component configured to perform an action associated with the 3D blocks of space.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers an activity of the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of the claim comprises an analysis of geographic data recited at a high level of generality.
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 system, comprising:
a data reception component configured to receive two-dimensional (2D) weather data for a geographic location;
a block component configured to determine one or more risk factors for three-dimensional (3D) blocks of space associated with the geographic location; and
an action component configured to perform an action associated with the 3D blocks of space.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations to not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a data reception component…” the examiner submits that this amounts to mere data gathering. Regarding the additional limitation of “an action component…” the examiner submits that this amounts to taking some action in response to the block analysis, but is recited at a high level of generality which may comprise merely transmitting the result of the analysis, which is considered 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. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “a data reception component…” amounts to mere data gathering, while the additional limitation of “an action component is recited at a high level of generality which may comprise merely transmitting the result of the analysis, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Claim 2-6 describe how the 3D blocks may be generated. Claims 7-9 describe generating routing information based on the resulting risk analysis. Claim 10 merely includes displaying the resulting analysis, and claim 11 gives additional detail regarding the risk factors.
Claim 12 is a method for operating a system comparable to that of claim 7, described even more broadly. Claims 13-14 are comparable to claims 8-9. Claim 15 is comparable to claim 2. Claim 16 merely specifies that the information used for the risk determination covers multiple 3D blocks of space.
Claim 17 is not rejected under 35 USC §101 because it recites “causing an aircraft to travel through the selected route.” Reciting positive control comprises a practical application of the mental process.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US 20240046804 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches: A system, comprising:
a data reception component configured to receive two-dimensional (2D) weather data for a geographic location; (See Robinson [0015] for wind measurements that may be real or simulated, see [0034] for simulation based on forecast weather conditions)
a block component configured to determine one or more risk factors for three-dimensional (3D) blocks of space associated with the geographic location; and (See Robinson [0015]-[0016] and throughout for calculation of wind hazards. See [0022], [0027], [0035] and throughout for division of map into 3D grid cells for analysis.)
an action component configured to perform an action associated with the 3D blocks of space. (See Robinson [0037] for route finding, comparable to the example of action given in claim 7.)
Regarding claim 2, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the block component generates the 3D blocks of space by:
applying a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to the 2D weather data to determine a 3D flow at the geographic location; and
generating the 3D block based on the determined 3D flow at the geographic location. (See Robinson [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid)
Regarding claim 3, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the 2D weather data for the geographic location includes multiple 2D data points representing a live forecast at the geographic location. (See [0037] for capture of real-time measurements by different sources for analysis)
Regarding claim 4, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the 3D blocks of space include at least one 3D block having a geometrical shape of space positioned within the geographic location. (See Robinson [0035] for segmentation of geography into 3D blocks which may be cubes.)
Regarding claim 6, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 4, wherein the geometrical shape of space is defined by a specific shape and a size metric for the specific shape. (See Robinson [0035] for segmentation of geography into 3D blocks which may be 3 meter cubes.)
Regarding claim 7, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the action component performs an aircraft routing operation based on the determined one or more risk factors for the 3D blocks of space. (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on shortest route modified by avoiding cells that exceed a specific weather hazard levels or probabilities.)
Regarding claim 8, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the aircraft routing operation modifies routes of one or more aircraft to pass through the 3D blocks of space when the one or more risk factors include low risk scores for the 3D blocks of space. (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on lowest severity or average severity based on the combined Sharp and Shake datasets.)
Regarding claim 9, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 7, wherein the aircraft routing operation modifies routes of one or more aircraft to avoid the 3D blocks of space when the one or more risk factors include high risk scores for the 3D blocks of space. (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on shortest route modified by avoiding cells that exceed a specific weather hazard levels or probabilities.)
Regarding claim 10, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the action component performs a mapping operation to present a visual representation of the 3D blocks of space and the determined one or more risk factors for the geographic location. (See Robinson Figs. 6-8 for visual representation of wind hazards)
Regarding claim 11, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more risk factors include risk scores for weather predicted within the 3D blocks of space during a defined flight window. (See Robinson [0034] for determining state of the fluid at a future time and forecasting future conditions. See [0036] for output of data over a given period of time)
Regarding claim 12, Robinson teaches: A method, comprising:
accessing information identifying one or more three-dimensional (3D) blocks of space at a geographic location; (See Robinson [0015] for wind measurements that may be real or simulated. See [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid. See [0037] for capture of real-time measurements by different sources for analysis)
determining a risk factor for the geographic location based on the accessed information; and (See Robinson [0015]-[0016] and throughout for calculation of wind hazards. See [0022], [0027], [0035] and throughout for division of map into 3D grid cells for analysis.)
performing a routing operation for aircraft traveling through the geographic location based on the determined risk factor. (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on shortest route modified by avoiding cells that exceed a specific weather hazard levels or probabilities.)
Regarding claim 13, Robinson teaches: The method of claim 12, wherein the routing operation includes routing the aircraft through the 3D blocks of space when the determined risk factor is below a threshold risk factor associated with adverse weather at the geographic location. (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on lowest severity or average severity based on the combined Sharp and Shake datasets.)
Regarding claim 14, Robinson teaches: The method of claim 12, wherein the routing operation includes routing the aircraft away from the 3D blocks of space when the determined risk factor meets or is above a threshold risk factor associated with adverse weather at the geographic location. (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on shortest route modified by avoiding cells that exceed a specific weather hazard levels or probabilities.)
Regarding claim 15, Robinson teaches: The method of claim 12, wherein the one or more 3D blocks space are generated by:
applying a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to the two-dimensional live forecast data to determine a 3D flow at the geographic location; and
generating the 3D blocks of space based on the determined 3D flow at the geographic location. (See Robinson [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid)
Regarding claim 16, Robinson teaches: The method of claim 12, wherein the accessed information identifies multiple 3D blocks of space; and wherein the risk factor includes a risk factor for each of the multiple 3D blocks of space. (See Robinson [0015] for wind measurements that may be real or simulated. See [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid. See [0037] for capture of real-time measurements by different sources for analysis)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 20240046804 A1) in view of Paglieroni et al. (US 20200117220 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches: The system of claim 4,
Robinson does not explicitly teach: wherein the geometrical shape of space is defined by a 3D point of origin and a size metric.
However, Paglieroni teaches a 3D grid-based method of UAV path planning (See Fig. 2, abstract and throughout) which includes control of the vehicle in flight wherein the 3D blocks are defined by their origin and dimensions (See Paglieroni Fig. 2 and [0029] for voxels defined by position, see [0025] for voxels being cubes of width A)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Robinson to define its grid blocks by their center point in order to allow for more efficient path finding, as taught in Paglieroni.
Regarding claim 17, Robinson teaches: A non-transitory, computer-readable medium whose contents, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a method, the method comprising:
segmenting a geographic location into multiple discrete blocks of space within the geographic location; (See Robinson [0015] for wind measurements that may be real or simulated. See [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid. See [0037] for capture of real-time measurements by different sources for analysis)
determining an open flight window duration for each block of the multiple discrete blocks of space; (While Robinson does not explicitly teach a “flight window,” [0051] teaches “data sets… used by planning personnel to evaluate wind hazards for specific times of day…” which the Examiner considers comparable or clearly implying evaluating what time during a day would be ideal or at least acceptable for a given flight)
selecting a route through the geographic location that includes a contiguous path of blocks within the geographic location based on the determined open flight window durations; and (See Robinson Fig. 8 and [0049] for flight path based on shortest route modified by avoiding cells that exceed a specific weather hazard levels or probabilities.)
Robinson does not explicitly teach:
causing an aircraft to travel through the selected route.
However, Paglieroni teaches a 3D grid-based method of UAV path planning (See Fig. 2, abstract and throughout) which includes control of the vehicle in flight (See Fig. 1, [0017], [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the flight path determination system of Robinson to include control of the flying vehicle, as taught in Paglieroni, in order to integrate these related functions into a single system.
Regarding claim 18, modified Robinson teaches: The computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein determining an open flight window duration for each block of the multiple discrete blocks of space includes:
receiving two-dimensional (2D) weather data for the geographic location; and
determining one or more risk factors for each block of the multiple discrete blocks of space. (See Robinson [0015] for wind measurements that may be real or simulated. See [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid. See [0037] for capture of real-time measurements by different sources for analysis)
Regarding claim 19, modified Robinson teaches: The computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the blocks of space are three-dimensional blocks of space that represent a 3D flow through the geographic location that is determined by applying a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to the 2D weather data at the geographic location. (See Robinson [0034]-[0035] for fluid dynamics and thermodynamics equations for analysis and forecasting of wind flow within the 3D environment grid)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 20240046804 A1) in view of Paglieroni et al. (US 20200117220 A1) and Hendrian et al. (US 20190147753 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Robinson in view of Paglieroni teaches: The computer readable medium of claim 17,
Robinson in view of Paglieroni does not explicitly teach: wherein a size or quantity of the multiple discrete blocks of space within the geographic location is based on one or more factors associated with routing aircraft through the geographic location, including:
an overall time window for routing aircraft through the geographic location;
a type of aircraft to be routed through the geographic location;
a quantity of aircraft to be routed through the geographic location; or
a weather forecast for the geographic location.
While Robinson and Paglieroni teach systems with arbitrary grid sizes, they do not explicitly teach specific factors used to determine the size of the grid.
However, Hendrian teaches a method of flight planning based on wind conditions (See abstract) using grid-based wind data (See Figs 6-8 and [0084]-[0089]) which teaches fine or course resolution wind data and describes fine-resolution data as more valuable for smaller UAVs (See [0119]-[0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Robinson in view of Paglieroni to incorporate the size of the flying vehicle into the determination of voxel size, as taught by Hendrian.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661