DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. Claims 1-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 5/26/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“flight planning unit” – in claim 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“flight planning unit” – comprises one or more processors [0015]
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Therefore, claims 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
A system (100) for planning a flight path for a survey of a region of interest (ROT), the system (100) comprising;
at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (102) to fly over the ROT for collecting predefined data, the UAV comprising a flight control unit (104);
and a flight planning unit (106) operatively coupled with the flight control unit (104), the flight planning unit (106) comprising one or more processors (202) operatively coupled to a memory (204) storing instructions executable by the processor (202), wherein the flight planning unit (106) is configured to:
create, at least one main flight path covering the ROT; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can create a flight path in which covers a region of interest.)
identify, at least one area of special interest within the ROT; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can identify a special interest within a region of interest)
create, at least one additional flight path for the identified area of special interest; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can create an additional flight path for the identified area of special interest.)
wherein the at least one additional flight path is contiguous to the at least one main flight path.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
A system (100) for planning a flight path for a survey of a region of interest (ROT), the system (100) comprising;
at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (102) to fly over the ROT for collecting predefined data, the UAV comprising a flight control unit (104); (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
and a flight planning unit (106) operatively coupled with the flight control unit (104), the flight planning unit (106) comprising one or more processors (202) operatively coupled to a memory (204) storing instructions executable by the processor (202), wherein the flight planning unit (106) is configured to: (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
create, at least one main flight path covering the ROT;
identify, at least one area of special interest within the ROT;
create, at least one additional flight path for the identified area of special interest;
wherein the at least one additional flight path is contiguous to the at least one main flight path. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere stating that the additional flight path is continuous off a main flight path. This is based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be controlled based on a flight path. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 1-15 do not recite further limitations that cause claim’s 1 be patent eligible. Showcasing a controlling element for the aerial vehicle is utilizing the created flight path and would overcome the 101 rejections for Claims 1.
Claim(s) 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 non-obviousness.
10. Claims 1-3 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raucher (US 20210283439 A1) in view of Teng (US 20170110014).
Regarding Claim 1, Raucher discloses A system (100) for planning a flight path for a survey of a region of interest (ROT), the system (100) comprising; (Raucher, see at least [0032] “The navigation system 130 receives instructions to navigate to a region at risk of wildfire. For example, a dispatch system provides a specific latitude and longitude to the navigation system 130, and the navigation system 130 determines a flight path from the UAV's current location to the specified latitude and longitude.”)
at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (102) to fly over the ROI for collecting predefined data, (Raucher, see at least [0013] “The UAV maneuvers along a flight path to capture sensor data, such as potassium emission images, of the region at risk of wildfire.”) the UAV comprising a flight control unit (104); (Raucher, see at least [0028-0029] wherein the UAV contains a propulsion system and a navigation system to maneuver the UAV along a flight path)
and a flight planning unit (106) operatively coupled with the flight control unit (104), (Raucher, see at least Fig. in which shows the dispatch system communicably coupled with fire dispatch center) the flight planning unit (106) comprising one or more processors (202) operatively coupled to a memory (204) storing instructions executable by the processor (202), wherein the flight planning unit (106) is configured to: (Raucher, see at least Fig. 1-2 and [0018], [0038] wherein the UAV receives navigation instructions via the communications interface which passes the instructions to the propulsion system and/or processor. Also see [0041] wherein the UAV contains a memory to store data.)
create, at least one main flight path covering the ROT; (Raucher, see at least [0032] “The navigation system 130 receives instructions to navigate to a region at risk of wildfire. For example, a dispatch system provides a specific latitude and longitude to the navigation system 130, and the navigation system 130 determines a flight path from the UAV's current location to the specified latitude and longitude.”)
identify, at least one area of special interest within the ROT; (Raucher, see at least Fig. 2 in which shows area 225 (field of view), and an area of special interest would be element 230 in which shows a fire.)
Raucher does not explicitly disclose create, at least one additional flight path for the identified area of special interest; wherein the at least one additional flight path is contiguous to the at least one main flight path.
However, Teng discloses create, at least one additional flight path for the identified area of special interest; (Teng, see at least Claim 1, wherein during the flight mission, an building within the target site is found. The flight path is modified based on the identified building)
wherein the at least one additional flight path is contiguous to the at least one main flight path. (Teng, see at least Claim 1, wherein the flight mission is modified based on the identified building)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raucher to include the capability of detecting a building and modifying the flight path as to navigate around the building as taught by Teng with reasonable expectation that this would allow for UAV to safety navigate around the building, and therefore improve safety.
Regarding Claim 2, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system as claimed in claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the at least one area of special interest is any of an area with a trigger data. (Raucher, see at least Fig. 2 in which shows area 225 (field of view), and an area of special interest would be element 230 in which shows a fire.)
Regarding Claim 3, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flight planning unit (106) is configured to; (see rejection above)
create a boundary around the identified area of special interest; (Raucher, see at least [0056] wherein the processor can identify size or areas of the wildfire and draw a boundary areas around identified areas in which meet the threshold brightness. ** brightness is used to determine if wildfire is presented within a imaged region.)
detect if the main flight path intersects the created boundary around the identified area of special interest; and create the additional flight path covering the identified area of special interest, if it is detected that the main flight path intersects the boundary around the identified area of special interest. (Raucher, see at least [0088] “if the real-time data indicates that the UAV 200 is not near a wildfire (e.g., no emission event is detected), the dispatch system 240 may instruct the UAV 200 to fly to a different location. As another example, if a first UAV in a fleet detects a wildfire, the dispatch system 240 may instruct a second UAV to fly to the location of the first UAV, or to a location near the first UAV, and capture additional data from the region of the wildfire.”)
Regarding Claim 5, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 2, (see rejection above)
wherein the boundary shape is any of a polygon, rectangle, circular, or elliptical. (Raucher, see at least [0085] wherein the boundary shape can be a polygon bounding a particular geographic region (rectangular region or boundary of a park))
Regarding Claim 6, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the main flight path and the additional flight path are any of a back-and-forth linear paths or spiral path flight paths. (Raucher, see at least [0088-0090] wherein the dispatch system can instruct UAVs to return from their routes, update routes based on detected wildfire when multiple UAVs are being used to detect a potential wildfire. ** back-and-forth linear paths or spiral path flight paths are merely design choice.)
Regarding Claim 7, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the system (100) comprises a ground station (108) (Raucher, see Fig. 2, fire dispatch center) communicatively coupled to the flight planning unit (106), (Raucher, see Fig. 2, fire dispatch center is communicatively coupled to the dispatch system) wherein the flight panning unit (106) is configured within any of the ground station (108) or the UAV (102). (Raucher, see Fig. 2, fire dispatch center, UAV, and fire dispatch center are communicatively coupled)
Regarding Claim 8, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 6, (see rejection above)
wherein the system (100) comprises a user interface (110) operatively coupled to the flight planning unit (106), (Raucher, see Fig. 2, fire dispatch center, UAV, and fire dispatch center are communicatively coupled. Also see [0032] wherein the UAV includes a navigation system in which may continually or periodically update a flight path.) wherein the user interface (110) is configured for inputting a map of the ROT. (Raucher, see at least [0080 “Alternatively, the data ingestion module 310 may receive the cell phone location from a supplemental data provider, e.g., a mobile phone provider that accesses the cell phone's location and transmits it to the dispatch system 240.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 8, (see rejection above)
wherein the user interface (110) is configured within the ground station (108) or a user device (112). (Raucher, see Fig. 2, fire dispatch center, UAV, and fire dispatch center are communicatively coupled. Also see [0032] wherein the UAV includes a navigation system, in which the dispatch system provides locations or a radius or a specific point for the UAV to travel too.)
Regarding Claim 10, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 7, (see rejection above)
wherein the flight planning unit (106) identifies the area of special interest in the inputted map based on data inbuilt within the map. (Raucher, see at least [0080 “Alternatively, the data ingestion module 310 may receive the cell phone location from a supplemental data provider, e.g., a mobile phone provider that accesses the cell phone's location and transmits it to the dispatch system 240.”)
Regarding Claim 11, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 7, (see rejection above)
wherein the flight planning unit (106) identifies the area of special interest based on a geographical location identified by a user in the inputted map, or entered by the user in the user interface (110). (Raucher, see at least [0080 “Alternatively, the data ingestion module 310 may receive the cell phone location from a supplemental data provider, e.g., a mobile phone provider that accesses the cell phone's location and transmits it to the dispatch system 240. As still another example, a dispatcher at the fire dispatch center 250 receives location information from the caller and enters the location into a user interface, which transmits the location to the dispatch system 240”)
Regarding Claim 12, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 2, (, see rejection above)
wherein the flight planning unit (106) identifies the area of special interest in real time based on input from one or more sensors configured with the aerial vehicle. (Raucher, see at least [0036] wherein the processor receives images captured by the camera system and processes and analyzes the captured images to determine if a wildfire is present within the imaged region.)
Regarding Claim 13, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 7, (see rejection above)
wherein the user interface (110) is configured for inputting a type of survey of the ROT, and based on the selected survey, a particular sensor or payload module among a plurality of sensors and payload modules, is activated upon reaching the ROT. (Raucher, see at least [0057] “The dispatch system 240 receives the data transmitted by the UAV 200. The dispatch system 240 generates user interfaces based on the received data and provides the user interfaces to users at the fire dispatch center 250. For example, the dispatch system 240 selects one or more images to provide to a user at the fire dispatch center 250. The dispatch system 240 may also select environmental data captured by the environmental sensors 160 and provide the environmental data in the user interface. The dispatch system 240 may also perform further processing on data received from the UAV 200 and provide the processed data in the user interface.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 1, (, see rejection above)
wherein the system (100) comprises a risk analysis unit (114) communicatively coupled to the flight planning unit (106), the risk analysis unit (114) is configured to determine a risk associated with the flight path over the ROT. (Raucher, see at least [0013] “The dispatch system can deploy a UAV to a region at risk of wildfire. For example, an agency that provides fire response may receive a call notifying the agency of a potential wildfire. The caller may provide a location of the potential wildfire, or supplemental data associated with the caller may provide a location of the caller. As another example, a fire agency may determine that a region is at a high risk of wildfire due to dry conditions. The UAV maneuvers along a flight path to capture sensor data, such as potassium emission images, of the region at risk of wildfire.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (100) as claimed in claim 14, (, see rejection above)
wherein the risk analysis unit (114) is configured to monitor one or more parameters including flight plan and battery charge, battery health, health of a body of the UAV, geo-fence information of the ROT to determine a risk associated with the flight path over the ROT. (Raucher, see at least [0091] wherein the dispatch system may receive data describing conditions of the UAV and determine to instruct the UAV to return based on current conditions. The conditions may include fire damage, smoke damage, battery level, maintenance needs, or malfunctioning of sensors/cameras.)
Regarding Claim 16, Raucher discloses A system (150) for planning a real-time flight path for a survey of a region of interest (ROT), the system (150) comprising; (Raucher, see at least [0032] “The navigation system 130 receives instructions to navigate to a region at risk of wildfire. For example, a dispatch system provides a specific latitude and longitude to the navigation system 130, and the navigation system 130 determines a flight path from the UAV's current location to the specified latitude and longitude.”)
at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (102) configured to fly over the ROT for collecting predefined data, (Raucher, see at least [0013] “The UAV maneuvers along a flight path to capture sensor data, such as potassium emission images, of the region at risk of wildfire.”) the UAV (102) comprising a flight planning unit (106); (Raucher, see at least [0028-0029] wherein the UAV contains a propulsion system and a navigation system to maneuver the UAV along a flight path)
one or more sensors (152) configured with the at least one UAV (102); (Raucher, see at least Fig. 1 in which shows the UAV has environmental sensors and cameras)
and a control unit (154) embedded within the flight planning unit (106) of the at least one UAV (102) and operatively coupled with the one or more sensors (152), wherein the flight planning unit (106) comprises one or more processors (202) operatively coupled to a memory (204) storing instructions executable by the processor (202), wherein the flight planning unit (106) is configured to: (Raucher, see at least Fig. 1-2 and [0018], [0038] wherein the UAV receives navigation instructions via the communications interface which passes the instructions to the propulsion system and/or processor. Also see [0041] wherein the UAV contains a memory to store data.)
actuate the one or more sensors (152) to capture one or more data related to the ROT; (Raucher, see at least [0047] “The camera 220 has a field of view 225. In this example the field of view 225 is focused on a forest that has an active wildfire 230. The camera 220 may have a fixed field of view relative to the UAV 200, or the camera 220 may have a controllable field of view. For example, the camera 220 may be able to turn in different directions, or may be able to zoom in or out.”)
identify, an area of special interest within the ROT based on the captured data related to the ROT; (Raucher, see at least Fig. 2 in which shows area 225 (field of view), and an area of special interest would be element 230 in which shows a fire in which is captured using cameras.)
Raucher does not explicitly disclose create, a boundary around the identified area with special interest; and generate, a real-time additional flight path for covering the identified area of special interest.
However, Teng discloses create, a boundary around the identified area with special interest; (Teng, see at least Claim 1, wherein during the flight mission, an building within the target site is found. The flight path is modified based on the identified building)
and generate, a real-time additional flight path for covering the identified area of special interest. (Teng, see at least [0016], wherein when an building is detected, the mission generator 108 can identify building corners and identify a shortest connection around the building back to a flight path. The mission generator 108 can modify the flight path to navigate around the building utilizing the shortest connection”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raucher to include the capability of detecting a building and modifying the flight path as to navigate around the building as taught by Teng with reasonable expectation that this would allow for UAV to safety navigate around the building, and therefore improve safety.
Regarding Claim 17, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (150) as claimed in claim 16, (see rejection above)
wherein the area of special interest is any or a combination of area with higher population density, lower population density, presence of a crowd, presence of smoke, presence of a gas, presence of fire, presence of one or more unidentifiable objects, flooding. (Raucher, see at least Fig. 2 in which shows area 225 (field of view), and an area of special interest would be element 230 in which shows a fire.)
Regarding Claim 18, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (150) as claimed in claim 16, (see rejection above)
wherein the control unit (154) is configured to control the one or more sensors (152) to change position and direction of the one or more sensors (152) during capture of data to identify the area of special interest within the ROT. (Raucher, see at least [0046] “The UAV 200 also includes processing circuitry for controlling the cameras” and [0047] “The camera 220 has a field of view 225. In this example the field of view 225 is focused on a forest that has an active wildfire 230. The camera 220 may have a fixed field of view relative to the UAV 200, or the camera 220 may have a controllable field of view. For example, the camera 220 may be able to turn in different directions, or may be able to zoom in or out.”)
Regarding Claim 19, Raucher in view of Teng discloses The system (150) as claimed in claim 16, (see rejection above)
Raucher does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit (154) is configured to obtain information on buildings, towers, population density, and mountains of the ROT from the captured data of the ROT and correspondingly modify the additional flight path of the UAVs (102).
However, Teng discloses wherein the control unit (154) is configured to obtain information on buildings, towers, population density, and mountains of the ROT from the captured data of the ROT and correspondingly modify the additional flight path of the UAVs (102). (Teng, see at least [0016], wherein when an building is detected, the mission generator 108 can identify building corners and identify a shortest connection around the building back to a flight path. The mission generator 108 can modify the flight path to navigate around the building utilizing the shortest connection”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raucher to include the capability of detecting a building and modifying the flight path as to navigate around the building as taught by Teng with reasonable expectation that this would allow for UAV to safety navigate around the building, and therefore improve safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9609288 B1 –One of the methods is performed by a UAV and includes receiving, by the UAV, flight information describing a job to perform an inspection of a rooftop. A particular altitude is ascended to, and an inspection of the rooftop is performed including obtaining sensor information describing the rooftop. Location information identifying a damaged area of the rooftop is received. The damaged area of the rooftop is traveled to. An inspection of the damaged area of the rooftop is performed including obtaining detailed sensor information describing the damaged area. A safe landing location is traveled to.
US 20230035682 A1 – Provided are a method and device for setting a flight path reflecting an air space of a drone. The method may include receiving flight data collected by the drone; calculating a path error score indicating an extent of deviation of the drone from a planned flight path by comparing the received flight data with the planned flight path of the drone; adjusting the preset air space of the drone based on the path error score; and generating a new flight path of the drone based on the adjusted air space of the drone and a destination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights