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 Claims
Pending
1-20
101
1-20
112b
15
102
1-3, 5, 17-18, and 20
103
4, 6-16, and 19
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "The heading determination". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim(s) 1 is a process, 17 is a machine, and 20 is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a Prong 1
Regarding claim(s) 1, 17, and 20, the claim recites, in part, limitations that constitute a “mental process”. The limitations of selecting, determining, and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claims 2-16, and 18-19 depend from claim(s) 1, 17, and 20, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim(s) 1, 17, and 20, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1, 17, and 20 above.
Step 2a Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a generic computing component(s) or automations to perform both the generic computing functions in the claim(s). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2b
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of using generic computer components and automations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and automations cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pendleton US 20240025452.
Pendleton discloses,
Claims 1, 17, and 20; An autonomous vehicle comprising: an automation system(Abstract discloses a method for operating an autonomous vehicle and [0023] discloses vehicles that include autonomous systems); a vehicle management system(116); and a device comprising: a first interface configured to couple to the automation system(118); a second interface configured to couple to the vehicle management system(110); one or more processors configured to: obtain, via the first interface(304), a command from the automation system([0017] the terms “communication” and “communicate” refer to at least one of the reception, receipt, transmission, transfer, provision, and/or the like of information (or information represented by, for example, data, signals, messages, instructions, commands, and/or the like)); evaluate the command to generate a determination of whether the command complies with a plurality of validation criteria([0021] Discloses a plurality of different validation criteria for each corridor); and when the determination indicates that the command complies with the plurality of validation criteria: generate data associated with the command, the data operable to cause the vehicle management system to generate vehicle control signals based on the command([0017] Discloses that data is created with commands that can be included in communications, and [0031] discloses that the communications can control operations of multiple vehicles); and communicate the data to the vehicle management system via the second interface(Fig.1 shows that 110 communicates with the vehicles); and when the determination indicates that the command does not comply with at least one validation criteria of the plurality of validation criteria: generate data associated with a failure to comply with the at least one validation criteria([0093] the planning system 404 can use corridor validation criteria. The corridor navigation criteria can be used to eliminate navigation options with less desirable outcomes); and communicate the data to the automation system via the first interface(Fig.1 shows that 110 communicates with 118 and is connected to 116 via the network).
Claim 2; Wherein the plurality of validation criteria comprises one or more vehicle route validation criteria, one or more vehicle fuel validation criteria, one or more heading validation criteria, one or more speed validation criteria, one or more altitude validation criteria, or a combination thereof([0021] and [0093] Discloses validation of different scenarios that require speed, and heading).
Claim 3; Wherein the automation system comprises a remote operation control system(114).
Claims 5 and 18; Further comprising a real-time collision avoidance module coupled to the one or more processors([0093] Discloses that the planning system 404 determines that a navigation option would result in a collision).
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) 4, 6-10, 13-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton US 20240025452 in view of Roper US 20240078915 .
Regarding claim(s) 4, 6-10, 13-16, and 19, Pendleton discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1 and 17.
However, Pendleton fails to disclose:
Claim 4; Wherein the automation system comprises an autonomous flight command system.
Claim 6; Further comprising an automation adapter configured to convert a message from the automation system in a first format to a second format.
Claim 7; Further comprising a vehicle adapter configured to convert the message from the second format to a third format for the vehicle management system.
Claim 8; Further comprising a validation orchestrator configured to select a first validation criterion and a second validation criterion from among the plurality of validation criteria.
Claim 9; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a route determination for the vehicle.
Claim 10; Wherein the route determination is based at least on one or more of a no-fly zone determination, a route terrain determination, a route obstacle determination, or a collision avoidance determination.
Claim 13; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a load management determination for the vehicle.
Claim 14; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a heading determination for the vehicle.
Claim 15; Wherein the heading determination is based at least on one or more of a heading terrain determination, a heading obstacle determination, or a collision avoidance determination.
Claim 16; Further comprising a data logger coupled to the one or more processors, the data logger configured to record a plurality of validation determinations made by the one or more processors during a mission associated with the vehicle.
Claim 19; Further comprising a stores management system validator coupled to the one or more processors.
Roper teaches a similar device in the same field of autonomous vehicle control.
Roper teaches,
Claim 4; Wherein the automation system comprises an autonomous flight command system([0026] Discloses the management system can manage unmanned vehicles and includes UAVs).
Claim 6; Further comprising an automation adapter configured to convert a message from the automation system in a first format to a second format([0007] In some implementations, the flight management system can be further configured to: configure the flight plan into a format specified by an external authority for validation by the external authority).
Claim 7; Further comprising a vehicle adapter configured to convert the message from the second format to a third format for the vehicle management system([0097] In some implementations, the flight plan can be submitted to a plurality of external authorities if appropriate, in whatever formats the external authorities each require).
Claim 8; Further comprising a validation orchestrator configured to select a first validation criterion and a second validation criterion from among the plurality of validation criteria([0096] The planned path can take all data known about the mission and location of the mission into account, such as UAV traffic, no-fly zones, requested waypoints, etc).
Claim 9; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a route determination for the vehicle([0096] the mission execution system 402 requests (512) a path plan (e.g., route plot) from the mission planning system 406).
Claim 10; Wherein the route determination is based at least on one or more of a no-fly zone determination, a route terrain determination, a route obstacle determination, or a collision avoidance determination([0096]).
Claim 13; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a load management determination for the vehicle([0088] The management system 304 includes a weight and balance management (WBM) engine 418).
Claim 14; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a heading determination for the vehicle([0096] The planned path can take all data known about the mission and location of the mission into account, such as UAV traffic, no-fly zones, requested waypoints, etc).
Claim 15; Wherein the heading determination is based at least on one or more of a heading terrain determination, a heading obstacle determination, or a collision avoidance determination([0029] The simulation environment 306 includes real-world location models, such as models of infrastructure, terrain, and/or dynamic weather conditions that allow for training in the environment where missions will be performed which means terrain is a factor when heading is determined).
Claim 16; Further comprising a data logger coupled to the one or more processors, the data logger configured to record a plurality of validation determinations made by the one or more processors during a mission associated with the vehicle([0090] The interface 308 presents data on the HMI 422 for mission monitoring and logging and instructions from the management system 304 for preparing for and completing a mission).
Claim 19; Further comprising a stores management system validator coupled to the one or more processors([0079] The operator database stores a list of operators and operator actions for those operators. In some implementations, the operator database can also store one or more certifications and/or licenses held by each operator. The equipment database includes operations support equipment 428 status (e.g., equipment status) and a history of all operations performed on the equipment 428).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the automation system comprises an autonomous flight command system as taught by Roper, for the purpose of controlling more vehicles than just ground based.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comprising an automation adapter configured to convert a message from the automation system in a first format to a second format, and comprising a vehicle adapter configured to convert the message from the second format to a third format for the vehicle management system as taught by Roper, for the purpose of ensuring compatibility and reliability.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comprising a validation orchestrator configured to select a first validation criterion and a second validation criterion from among the plurality of validation criteria, the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a route determination for the vehicle, and the route determination is based at least on one or more of a no-fly zone determination, a route terrain determination, a route obstacle determination, or a collision avoidance determination as taught by Roper, for the purpose of better determining the optimal route.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a load management determination for the vehicle as taught by Roper, for the purpose of ensuring the autonomous vehicle is capable of completing the command.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a heading determination for the vehicle, and the heading determination is based at least on one or more of a heading terrain determination, a heading obstacle as taught by Roper, for the purpose of ensuring the autonomous vehicle can complete the command without running into an obstacle.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comprising a data logger coupled to the one or more processors, the data logger configured to record a plurality of validation determinations made by the one or more processors during a mission associated with the vehicle as taught by Roper, for the purpose of having prior information of what is needed to complete a command.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comprising a stores management system validator coupled to the one or more processors as taught by Roper, for the purpose of ensuring the commands can be executed successfully.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton US 20240025452 in view of Roper US 20240078915 further in view of Plawecki US 9847034.
Regarding claim(s) 11-12, Pendleton discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1 and 8.
However, Pendleton and Roper fails to disclose:
Claim 11; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a collision avoidance determination for the vehicle.
Claim 12; Wherein the collision avoidance determination is based at least on Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADSB) data.
Plawecki teaches a similar device in the same field of autonomous vehicle control.
Plawecki teaches,
Claim 11; Wherein the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a collision avoidance determination for the vehicle(Col. 5 Lines 17-24).
Claim 12; Wherein the collision avoidance determination is based at least on Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADSB) data(Col. 5 Lines 17-24).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the validation orchestrator is configured to select the first and second validation criteria based at least on a collision avoidance determination for the vehicle, and the collision avoidance determination is based at least on Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADSB) data as taught by Plawecki, for the purpose of having a more accurate method of avoiding collision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights