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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 of US application 18/929,204 filed 10/28/24 were examined. Examiner filed a non-final rejection on 2/11/26.
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 4/27/26. Claims 1 and 19-20 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claims rejections under 102(a)(1): Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are moot because they refer to the amended portions of the claim language. The previous 102 rejection is withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Chambers et al. (US 9997080 B1), hereinafter referred to as Chambers.
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 1-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Schulman et al. (WO 2017084031 A1) in view of Chambers et al. (US 9997080 B1), hereinafter referred to as Schulman and Chambers, respectively. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped together and all claims in the group are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, Schulman discloses A device for controlling an aerial vehicle (See at least Fig. 18 in Schulman: Schulman discloses a flight controller 1801 which may execute processing to release a flight restriction [See at least Schulman, 0254]) comprising:
a memory storing a computer program (See at least Fig. 18 in Schulman: Schulman discloses a flight controller 1801 which may execute processing to release a flight restriction [See at least Schulman, 0254]); and
a processor configured to execute the computer program (See at least Fig. 18 in Schulman: Schulman discloses a flight controller 1801 which may execute processing to release a flight restriction [See at least Schulman, 0254]) to:
receive a data file indicating a flight restriction level and a flight restriction range (See at least Fig. 18 in Schulman: Schulman discloses that a license file may be generated from the temporarily released region information and transmitted to the flight controller via the handheld device [See at least Schulman, 0254]) of an airport area in an airport (Schulman discloses that a flight-restriction region location may be a point at the center of an airport, or representative of the airport [See at least Schulman, 0102]. Schulman further discloses that the flight-restriction region may trace the boundaries of an airport [See at least Schulman, 0102]), the flight restriction range of the airport area being determined based at least on a risk level of the airport (See at least Fig. 12 in Schulman: Schulman discloses that each of the three levels is associated with different warnings and different forced activities of the UAV, such as visual warnings for the white region (level 1), forced landings for the yellow region (level 2), or forced exits for the red region (level 3) [See at least Schulman, 0210]. Because the UAV is at risk of these responses in the respective regions, the levels may be regarded as risk levels. Furthermore, because the map may be a map of an airport as per at least [Schulman, 0102], these risk levels may also be regarded as risk levels of the airport);
parse the data file to obtain the flight restriction level and the flight restriction range of the airport area (Schulman discloses that a license file may be generated from the temporarily released region information and transmitted to the flight controller via the handheld device [See at least Schulman, 0254]. Schulman further discloses that afterwards, the UAV may switch to the new flight restriction rule if the license file is authenticated and the user may operate the aircraft within the temporarily released region [See at least Schulman, 0254]. It will be appreciated that, in order to authenticate the license file, the UAV flight controller must parse at least part of the data or metadata of the license file); and
control the aerial vehicle to execute a flight restriction strategy according to the flight restriction level and the flight restriction range of the airport area (Schulman disclose that a license file may be generated from the temporarily released region information and transmitted to the flight controller via the handheld device [See at least Schulman, 0254]. Schulman further discloses that afterwards, the UAV may switch to the new flight restriction rule if the license file is authenticated and the user may operate the aircraft within the temporarily released region [See at least Schulman, 0254]).
However, Schulman does not explicitly disclose the device wherein the risk level of the airport being determined based on an airport traffic volume of the airport, the risk level of the airport increasing as the airport traffic volume of the airport increases, and the airport traffic volume being greater than zero.
However, Chambers does teach the device wherein the risk level of the airport being determined based on an airport traffic volume of the airport, the risk level of the airport increasing as the airport traffic volume of the airport increases, and the airport traffic volume being greater than zero (See at least Fig. 2C in Chambers: Chambers teaches The controlled zone 262 is a location in the area of operations where multiple aircraft may conceivably be required to enter at the same time, and where, therefore, there is an increased need for coordination to avoid collisions [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 15-19]. Chambers further teaches that, For example, a controlled zone 262 may be the airspace around a destination site 105, where more than one aircraft may approach for a delivery [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 19-21]. Chambers further teaches that, Similarly, a controlled zone 262 may be the airspace around a distribution center 101, where multiple aircraft may be launching and landing at around the same time [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 21-24]. Chambers further teaches that The holding patterns 261 are special purpose flight corridors that provide a safe looping path that aircraft can enter when they are required to loiter for a period of time [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 36-38]. Chambers further teaches that Loitering may be required by the air traffic management protocol in certain circumstances [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 39-40]. Chambers further teaches that, For example, a controlled zone 262 may allow only one aircraft to enter it at a given time, so aircraft that approach the zone when another aircraft is already in the zone may need to wait for a period of time before entering the zone [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 40-44]. The controlled zones may be regarded as high risk, the holding pattern areas as medium risk, and the rest of the map as low risk. All these areas have traffic volume greater than zero). Both Chambers and Schulman teach methods of designating risk associated with different regions of a map to be navigated by an aircraft. However, only Chambers explicitly teaches where the risk is at least partially based on air traffic volume, with higher risk (and consequent prohibition on new aircraft entering) being associated with higher traffic levels in certain regions.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the flight restrictions for certain regions also being at least partially based on air traffic volume, with higher risk (and consequent prohibition on new aircraft entering) being associated with higher traffic levels in certain regions, as in Chambers. Doing so improves safety by reducing the likelihood of collision between vehicles in high-traffic areas (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Chambers, Col 17, lines 15-65]).
Regarding claim 2, Schulman in view of Chambers The device of claim 1, wherein in response to the risk level of the airport being changed, the flight restriction range of the airport area in the airport changes (Schulman discloses that a previously flight restricted region such as an airport may become defunct or unused [See at least Schulman, 0211]. Schulman further discloses that flight restricted regions not associated with a flight restriction level or flight restricted regions that become defunct may herein be referred to as an error region [See at least Schulman, 0211]. Schulman further discloses that the error regions may be treated as releasable regions [See at least Schulman, 0211]. Schulman further discloses that for example, flight within the error region may be permitted if the operator of the UAV or the UAV is authenticated [See at least Schulman, 0211]. Schulman further discloses that in some instances, the error may be verified (e.g., verify whether the airport is no longer being used) [See at least Schulman, 0211]. It will therefore be appreciated that when there is no longer traffic to the airport, i.e., the airport is no longer in use, then the flight restrictions of the airport may be waived. Schulman further discloses that a releasable region may be associated with the second flight restriction level [See at least Schulman, 0212]).
While Schulman is being used to read on these limitations, note that Chambers could do so as well (See at least Fig. 2C in Chambers: Chambers teaches that a controlled zone 262 may allow only one aircraft to enter it at a given time, so aircraft that approach the zone when another aircraft is already in the zone may need to wait for a period of time before entering the zone [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 40-44]. Also see at least Fig. 2D in Chambers: Chamber teaches an air traffic management protocol used by a UAV 102 to reduce or eliminate the possibility of multiple aircraft arriving at a controlled zone at the same time [See at least Chambers, Col 18, lines 23-26]. Chambers further teaches that If the ETA of the UAV 102 is later than the ETA of the other aircraft, the mission planning module 200 will issue commands to the flight control module 201 to change 288 the flight of the UAV 102 to increase the ETA to the controlled zone [See at least Chambers, Col 19, line 64-Col 20, line 1]. Therefore, the flight restrictions on the controlled zone change (increase) based on the presence of another vehicle already arriving there since this signifies a higher risk level of collision).
Regarding claim 3, Schulman in view of Chambers teaches The device of claim 2, wherein the risk level of the airport includes a first risk level and a second risk level higher than the first risk level (See at least Fig. 12 in Schulman: Schulman discloses that each of the three levels is associated with different warnings and different forced activities of the UAV, such as visual warnings for the white region (level 1), forced landings for the yellow region (level 2), or forced exits for the red region (level 3) [See at least Schulman, 0210]. Because the UAV is at risk of these responses in the respective regions, the levels may be regarded as risk levels. And because the response is greater in level 2 than in level 1, then level 2 may be regarded as applicant’s second risk level and level 1 may be regarded as applicant’s first risk level), and the flight restriction range of the airport area corresponding to the first risk level is smaller than the flight restriction range of the airport area corresponding to the second risk level (See at least Fig. 13 in Schulman: Schulman depicts in the figure that the total area of the level 1 risk areas is smaller than the total area of the level 2 risk areas [See at least Schulman, 0212, 0218, and 0228]).
While Schulman is being used to read on these limitations, note that Chambers could be as well (See at least Fig. 2C in Chambers: Chambers teaches that The holding patterns 261 are special purpose flight corridors that provide a safe looping path that aircraft can enter when they are required to loiter for a period of time [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 36-38]. Chambers further teaches that Loitering may be required by the air traffic management protocol in certain circumstances [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 39-40]. Chambers further teaches that, For example, a controlled zone 262 may allow only one aircraft to enter it at a given time, so aircraft that approach the zone when another aircraft is already in the zone may need to wait for a period of time before entering the zone [See at least Chambers, Col 17, lines 40-44]. The controlled zones may be regarded as high risk, the holding pattern areas as medium risk, and the rest of the map as low risk. Note that holding patterns 261a, 261b are smaller in area than controlled zone 262 in Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 4, Schulman in view of Chambers teaches The device of claim 1, wherein the flight restriction level includes warning, enhanced warning, authorization, altitude-restricted, or no-fly (See at least Fig. 12 in Schulman: Schulman discloses that each of the three levels is associated with different warnings and different forced activities of the UAV, such as visual warnings for the white region (level 1), forced landings for the yellow region (level 2), or forced exits for the red region (level 3) [See at least Schulman, 0210]. Since the claim recites “or”, only one of the listed items needs to be present in the prior art).
Regarding claim 18, Schulman in view of Chambers teaches The device of claim 1, wherein:
the airport is a first airport (Schulman discloses that the location of one or more flight-restriction regions, such as airports, may be stored on-board the UAV [See at least Schulman, 0100]. Schulman further discloses that the UAV may have a local memory that may store information about flight-restriction regions [See at least Schulman, 0100]. Since each flight-restricted region may be an airport, and a plurality of them may be stored, any one of them may be regarded as “a first airport”); and
the data file further indicates a flight restriction level and a flight restriction range of an airport area in a second airport generated according to a risk level of the second airport (Schulman discloses that a license file may be generated from the temporarily released region information and transmitted to the flight controller via the handheld device [See at least Schulman, 0254]. Schulman further discloses that afterwards, the UAV may switch to the new flight restriction rule if the license file is authenticated and the user may operate the aircraft within the temporarily released region [See at least Schulman, 0254]), the risk level of the first airport being different from the risk level of the second airport (See at least Fig. 12 in Schulman: Schulman discloses that the different levels may be color coded and displayed (e.g., on an app on the mobile terminal, on a website, etc) for easy identification and management of flight restricted regions by an operator of the UAV [See at least Schulman, 0210]. Schulman further discloses that a flight-restriction region location may be a point at the center of an airport, or representative of the airport or other type of flight-restriction region [See at least Schulman, 0102]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Schulman: Schulman discloses an area 1100 comprising a plurality of different flight restricted regions of three different flight restriction levels 1104 [See at least Schulman, 0203]. If each of these regions is regarded as an airport as per [Schulman, 0102], then it will be appreciated that some of them have different flight restriction levels than others. Schulman further discloses that each of the three levels is associated with different warnings and different forced activities of the UAV, such as visual warnings for the white region (level 1), forced landings for the yellow region (level 2), or forced exits for the red region (level 3) [See at least Schulman, 0210]. Because the UAV is at risk of these responses in the respective regions, the levels may also be regarded as risk levels), the flight restriction range of the airport area of the first airport being different from the flight restriction range of the airport area of the second airport (See at least Fig. 12 in Schulman: Schulman discloses that the different levels may be color coded and displayed (e.g., on an app on the mobile terminal, on a website, etc) for easy identification and management of flight restricted regions by an operator of the UAV [See at least Schulman, 0210]. Schulman further discloses that a flight-restriction region location may be a point at the center of an airport, or representative of the airport or other type of flight-restriction region [See at least Schulman, 0102]. Also see at least Fig. 11 in Schulman: Schulman discloses an area 1100 comprising a plurality of different flight restricted regions of three different flight restriction levels 1104 [See at least Schulman, 0203]. If each of these regions is regarded as an airport as per [Schulman, 0102], then it will be appreciated that some of them have different flight restriction levels than others), and a type of the airport area of the first airport being same as a type of the airport area of the second airport (Schulman discloses that the location of one or more flight-restriction regions, such as airports, may be stored on-board the UAV [See at least Schulman, 0100]. Schulman further discloses that the UAV may have a local memory that may store information about flight-restriction regions [See at least Schulman, 0100]. Since each flight-restricted region may be an airport, and a plurality of them may be stored, it will be appreciated that any two of the airports have a common type in that they are both airports).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is Schulman et al. (WO 2017084031 A1) in view of Chambers (US 9997080 B1) in further view of Yu et al. (US 20150339931 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yu. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Schulman in view of Chambers teaches The device of claim 1.
Yu teaches method for defining flight restriction zones (See at least Fig. 6 in Yu: Yu teaches that FIG. 6 provides a flight restriction zone defined by a plurality of flight restricted strips (also referred to herein as flight restriction strips) [See at least Yu, 0163]) of an airport wherein:
the airport area includes an airport runway (See at least Fig. 5 in Yu: Yu teaches that a region 210d may be at boundaries of an airport runway [See at least Yu, 0162]. See at least Fig. 6 in Yu: Yu teaches that boundary 210d of FIG. 5 may be represented by boundary 210e of FIG. 6 [See at least Yu, 0163]) and a runway extension (See at least Fig. 6 in Yu: Yu teaches that flight restricted strip 206e is defined by an area encompassed by a circle of radius R.sub.A centered at point A, a circle of radius R.sub.B centered at point B, and lines 208e and 209e tangent to the two circles [See at least Yu, 0164]. The strip may be regarded as a runway extension. Yu further teaches that while flight restricted strip 206e is defined by two circles centered at points A and B, the circular shape is not meant to be limiting and it is to be understood that any shape may be used, such as a trapezoid [See at least Yu, 0164]);
the airport runway and the runway extension form a first area of the airport area (See at least Fig. 6 in Yu: Yu teaches that flight restricted strip 206e is defined by an area encompassed by a circle of radius R.sub.A centered at point A, a circle of radius R.sub.B centered at point B, and lines 208e and 209e tangent to the two circles [See at least Yu, 0164]. It will be appreciated that that area of strip 206e, excluding the two circles A and B but including most of the restriction line 205e, may be regarded as a first area); and
the airport area further includes a second area, the second area including a trapezoidal area connected to an end of the first area and extending along an extension direction of the airport runway (See at least Fig. 6 in Yu: Yu teaches that flight restricted strip 206e is defined by an area encompassed by a circle of radius R.sub.A centered at point A, a circle of radius R.sub.B centered at point B, and lines 208e and 209e tangent to the two circles [See at least Yu, 0164]. The circle at the A side of strip 206e may be regarded as a second area. Yu further teaches that while flight restricted strip 206e is defined by two circles centered at points A and B, the circular shape is not meant to be limiting and it is to be understood that any shape may be used, such as a trapezoid [See at least Yu, 0164]).
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches the device wherein the trapezoidal area is an isosceles-trapezoidal area with a midline parallel to the extension direction of the airport runway.
In order for a reference to read on the above limitation, it would have to teach where a restriction zone of a runway is shaped like an isosceles trapezoid with a midline parallel to an extension direction of the runway. However, none of the prior art reads on this particular limitation.
Yu comes close, since Yu teaches that a region 210d in Fig. 5 may be at the boundaries of an airport runway (See at least [Yu, 0162]); that boundary 210d of FIG. 5 may be represented by boundary 210e of FIG. 6 (See at least [Yu, 0163]); and that while flight restricted strip 206e is defined by two circles centered at points A and B, the circular shape is not meant to be limiting and it is to be understood that any shape may be used, such as a trapezoid (See at least [Yu, 0164]). However, the trapezoids are not necessarily “isosceles” and their orientation with respect to a runway is not explicitly discussed. Therefore, the reference is not specific enough. None of the prior art of record resolves these uncertainties in Yu.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 5 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 6-17, these claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights