DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-Final office action is in response to the CON application filled on 03/22/2024. Continuation of application No 17/148,185, filled on 01/13/2021, now Pat. No. 12,165,529. Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21-40 are pending and examined below.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-32 and 34-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0118450 (“Gariel”), and in view of US 2018/0304993 (“Offredi”), and further in view of US 2018/0068569 (“Chmelarova”).
Regarding claim 21 (and similarly claim 28 and 35), Gariel discloses a device (see at least fig 6A, where 602 is flight control system. See also [0054], where “the flight control system 602 may operate without human intervention…Some example functions may include contingency management, air traffic control integration, and perception. Contingency management functions may include responses to failure in the aircraft. Additionally, the contingency management functions may include identifying failures, isolating failures, and reconfiguring if possible. Additional functions may include generating an alternate flight plan and contacting emergency services.”), comprising:
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (see at least fig 6B, where 658 is a memory. see also [0180], where “The one or more processing units may be configured to communicate with memory components and I/O components.”; See also [0006]), configured to:
detect, prior to reaching an initial destination, a contingency event associated with a robot (see at least [0066], where “The AFMS 600 may also be configured to automatically recompute the flight pattern in response to triggers, such as the appearance of obstacles in the flight path, the appearance of aircraft in the airspace, updates from ATC 104, runway availability, weather, and aircraft failures or contingencies. Additional triggers may include loss of command and control links, control actuator failures, sensor failures, aircraft damage, and/or temporary flight restrictions.”; see also [0074-80] and fig 7, where a runway is selected at block 702, then flight pattern is generated using the selected runway, then flight data is modified at block 720 if the previously generated flight data is not feasible; So, the feasibility check is done prior to reaching the destination. The feasibility check is due to a contingency event. weather, aircraft failure, runway availability is interpreted as contingency events. AFMS is determining that an aircraft is unable to perform previously determined/assigned action due to some contingency event on the route prior to reaching the destination and providing an alternate route/destination. see also [0054] and [0182], See also [0028], where “autonomous aircraft” is interpreted as robot); and
determine, based on detecting the contingency event, a position of the robot (see at least [0095], where “In block 1002, the starting leg/waypoint identification module 1012 (hereinafter “starting waypoint module 1012”) determines the current location and heading of the aircraft.”; see also [0063] and [0066], where due to triggers or contingency event the AFMS recompute the flight pattern.);
access information associated with one or more contingency routes related to one or more alternate destinations (see at least [0088], where “In block 904, the runway selector module 650-1 identifies all runways (e.g., runway numbers) at the airport based on the airport and runway information.”; identifies all runway is interpreted as access information about alternate destinations. see also fig 9B),
select an alternate destination from the one or more alternate destinations (see at least [0091], where “If one or more runways are suitable for landing, the runway selector module 650-1 may select one of the runways for landing in block 914.”; see also [0088], where “In block 906, the runway selector module 650-1 may down select (e.g., remove) the runways that are not suitable for landing. The runway selector module 650-1 may determine that a runway is suitable for landing based on at least one of: 1) whether the runway is currently active, 2) the wind speed/direction relative to the runway, 3) the size of the runway, 4) the runway conditions (e.g., dry, wet, snow), 5) the type of runway (e.g., asphalt, gravel, dirt), and 6) aircraft performance. For example, the runway selector module 650-1 may determine that a runway is suitable for landing when the runway is open and is long enough and/or wide enough for landing. As another example, the runway selector module 650-1 may determine that the runway is suitable for landing when the headwind and/or crosswind are within acceptable limits. In some implementations, runways may be subject to multiple different runway selection criteria. For example, the runway selector module 650-1 may identify a runway as suitable if the runway is large enough to land in the current wind conditions.”; see also [0023], [0103], [0106] and [0159]);
output an indication of the selected alternate destination for use in at least one of guidance, navigation or control of the robot to the alternate destination (see at least [0057], where “The autopilot system 606 controls the aircraft 100 based on the received autopilot commands. For example, the autopilot system 606 can output control signals/commands that control various actuators 608 and engines on the aircraft 100. In a specific example, the output of the autopilot system may include actuator position commands and engine thrust commands. The autopilot system 606 may control a variety of aircraft parameters, such as heading, speed, altitude, vertical speed, roll, pitch, and yaw of the aircraft”).
Gariel does not disclose the following limitations:
the one or more alternate destinations are different from the initial destination;
select an alternate destination…based on a time to travel from the position of the robot to the alternate destination, and
select a highest ranked contingency route from the one or more contingency routes associated with the selected alternate destination.
However, Offredi discloses a device wherein a flight path for the aircraft is generated for auto-pilot navigation (see at least [0015], where “The processor may be configured to generate an emergency route for flying the aircraft to an emergency destination airport. The system may, in use, transfer data relating to the emergency route to a Flight Management System of the aircraft. The system may, in use, use an auto-pilot system of the aircraft to implement the emergency route.”; auto-pilot system is interpreted as autonomous or unmanned system), and select an alternate destination…based on a time to travel from the position of the robot to the alternate destination (see at least [0017], where “a first mode wherein the system is able to generate or modify the emergency route without support from the remote station and controls the aircraft to implement the emergency route”; see also [0027], where “wherein the at least one factor is selected from a set comprising: distance”; see also [0092], where “Promotion of a route score can be by factor of 1…the system can calculate the Estimated Time of Arrival over all possible calculated routes”; see also [0009], [0010], [0024] and [0090]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gariel to incorporate the teachings of Offredi by including the above feature for reducing risk and flight cost by selecting destination based on ETA.
Gariel in view of Offredi does not disclose the following limitations:
the one or more alternate destinations are different from the initial destination; and
select a highest ranked contingency route from the one or more contingency routes associated with the selected alternate destination.
However, Chmelarova discloses a device wherein the one or more alternate destinations are different from the initial destination (see at least [0005], respective destinations are interpreted as alternative destinations); and
select a highest ranked contingency route from the one or more contingency routes associated with the selected alternate destination (see at least fig 7 and [0005]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gariel in view of Offredi to incorporate the teachings of Chmelarova by including the above feature for avoiding risk and flight cost by selecting destination based on the viability ranking.
Regarding claim 22 (and similarly claim 29 and 36), Offredi further discloses a device wherein the robot is associated with at least one of :
an autonomous robot,
an unmanned robot,
an autonomous vehicle (see at least [0046]), or
an unmanned vehicle.
Regarding claim 23 (and similarly claim 30 and 37), Offredi further discloses a device wherein a route, that the robot is traveling, is divided into route segments (see at least fig 4, where the route is divided into multiple different route segments), and wherein the positions of the robot is determined based on information associated with the one or more route segments (see at least [0027] and [0090-92]).
Regarding claim 24 (and similarly claim 31 and 38), Offredi further discloses a device wherein information associated with the one or more route segments is associated with the one or more contingency route (see at least [0081]-82], [0100] and [0103]).
Regarding claim 25 (and similarly claim 32 and 39), Gariel further discloses a device wherein information associated with the one or more contingency routes is included in information associated with the one or more alternate destinations (see at least [0072] and fig 9B).
Regarding claim 27 (and similarly claim 34), Chmelarova further discloses a device wherein the position of the robot is determined based on information associated with a cell of a geographic region related to the one or more alternate destinations (see at least [0006], [0031], [0051] and [0070]).
Claim(s) 26, 33 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0118450 (“Gariel”), and in view of US 2018/0304993 (“Offredi”), and in view of US 2018/0068569 (“Chmelarova”), as applied to claim 21 and 17 above, and further in view of US 2017/0278405 (“Yakan”).
Regarding claim 26 (and similarly claim 33 and 40), Gariel in view of Offredi, Chmelarova and Pollack does not disclose claim 26. However, Yakan discloses a device wherein the one or more contingency routes associated with the selected alternate destination are ranked based on a cost metric related to at least one of:
travel time,
travel distance (see at least [0042], where “The cost metric can be a distance between the nodes corresponding to a physical distance between the geographical regions ( or, for example, the centers of the geographical regions). The cost metric can be based on a travel time between geographical regions, which can account for flight conditions, such as headwinds or other weather conditions.”; see also [0043], where “The cost metrics can also be used to account for the capacity of the nodes (corresponding to the capacity of the geographical regions)”; account for the capacity is interpreted as ranking),
terrain related to the one or more contingency routes,
a type of the robot,
a state of the robot, or
a state of an environment related to the robot.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gariel in view of Offredi and Chmelarova to incorporate the teachings of Yakan by including the above feature for providing multiple route options so that vehicle travel route is efficient and low cost.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35-37 and 40 is/are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 9, 15, 17 and 23 of copending US Patent No. 12,165,529 (application No. 17/148,185).
This is a non-provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have in fact been patented. Table below shows claim 1 and claim 21 limitations matching/comparison between the application and Issued patent:
18/946,088
Claim 21
Patent No. 12,165,529
Claim 1
A device, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
An apparatus for supporting an autonomous or unmanned vehicle in response to a contingency event, the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store computer-readable program code; and
detect, prior to reaching an initial destination, a contingency event associated with a robot;
a processing circuitry configured to access the memory, and execute the computer-readable program code to cause the apparatus to detect the contingency event while the autonomous or unmanned vehicle travels on a route prior to reaching a landing zone at an initial destination; and
determine, based on detecting the contingency event, a position of the robot;
in response to detecting the contingency event prior to reaching the landing zone at the initial destination cause the apparatus to: determine a position of the autonomous or unmanned vehicle;
access information associated with one or more contingency routes related to one or more alternate destinations, wherein the one or more alternate destinations are different from the initial destination;
access information about alternate destinations associated with the route which includes one or more contingency routes to the alternate destinations, wherein the alternate destinations are at locations different from the initial destination;
select an alternate destination from the one or more alternate destinations based on a time to travel from the position of the robot to the alternate destination, and based on the information associated with the one or more contingency routes;
select an alternate destination from the alternate destinations based on a time to travel from the position of the autonomous or unmanned vehicle to the alternate destination, and the information about the alternate destinations associated with the route;
select a highest ranked contingency route from the one or more contingency routes associated with the selected alternate destination; and
select a highest ranked one of a contingency route from the contingency routes associated with the selected alternate destination; and
output an indication of the selected alternate destination for use in at least one of guidance, navigation, or control of the robot to the alternate destination.
output an indication of the selected alternate destination for use in at least one of guidance, navigation, or control of the autonomous or unmanned vehicle to the alternate destination.
Table below shows the claim matching between the applications and issued patent:
Application No.
claims
claims
claims
claims
18/946,088
21/28/35
22/29/36
23/30/37
26/33/40
12,165,529
1/15
1/15
3/17
9/23
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657