DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's application filed October 21, 2024. Claims 2-3 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claim 1 was cancelled.
Continuation Application
4. This application is a continuation application of U.S. Application 17/448,557, filed 09/23/2021, now U.S. Patent # 12,154,441. See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the drawings (FIG. 4) are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels, “the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims and the unlabeled box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,441. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclosed the same subject matter.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and therefore include the same limitation as claim 2 so it is rejected for the same reason.
18/922,041 (Current Application)
Patent No 12,154,441
Claim 2: A method of establishing a sufficiency of a path planner to avoid at least a plurality of obstacles in planning a path of a vehicle from a vehicle location to a destination location, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method of establishing a sufficiency of a path planner to avoid a plurality of obstacles in planning a path of a vehicle from a starting location to a destination location, the method comprising:
iterating at least until the path planner generates a path from the vehicle location to the destination location that avoids at least the plurality of obstacles: obtaining, from the path planner, a path from the vehicle location to the destination location;
iterating, until a stopping condition of a plurality of predetermined stopping conditions occurs: obtaining, from the path planner, a path from the starting location to the destination location;
representing the path from the vehicle location to the destination location and previously considered paths from the vehicle location to the destination location as a propositional logic formula;
representing the path from the starting location to the destination location as a disjunction of logical terms;
determining a satisfiability condition of the propositional logic formula, wherein the satisfiability condition represents whether the propositional logic formula is satisfiable using a Boolean satisfiability technique;
conjoining the disjunction of terms to a propositional logic formula comprising a conjunction of terms representing previously considered paths from the starting location to the destination location;
And for a positive satisfiability condition, adding at least one corresponding obstacle of the plurality of obstacles to the path planner;
and for a positive satisfiability condition, adding at least one corresponding obstacle of the plurality of obstacles to the path planner;
indicating a sufficiency of the path planner to avoid at least the plurality of obstacles in planning a path from the vehicle location to the destination location;
providing a positive indication of sufficiency of the path planner to avoid the obstacles in planning a path from the starting location to the destination location based on the stopping condition;
and traversing, by the vehicle, a path produced by the path planner.
and traversing, by the vehicle, a path produced by the path planner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sawhill et al, US 2018/0040250, in view of Imeson et al. "A language for robot path planning in discrete environments: The TSP with Boolean satisfiability constraints," 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China, 2014, pp. 5772-5777, hereinafter referred to as Sawhill and Imeson, respectively.
1. (Cancelled)
Regarding claim 2, Sawhill discloses a method of establishing a sufficiency of a path planner to avoid at least a plurality of obstacles in planning a path of a vehicle from a vehicle location to a destination location (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 127, “At the most elementary physical level, the airspace consists of air, aircraft and obstacles, e.g. weather cells, closed airspace, etc. In the enroute airspace aircraft trajectories may enter and exit at any peripheral points on the perimeter of the monitored airspace”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 45, “A) acquiring data describing a plurality of trajectories each representing an aircraft or an obstacle within an airspace, B) recalculating selected of the trajectories at time intervals; C) identifying conflicts between pairs of aircraft trajectories or between an aircraft trajectory and an obstacle trajectory; D) modifying the trajectory one of the pair of aircraft trajectories or the aircraft trajectory in conflict with an obstacle; and E) repeating B) through D) a predetermined number of cycles until no conflicts are identified in C),”), the method comprising:
iterating at least until the path planner generates a path from the vehicle location to the destination location that avoids at least the plurality of obstacles (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 29, “A Dynamical Path is made up of continually changing Paths via the Continuous Replanning process”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 31, “Paths are continuously replanned at each point in Present Time”):
obtaining, from the path planner, a path from the vehicle location to the destination location (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 127, “the entry and exit points for each respective trajectory are initially positioned roughly based on the information known about the respective aircraft at the time of trajectory negotiation or entry into the airspace given its position entry an intended destination”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 171, “With such abstraction of dynamical trajectories and adaptive replanning, comes two time parameters for consideration. The first is the time endemic to the passage of origin-to-destination time within trajectories”);
representing the path from the vehicle location to the destination location and previously considered paths from the vehicle location to the destination location as a propositional logic formula (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 204, “during the re-calculation process itself, an additional state is required to coordinate the gradual deformation of the trajectories over many deformation cycles”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 205, “The purpose of deformation cycles is to iteratively calculate the underlying dynamics required to 'glide' or translate the trajectories into new positions in the airspace”);
determining a satisfiability condition of the propositional logic formula, wherein the satisfiability condition represents whether the propositional logic formula is satisfiable using a Boolean satisfiability technique (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 269, “These trajectories may be produced to satisfy multiple constraints, including customer-required destination time-of-arrival, minimized time-of-flight, optimized fuel burn (and carbon), and optimum Direct Operating Cost (DOC).”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 275, “Trajectories are planned to satisfy the principle cost function being optimized ( corporate return on investment for example).”);
and for a positive satisfiability condition, adding at least one corresponding obstacle of the plurality of obstacles to the path planner (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 214, “The only history retained from the previous recalculation of the entire air space are the trajectory paths themselves (which may now get modified). Since every node for every aircraft trajectory has a momentum buffer, all of these buffers are initialized to zero at the beginning of this recalculation of the entire airspace”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 34, “Fleet Path Space is the set of all possible flight Paths for the Fleet at a particular moment in the simulation. Fleet Path History is the Path history for every aircraft in the fleet, i.e., the content of the simulation. Path Space History is the set of possible flight Paths for a single aircraft as its possibilities become more constrained”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 127, “At the most elementary physical level, the airspace consists of air, aircraft and obstacles, e.g. weather cells, closed airspace, etc. In the enroute airspace aircraft trajectories may enter and exit at any peripheral points on the perimeter of the monitored airspace”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 45, “A) acquiring data describing a plurality of trajectories each representing an aircraft or an obstacle within an airspace, B) recalculating selected of the trajectories at time intervals; C) identifying conflicts between pairs of aircraft trajectories or between an aircraft trajectory and an obstacle trajectory; D) modifying the trajectory one of the pair of aircraft trajectories or the aircraft trajectory in conflict with an obstacle; and E) repeating B) through D) a predetermined number of cycles until no conflicts are identified in C),”); and
indicating a sufficiency of the path planner to avoid at least the plurality of obstacles in planning a path from the vehicle location to the destination location (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 153, “in conjunction with GPU 525 presenting a visual representation of one or more of the trajectories within the airspace, as well as any special audio or medical indicia indicating either successful or unsuccessful deconfliction of trajectories”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 213, “the trajectory manager 582 identifies the two trajectories as conflicting, including any audio or visual alarms and notifications associated with presentation of airspace data”);
and traversing, by the vehicle, a path produced by the path planner (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 24, “System and technique disclosed herein utilizes many "agents" representing aircraft trajectories that optimize their individual fitness functions in parallel. In addition, trajectory replanning comprises part of the dynamic trajectory management process”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 25, “a Dynamical Path (DP) as a way to accurately represent dynamical trajectories computationally. Such a system may be implemented with a Desktop Airspace software platform in which simulation of entire real and imagined airspaces enables research, planning, etc”).
Sawhill fails to explicitly disclose a Boolean satisfiability technique.
However, Imeson teaches a Boolean satisfiability technique (See at least “we look at finding the shortest path in a graph subject to a set of Boolean constraints on the vertices that indicate their inclusion or exclusion from the path. We call this problem SAT-TSP. In this problem we can no longer express temporal (i.e., ordering) constraints, but the Boolean operators on their own are quite expressive—Boolean satisfiability (SAT) is an NP-complete problem, and thus can efficiently express any problem in NP”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sawhill and include a Boolean satisfiability technique as taught by Imeson because it would allow the method a satisfying motion plan for a given task specification (Imeson, introduction).
Regarding claim 3, Sawhill discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises an aircraft, and wherein the path planner is implemented in the aircraft (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 24, “The system and technique disclosed herein utilize fully dynamical aircraft trajectories, and managing of the airspace in terms of its bulk properties”), (See at least fig 1-21, ¶ 33, “Path Space is the set of possible flight Paths for a single aircraft. Fleet Path is a set consisting of one Path for each aircraft”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665