Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed of Korean Application No. 10-2024-0001720, filed on 01/04/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2024 and 04/10/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arteaga (US Patent 10,302,759).
Regarding claim 1, Arteaga discloses An apparatus for controlling an air mobility, the apparatus comprising:
an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) device mounted on a first air mobility and configured to receive first surveillance information of the first air mobility and second surveillance information of a second air mobility [Arteaga, Col. 4 lines 5-14 "The invention is especially suited (and is herein described) in the unmanned context in which a UAS is capable of telemetering the position of the “ownship” in addition to the location of surrounding aircraft, as well as FAA and other data, to a ground control station (GCS) in real time. At the UAS, the ADS-B system uses a Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) to receive air-to-air ADS-B In messages direct from aircraft nearby, as well as ADS-R and TIS-B messages from ground based transceivers."];
a sensor device mounted on the first air mobility and configured to obtain sensor information for searching for the second air mobility [Arteaga, Col. 6 lines 46-47 "a multi-channel sense-and-avoid miniature radar device 16 with radar antenna(s) 19,"];
one or more processors [Arteaga, Col. 8 lines 50-51 "ASAP 45 may be one or more commercially available multi-purpose processor(s) (MPPs)"]; and
a storage device storing a program to be executed by the one or more processors, the program including instructions to [Arteaga, Claim 1 “ ground control station (GCS) comprising a digital computer programmed with control software stored on non-transitory computer memory”]:
determine a risk zone on a first flight path of the first air mobility based on the first surveillance information [Arteaga, Col 15 lines 33-37 "The UAT 3 transmits ADS-B out ownship messages, followed by ADS-B In traffic message reports, then radar target data, allowing GCS 1 and/or ASAP 45 to establish the above-described risk-collisions volumes with other surrounding priority aircraft (as per FIG. 3)."];
determine whether the second air mobility is an avoidance target located in the risk zone based on the second surveillance information or the sensor information [Arteaga, Col. 15 lines 57-67 - Col 16 lines 1-2 " and Figure 10 steps 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50] ; and
perform an avoidance flight of the first air mobility in response to a determination that the second air mobility is the avoidance target [Arteaga, Col 16 lines 5-33 " At step 70, GCS 1 the UAS operater manually flys or the ASAP 45 sends the Stratway command (resolution advisory) to the autopilot 80 to execute the maneuver."].
Regarding claim 2, Arteaga discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the program further includes instructions to:
predict a second flight path of the second air mobility based on the second surveillance information or the sensor information [Arteaga, Col 18 lines 63-65 "At step 20, GCS 1 and/or ASAP 45 tracks or estimates the position and velocity (state) of intruders based on one or more surveillance reports. "]; and
determine the second air mobility as the avoidance target based on a determination that the second flight path overlaps the risk zone [Arteaga, Col 19 lines 11-24 "At step 30, GCS 1 and/or ASAP 45 evaluates collision potential by looping through all targets and evaluating based on the foregoing parameters: Predicted Nominal Trajectories (30.60, 90 secs) Position Threat Level GPS Accuracy & Integrity Parameters: NACp, NIC, and SIL; and Other ADS-B state variables. Then, an assessment is made of the collision risk based on the collision volumes of FIG. 9 and ownship states. The assessment of step 30 becomes the basis for an automated decision in step 40."].
Regarding claim 3, Arteaga discloses The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the program further includes instructions to:
provide the first flight path and the second flight path to a control center [Arteaga, Col 18 lines 56 “GCS 1” Ground control station]; and
request modification of the first flight path based on the determination that the second flight path obtained based on the second surveillance information overlaps the risk zone [Arteaga, Col 18 lines 56-57 " At step 10, GCS 1 and/or ASAP 45 detects and tracks nearby aircraft from the ADS-B position reports." and Col 19 lines 56-61 "If the latter, the GCS 1 will communicate commanded Resolution Advisory Maneuver for changing the direction, altitude, and speed of travel. The Resolution Advisory Maneuver (see path 91 in FIG. 17) is sent by visual and vocal alerts that direct the pilot to increase separation." and Figure 16].
Regarding claim 4, Arteaga discloses The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the program further includes instructions to modify the first flight path to avoid the second flight path based on the determination that the second flight path obtained based on the sensor information overlaps the risk zone [Arteaga, Col 15 lines 44-49 "If the ASAP 45 determines a near mid-air alert (per FIG. 9, less than 400 feet vertical separation or less than 1.0 NM horizontal separation), the radar is prioritized over ADS-B for the detection and tracking within this emergency collision avoidance threshold volume. " and Col 16 lines 5-28 "Stratway is capable of comparing other flight plans, detecting conflicts, and generating a modified four-dimensional (latitude, longitude, altitude, and time) flight plan to ensure a conflict-free trajectory"].
Regarding claims 11-14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1-4. The method taught/disclosed in claims 11-14 can clearly perform on the system of claims 1-4. Therefore, claims 11-14 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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 5-7, 9-10, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arteaga in view of Dawson-Townsend (US PGPub 2021/0295722).
Regarding claim 5, Arteaga teaches claim 1, Arteaga does not teach wherein the program further includes instructions to search for the second air mobility based on the sensor information in response to the second air mobility not being discovered based on the second surveillance information.
However, in a related field of invention, Dawson-Townsend does teach wherein the program further includes instructions to search for the second air mobility based on the sensor information in response to the second air mobility not being discovered based on the second surveillance information [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0007 "These UAVs may also be operating in different types of airspace. The same type of sense and avoid sensing and response may not be appropriate for different types of airspace. For instance, in high-altitude airspace under radar surveillance, non-cooperative obstacles are less likely, while at lower altitudes these targets may be the highest risk. Therefore, the disclosed sense and avoid system adapts the fusion (e.g., blends) of sensors depending on the altitude, geographic area, and/or airspace in which the vehicle is navigating."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast system with radar to define risk collision volumes as taught by Arteaga with using sensor fusion as taught by Dawson-Townsend in order to increase safety for aerial vehicles [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0044].
Regarding claim 6, Arteaga and Dawson-Townsend teach claim 5. Dawson-Townend further teaches wherein the program further includes instructions to monitor a radar reflected wave of the sensor device in response to the second air mobility not being discovered based on the second surveillance information [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0007 "These UAVs may also be operating in different types of airspace. The same type of sense and avoid sensing and response may not be appropriate for different types of airspace. For instance, in high-altitude airspace under radar surveillance, non-cooperative obstacles are less likely, while at lower altitudes these targets may be the highest risk. Therefore, the disclosed sense and avoid system adapts the fusion (e.g., blends) of sensors depending on the altitude, geographic area, and/or airspace in which the vehicle is navigating."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast system with radar to define risk collision volumes as taught by Arteaga with using sensor fusion as taught by Dawson-Townsend in order to increase safety for aerial vehicles [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0044].
Regarding claim 7, Arteaga and Dawson-Townsend teach claim 6. Dawson-Townend further teaches wherein the program further includes instructions to obtain an image by using a camera of the sensor device in response to the second air mobility not being discovered based on the radar reflected wave [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0007 "These UAVs may also be operating in different types of airspace. The same type of sense and avoid sensing and response may not be appropriate for different types of airspace. For instance, in high-altitude airspace under radar surveillance, non-cooperative obstacles are less likely, while at lower altitudes these targets may be the highest risk. Therefore, the disclosed sense and avoid system adapts the fusion (e.g., blends) of sensors depending on the altitude, geographic area, and/or airspace in which the vehicle is navigating."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast system with radar to define risk collision volumes as taught by Arteaga with using sensor fusion as taught by Dawson-Townsend in order to increase safety for aerial vehicles [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0044].
Regarding claim 9, Arteaga teach claim 1. Arteaga does not teach wherein the program further includes instructions to: search a table storing an avoidance scheme according to whether the second surveillance information is identified and whether the sensor information is identified and perform the avoidance flight of the first air mobility.
However, in a related field of invention, Dawson-Townend does teach teaches wherein the program further includes instructions to:
search a table storing an avoidance scheme according to whether the second surveillance information is identified and whether the sensor information is identified [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0057 " There may be multiple areas of fusion, such as weighting of the different sensors for refining obstacle position relative to the host aircraft, and any assigning priority for alerting or avoidance maneuvers. For instance, depending on current location (airspace type), an obstacle detection radar might be given a higher priority for obstacle detection, while visual sensors neglected. In another example, when operating inside an airport terminal area, cooperative sensors (e.g., ADS-B data) could be given a highest priority for weighting, with less priority on visual sensors."]; and
perform the avoidance flight of the first air mobility [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0058 "Using the ASA system 200, the aircraft 100 may perform automatic obstacle avoidance maneuvers to account for local terrain conditions, which can avoid potential collisions with terrain while avoiding obstacles."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast system with radar to define risk collision volumes as taught by Arteaga with using sensor fusion as taught by Dawson-Townsend in order to increase safety for aerial vehicles [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0044].
Regarding claim 10, Arteaga and Dawson-Townsend teach claim 9. Dawson-Townend further teaches wherein the table stores priorities for using the second surveillance information and the sensor information according to whether the second surveillance information is identified and whether the sensor information is identified [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0057 " There may be multiple areas of fusion, such as weighting of the different sensors for refining obstacle position relative to the host aircraft, and any assigning priority for alerting or avoidance maneuvers. For instance, depending on current location (airspace type), an obstacle detection radar might be given a higher priority for obstacle detection, while visual sensors neglected. In another example, when operating inside an airport terminal area, cooperative sensors (e.g., ADS-B data) could be given a highest priority for weighting, with less priority on visual sensors."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast system with radar to define risk collision volumes as taught by Arteaga with using sensor fusion as taught by Dawson-Townsend in order to increase safety for aerial vehicles [Dawson-Townsend ¶ 0044].
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19-20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 5-7 and 9-10. The method taught/disclosed in claims 15-17 and 19-20 can clearly perform on the system of claims 5-7 and 9-10. Therefore, claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arteaga in view of Dawson-Townsend and in further view of Smith (US PGPub 2023/0243965).
Regarding claim 8, Arteaga and Dawson-Townsend teach claim 7. Arteaga and Dawson-Townsend do not teach wherein the program further includes instructions to control the camera to point toward the second air mobility in a case in which the second air mobility is discovered based on the radar reflected wave.
However, in a related field of invention, Smith does teach wherein the program further includes instructions to control the camera to point toward the second air mobility in a case in which the second air mobility is discovered based on the radar reflected wave [Smith ¶ 0046 "The RADAR system, which may be part of the sensor, detects that the target 501 is in the RADAR system's field of view. An optical camera, which may be part of the sensor, captures a camera image 504 while the RADAR system indicates the target 501 may be in the camera's field of view."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast system with radar and camera as taught by Arteaga and Dawson-Townsend with guiding the camera based on the radar as taught by Smith in order to more accurately and efficiently capture potential threats.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 8. The method taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform on the system of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666