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 § 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 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinheber (US 20240248477 A1) in view of Dupray et al. (US 20200265726 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weinheber teaches a system, comprising:
a processor ([0241-0242]); and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions ([0241-0242]) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), intent messages comprising a planned path for a respective UAV ([0246-0247], where the missions of UAVs, including the route, i.e. planned path, are received);
group, based on the planned path in multiple intent messages, a set of UAVs into a platoon ([0248] and [0252], where UAVs with similar mission parameters are grouped);
generate a coordinated flight path and coordinated flight parameters for the platoon ([0254], where the flight parameters, including the route, are altered for the group); and
fly the set of UAVs based on the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters ([0259]).
Weinheber teaches that the geographic area is considered when grouping UAVs, but this geographic area does not explicitly include an air corridor.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches discloses that the FAA has classes of airspace as shown on page 3. It teaches restricting the operation of a UAV in certain air corridors corresponding to the class of UAV and the class of the airspace ([0066], [0077], [0195], and [0382]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the classification of the air corridor for determining whether to group a UAV for a mission. This would predictably be performed by analyzing the air corridors of a UAV alongside the mission received from said UAV. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions that would not violate FAA airspace regulations when they perform said mission. This modification ensures that missions with planned routes that travel over a certain class of air corridor are only performed by UAVs capable of traveling said route without violating regulations.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Weinheber teaches the machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to transmit the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters to the set of UAVs to exhibit coordinated flight ([0260-0261], where the drone grouping engine comprises a drone remote control engine that transmits flight parameters to the groups of UAVs).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Weinheber teaches:
an intent message further comprises at least one of: position data for the respective UAV; UAV characteristic data for the respective UAV; and air traffic controller connection status data for the respective UAV; ([0250-0251], where the operational parameters include characteristic data indicative of the operational capabilities of the UAV); and
a machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to group the set of UAVs based on at least one of the position data, the UAV characteristic data, or the air traffic controller connection status data ([0253], where UAVs are grouped based on operational parameters).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Weinheber teaches a machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to control at least one of a flight plan, a flight parameter, a flying formation, a flight speed, a duration of the platoon, an acceleration range, a deceleration range, or a maneuver execution rate ([0254], where a flight plan is controlled).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Weinheber teaches a machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to group the set of UAVs into the platoon based on an operational metric ([0250-0251]).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 6. Weinheber teaches a machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to group the set of UAVs based on at least one of: a safety metric; an energy metric; an air corridor capacity metric; and a cargo metric ([0251] and [0257], where UAVs are grouped by operational parameters including energy metrics, such as power consumption and battery capacity, and to do missions with minimal mission power consumption).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Weinheber does not teach a machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to receive air traffic control data from an air traffic controller and to group the set of UAVs into the platoon based on the air traffic control data.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches receiving air traffic control data from an air traffic controller ([0102]). It also teaches that UAVs are subject to regulatory rules in regards to air traffic controllers ([0230] and [0329]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the air traffic control data for determining whether to group a UAV for a mission. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reason expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions under the current compliance with the data being received from the air traffic controller. This also allows the planned route of the UAVs to be updated by the ATC to ensure safety, and ensures that UAVs incapable of following or receiving the air traffic control data are not grouped for certain missions.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Weinheber does not teach a machine-readable instruction that causes the processor to receive weather data from a weather station and group the set of UAVs into the platoon based on the weather data.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches receiving weather data from a weather station ([0075]). It also teaches that UAVs are subject to regulatory rules in regards to UAV operation during adverse weather conditions ([0167] and [0235]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the weather conditions for determining whether to group a UAV for a mission. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reason expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions when they would not otherwise violate the FAA proposed rules as taught by Dupray ([0235]).
Regarding claim 10, Weinheber teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions ([0241-0242]) that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), intent messages comprising a planned path for a respective UAV ([0246-0247], where the missions of UAVs, including the route, i.e. planned path, are received);
group, based on the planned path in multiple intent messages, a set of UAVs into a platoon ([0248] and [0252], where UAVs with similar mission parameters are grouped);
generate a coordinated flight path and coordinated flight parameters for the platoon ([0254], where the flight parameters, including the route, are altered for the group); and
fly the set of UAVs based on the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters ([0259]).
Weinheber teaches that the geographic area is considered when grouping UAVs, but this geographic area does not explicitly include an air corridor.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches discloses that the FAA has classes of airspace as shown on page 3. It teaches restricting the operation of a UAV in certain air corridors corresponding to the class of UAV and the class of the airspace ([0066], [0077], [0195], and [0382]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the classification of the air corridor for determining whether to group a UAV for a mission. This would predictably be performed by analyzing the air corridors of a UAV alongside the mission received from said UAV. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions that would not violate FAA airspace regulations when they perform said mission. This modification ensures that missions with planned routes that travel over a certain class of air corridor are only performed by UAVs capable of traveling said route without violating regulations.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. Weinheber teaches an instruction that causes the processor to transmit the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters to the set of UAVs to exhibit coordinated flight ([0260-0261], where the drone grouping engine comprises a drone remote control engine that transmits flight parameters to the groups of UAVs).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. Weinheber teaches:
an intent message further comprises at least one of: position data for the respective UAV; UAV characteristic data for the respective UAV; and air traffic controller connection status data for the respective UAV; ([0250-0251], where the operational parameters include characteristic data indicative of the operational capabilities of the UAV); and
an instruction that causes the processor to group the set of UAVs based on at least one of the position data, the UAV characteristic data, or the air traffic controller connection status data ([0253], where UAVs are grouped based on operational parameters).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. Weinheber teaches an instruction that causes the processor to:
group the set of UAVs into the platoon based on an operational metric ([0250-0251]); and
generate the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters for the platoon based on the operational metric ([0254] and [0257]).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10. Weinheber does not teach an instruction that causes the processor to receive at least one of air traffic control data or weather data and group the set of UAVs into the platoon based on at least one of the air traffic control data or the weather data.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches receiving at least one of air traffic control data or weather data ([0075]). It also teaches that UAVs are subject to regulatory rules in regards to UAV operation during adverse weather conditions ([0167] and [0235]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the weather conditions for determining whether to group a UAV into a platoon for a mission. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reason expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions when they would not otherwise violate the FAA proposed rules as taught by Dupray ([0235]).
Regarding claim 15, Weinheber teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), intent messages comprising a planned path for a respective UAV ([0246-0247], where the missions of UAVs, including the route, i.e. planned path, are received);
grouping, based on the planned path in multiple intent messages, a set of UAVs into a platoon ([0248] and [0252], where UAVs with similar mission parameters are grouped);
generating a coordinated flight path and coordinated flight parameters for the platoon ([0254], where the flight parameters, including the route, are altered for the group); and
flying the set of UAVs based on the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters ([0259]).
Weinheber teaches that the geographic area is considered when grouping UAVs, but this geographic area does not explicitly include an air corridor.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches discloses that the FAA has classes of airspace as shown on page 3. It teaches restricting the operation of a UAV in certain air corridors corresponding to the class of UAV and the class of the airspace ([0066], [0077], [0195], and [0382]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the classification of the air corridor for determining whether to group a UAV for a mission. This would predictably be performed by analyzing the air corridors of a UAV alongside the mission received from said UAV. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions that would not violate FAA airspace regulations when they perform said mission. This modification ensures that missions with planned routes that travel over a certain class of air corridor are only performed by UAVs capable of traveling said route without violating regulations.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Weinheber teaches transmitting the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters to the set of UAVs to exhibit coordinated flight ([0260-0261], where the drone grouping engine comprises a drone remote control engine that transmits flight parameters to the groups of UAVs).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Weinheber teaches controlling at least one of a flight plan, a flight parameter, a flying formation, a flight speed, a duration of the platoon, an acceleration range, a deceleration range, or a maneuver execution rate ([0254], where a flight plan is controlled).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Weinheber teaches:
grouping the set of UAVs into the platoon based on an operational metric ([0250-0251]); and
generating the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters for the platoon based on the operational metric ([0254] and [0257]).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Weinheber does not teach receiving at least one of air traffic control data or weather data; and grouping the set of UAVs into the platoon based on at least one of the air traffic control data or the weather data.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupray teaches receiving at least one of air traffic control data or weather data ([0075]). It also teaches that UAVs are subject to regulatory rules in regards to UAV operation during adverse weather conditions ([0167] and [0235]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to use these teachings to incorporate a consideration of the weather conditions for determining whether to group a UAV into a platoon for a mission. It would have been obvious to do so based on a reason expectation of success and motivation to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions when they would not otherwise violate the FAA proposed rules as taught by Dupray ([0235]).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinheber in view of Dupray as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of James et al. (US 20230081963 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. While Weinheber does teach the machine-readable instructions that cause the processor to generate the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters for the platoon and fly the set of UAVs based on the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters as previously relied upon, it does not teach that these instructions are executed iteratively through a set of following UAVs.
In the same field of endeavor, James teaches the use of a leader UAV of a swarm, i.e. platoon, of UAVs, wherein the flight path and flight parameters are iteratively sent to the leader, then distributed and executed through the non-swarm-leader UAVs, i.e. through a set of following UAVs ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Weinheber with the use of this swam leader UAV based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of simplifying the operations and hardware of the UAVs by only requiring one leader device to connect to a central engine. This saves processing power by only requiring long-range communication for the swarm leader UAV, which also simplifies the construction and cost of the following UAVs.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. While Weinheber does teach generating the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters for the platoon and flying the set of UAVs based on the coordinated flight path and the coordinated flight parameters as previously relied upon, it does not teach that this method is executed iteratively through a set of following UAVs.
In the same field of endeavor, James teaches the use of a leader UAV of a swarm, i.e. platoon, of UAVs, wherein the flight path and flight parameters are iteratively sent to the leader, then distributed and executed through the non-swarm-leader UAVs, i.e. through a set of following UAVs ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Weinheber with the use of this swam leader UAV based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of simplifying the operations and hardware of the UAVs by only requiring one leader device to connect to a central engine. This saves processing power by only requiring long-range communication for the swarm leader UAV, which also simplifies the construction and cost of the following UAVs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 and regarding the rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weinheber in view of Dupray fails to teach various aspects of the claim, contending that “Weinheber does not disclose or suggest receiving intent messages that include both an air corridor and a planned path, nor does it disclose grouping UAVs based on the combination of the air corridor and the planned path.” As included in the rejection above, Weinheber explicitly teaches receiving intent messages, i.e. a plurality of missions, comprising planned paths for a respective UAV ([0246-0247]), and grouping UAVs based on the planned paths of these intent messages ([0248] and [0252]).
Regarding the air corridor, applicant contends that “Weinheber does not disclose an air corridor.” The examiner disagrees, noting that Weinheber further teaches that "Additionally, and/or alternatively, the drones 202 may be operated to fly in one or more predefined air-corridors, or more generally, in one or more monitored flight areas such as, for example, a plant, a stadium, a field and/or the like which are monitored by one or more statically deployed imaging sensors such as the imaging sensors 214" ([0157]).
Weinheber does not explicitly include these air corridors in its transmitted missions, nor does it explicitly group based on these air corridors. However, Dupray further teaches that said air corridors are a well-known regulatory concept where aircraft are restricted or allowed transit through certain air corridors based on the type of aircraft and the type of air corridor ([0066]). Dupray further teaches that UAVs are analyzed based on their type so that they are controlled to avoid air corridors forbidden for their corresponding type ([0077], [0195], and [0382]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Weinheber to include air corridors in the transmitted intent messages for a respective UAV and to group the UAVs based on these air corridors, and it would have been obvious to do so that UAVs are grouped for missions only when all UAVs of the group are permitted to operate in the air corridor necessary for the mission. Weinheber teaches that the grouped UAVs carry out their missions in selected flight formations ([0254]), thus a check of whether UAVs are capable of traveling in a necessary air corridor before they are grouped ensures compliance with FAA regulations for their assigned missions.
Applicant further argues that Dupray’s teaching of airspaces is different from the claimed “air corridor” as these air spaces “are government-defined constraints applicable to all aircraft and are not operational identifiers associated with a UAV's intended trajectory.” It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the air corridor is an “operations identifier associated with a UAV’s intended trajectory”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims define that the intent messages comprise “an air corridor…for a respective UAV.” This air corridor is merely required by the claim language to be for a respective UAV, and not for a respective UAV’s intended trajectory as argued by applicant, to which the air corridors of Weinheber are defined for respective UAV types.
Furthermore, even if the air corridors were required to be corresponding to the UAV’s intended trajectory as argued by applicant, to which the examiner does not concede, it is recognized that such a teaching is both implicit and obvious over the present combination. Weinheber teaches that UAV trajectories can be constricted to certain air corridors ([0157]), and the mission parameters of Weinheber include geographical areas where the missions are carried out, and routes for the UAV ([0247]), which necessarily travel through the air corridors of Dupray. Considering the planned route as part of a UAV’s respective mission parameters implicitly considers its air corridor as it would be nonfunctional if a UAV’s mission parameters included a route in which it was forbidden to travel across.
Applicant further contends that the combination made in the rejection fails to teach the claims as “Examiner's rationale for combining the references, namely, to ensure that UAVs are only grouped for missions that comply with airspace regulations, effectively treats air corridor information as a compliance filter. In contrast, claim 1 requires grouping UAVs based on shared air corridor information, i.e., as a positive matching criterion for forming a platoon.” The examiner disagrees, noting that the air corridors taught by Weinheber are not “compliance filters”, but instead are “one or more predefined air-corridors, or more generally, in one or more monitored flight areas” in which “the drones 202 may be operated to fly in” ([0157]).
While not conceding that the combination treats air corridors as a compliance filter, even if said air corridor were to be interpreted as a compliance filter, such a compliance filter would still satisfy the metes and bounds of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. It is unclear how the difference between grouping of UAVs from such a compliance filter and “grouping UAVs based on shared air corridor information” is of any patentable significance in the claims as the claims merely require grouping based on the air corridor. Indeed, UAVs being filtered so that only UAVs with a shared permissible air-corridor for a mission are grouped is functionally equivalent to grouping UAVs from a "positive matching criterion" of a same permissible air corridor, although it is noted that no such “positive matching criterion” is required in the claims.
Applicant further argues that “the proposed modification would change the underlying basis for grouping in Weinheber rather than represent a predictable use of prior art elements” as “Weinheber groups UAVs based on general mission similarity” as opposed to “using air corridor information as a grouping criterion.” This is unpersuasive as Weinheber explicitly discloses air corridors where the UAVs operate ([0157]), and teaches that the mission parameters upon which UAVs are grouped include the geographic area and route in which a mission is carried out ([0247]). Therefore, modifying the mission parameters to include these air corridors and the regulatory air corridors as taught by Dupray produces predictable results and allows for the better grouping of UAVs to ensure regulatory compliance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights