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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Similarly, Claim 4 is directed to an aircraft control method (i.e. a process) and is similarly within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising
a controller, the information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to:
acquire body information indicating whether an aircraft has a fixed wing mode from the aircraft in a case in which an airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and [mental process/step]
notify the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using the fixed wing mode in a case in which the aircraft has the fixed wing mode, and [mental process/step]
notify the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using a vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have the fixed wing mode. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “in a case in which an airport…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to the congestion state of the airport and the immanency of the landing state of the aircraft. Further, each instance of “in a case in which the aircraft…” in the context of the claim encompass making a mental judgment as to which instruction to use based on the assessed capabilities of the aircraft. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An information processing apparatus comprising [generic linking to technical field, 2106.05(h)]
a controller, the information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)]
acquire body information indicating whether an aircraft has a fixed wing mode from the aircraft [pre-solution activity (data gathering), 2106.05(g)] in a case in which an airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and
notify the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using the fixed wing mode [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)] in a case in which the aircraft has the fixed wing mode, and
notify the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using a vertical flight mode [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)] in a case in which the aircraft does not have the fixed wing mode.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a controller…,” “acquire body information…,” and each instance of “notify the aircraft…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the “acquire body information…” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aircraft capability data for use in determining the appropriate notification to output), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. “notify the aircraft…” steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the determined notification), and amount to mere post solution output of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “controller” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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 does 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 of using a vehicle controller to perform the steps of the mental process amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire body information…,” and each instance of “notify the aircraft…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 3, & 5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 2 recites wherein the notification to hold in the air using a fixed wing or vertical flight mode is made based on weather information acquired, which is a mental process of making a simple judgement as to the appropriate holding pattern based on data collected under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 3 recites wherein the weather information includes information on an air current, a wind speed, or a climate, which merely narrows data collected to one of a plurality of specific embodiments under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 5 recites wherein the method of claim 1 is executed by a processor as processing steps, which merely recites limitations to apply the abstract idea using generic computing module, which does not render a claim patent-eligible as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 3, & 5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claims 1 & 4.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michini (US 2017/0357273 A1) in view of Schwartz (US 2018/0286257 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Michini discloses: An information processing apparatus comprising (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0014, 0021, & 0086 a processing system configured to communicate with a UAV to control the flight path of the UAV [i.e. an information processing apparatus])
a controller, the information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to: (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0029 wherein a flight planning system may be configured to communicate with and provide flight package information to a UAV, including flight plan data to implement. At least Paragraphs 0014, 0027, & 0028 of Michini further discloses wherein the FPS and UAV may include one or more processors configured to execute software instructions [i.e. a controller and the information processing apparatus being configured to communicate with aircraft])
acquire body information indicating whether an aircraft has a fixed wing mode from the aircraft (Michini discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein a flight description module may receive information describing the configuration of a UAV, including the acquisition of information describing the type of UAV, such as if the UAV is a fixed wing or rotor-type aircraft [i.e. body information indicating if the aircraft has a fixed-wing mode is acquired])
notify the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using the fixed wing mode in a case in which the aircraft has the fixed wing mode, and (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0076 & 0079 wherein a UAV may enter a loitering or holding pattern as part of a contingency plan, and if the UAV is a fixed wing UAV, the loitering mode is configured to be one in which the UAV is configured to fly in circles [i.e. using a fixed-wing mode to hold in air when the aircraft has a fixed wing mode]. At least Paragraph 0049 of Michini discloses wherein the contingency event instructions defining the loitering/holding mode may be transmitted from a ground control station to the UAV [i.e. an instruction to hold in the air is notified to the aircraft])
notify the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using a vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have the fixed wing mode. (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0076 & 0079 wherein a UAV may enter a loitering or holding pattern as part of a contingency plan, and if the UAV is a rotary UAV, the loitering mode is configured to be one in which the UAV is set to hover at a current location [i.e. hold in air using a vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have a fixed wing mode]. At least Paragraph 0049 of Michini discloses wherein the contingency event instructions defining the loitering/holding mode may be transmitted from a ground control station to the UAV [i.e. an instruction to hold in the air is notified to the aircraft])
Michini however appears to be silent regarding:
Implementing the control in a case in which an airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and
However Schwartz teaches wherein based on assessed air traffic states at an airport at which an aircraft will land, a holding pattern for the aircraft is determined and implemented.
Implementing the control in a case in which an airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and (However Schwartz teaches in at least Paragraphs 0004, 0086, & 0091 wherein current air traffic data may be received for a destination airport and used to determine a holding pattern to accommodate for flight congestion [i.e. in a case in which an airport is congested]. At least Paragraph 0028 of Schwartz further teaches wherein the system is configured to determine a flight path holding pattern while on approach to landing at a destination airport [i.e. and the aircraft is about to land at the airport]. At least Paragraphs 0051 – 0054 of Schwartz teach wherein the determination of holding pattern may include a determination of altitude, speed, shape, and the like for the holding pattern)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Michini by incorporating the determination of holding pattern based on the traffic state of the airport being congested as taught by Schwartz.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Schwartz in at least Paragraph 0004, the aircraft may be controlled to accommodate for landing delays, improving the control of an aircraft in loitering scenarios.
Regarding Claim 4:
Michini discloses: An aircraft control method comprising: (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0003 & 0004 a method for transmitting a flight plan from a ground control station to a UAV [i.e. an aircraft control method])
acquiring, by an information processing apparatus configured to communicate with aircraft, body information indicating whether an aircraft has a fixed wing mode from the aircraft (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0029 wherein a flight planning system may be configured to communicate with and provide flight package information to a UAV, including flight plan data to implement [i.e. an information processing apparatus configured to communicate with aircraft]. Michini further discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein a flight description module may receive information describing the configuration of a UAV, including the acquisition of information describing the type of UAV, such as if the UAV is a fixed wing or rotor-type aircraft [i.e. body information indicating if the aircraft has a fixed-wing mode is acquired])
notifying, by the information processing apparatus, the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using the fixed wing mode in a case in which the aircraft has the fixed wing mode, and (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0076 & 0079 wherein a UAV may enter a loitering or holding pattern as part of a contingency plan, and if the UAV is a fixed wing UAV, the loitering mode is configured to be one in which the UAV is configured to fly in circles [i.e. using a fixed-wing mode to hold in air when the aircraft has a fixed wing mode]. At least Paragraph 0049 of Michini discloses wherein the contingency event instructions defining the loitering/holding mode may be transmitted from a ground control station to the UAV [i.e. an instruction to hold in the air is notified to the aircraft])
notifying, by the information processing apparatus, the aircraft of an instruction to hold in air using a vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have the fixed wing mode. (Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0076 & 0079 wherein a UAV may enter a loitering or holding pattern as part of a contingency plan, and if the UAV is a rotary UAV, the loitering mode is configured to be one in which the UAV is set to hover at a current location [i.e. hold in air using a vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have a fixed wing mode]. At least Paragraph 0049 of Michini discloses wherein the contingency event instructions defining the loitering/holding mode may be transmitted from a ground control station to the UAV [i.e. an instruction to hold in the air is notified to the aircraft])
Michini however appears to be silent regarding:
Implementing the control in a case in which an airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and
However Schwartz teaches wherein based on assessed air traffic states at an airport at which an aircraft will land, a holding pattern for the aircraft is determined and implemented.
Implementing the control in a case in which an airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and (However Schwartz teaches in at least Paragraphs 0004, 0086, & 0091 wherein current air traffic data may be received for a destination airport and used to determine a holding pattern to accommodate for flight congestion [i.e. in a case in which an airport is congested]. At least Paragraph 0028 of Schwartz further teaches wherein the system is configured to determine a flight path holding pattern while on approach to landing at a destination airport [i.e. and the aircraft is about to land at the airport]. At least Paragraphs 0051 – 0054 of Schwartz teach wherein the determination of holding pattern may include a determination of altitude, speed, shape, and the like for the holding pattern)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Michini by incorporating the determination of holding pattern based on the traffic state of the airport being congested as taught by Schwartz.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Schwartz in at least Paragraph 0004, the aircraft may be controlled to accommodate for landing delays, improving the control of an aircraft in loitering scenarios.
Regarding Claim 5:
A method, by a processor, for improving travel mobility as a service (MaaS), comprising processing steps executed by the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Michini discloses in at least Paragraphs 0003 & 0004 a method for transmitting a flight plan from a ground control station to a UAV, which may be implemented using an FPS and UAV, with at least Paragraphs 0014, 0027, & 0028 of Michini further disclosing wherein the FPS and UAV may include one or more processors configured to execute software instructions [i.e. a method, by a processor, for improving travel mobility as a service, comprising processing steps executed by the information processing apparatus].
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michini (US 2017/0357273 A1) in view of Schwartz (US 2018/0286257 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Habib (US 2022/0003863 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: further acquire weather information on weather over the airport in a case in which the airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport; and notify the aircraft of the instruction to hold in air using the fixed wing mode in a case in which the aircraft has the fixed wing mode and the weather information satisfies a predetermined weather condition, and notify the aircraft of the instruction to hold in air using the vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have the fixed wing mode or the weather information does not satisfy the predetermined weather condition.
Michini does not appear to specifically disclose wherein weather information is acquired and used to determine if the aircraft should operate in a fixed wing or vertical flight mode.
However Habib teaches in at least Paragraphs 0110 & 0111 wherein onboard components of an aircraft may be used to communicate with ground weather stations in order to generate calculations and predictions of current weather states [i.e. acquire weather information on weather over the airport in a case in which the airport is congested and the aircraft is about to land at the airport]. At least Paragraphs 0147 & 0163 of Habib further teach wherein based on the detection of a weather phenomena, such as fog or ice, an aircraft is configured to switch between a fixed wing and VTOL mode [i.e. hold in air using the fixed wing mode in a case in which the aircraft has the fixed wing mode and the weather information satisfies a predetermined weather condition, and hold in air using the vertical flight mode in a case in which the aircraft does not have the fixed wing mode or the weather information does not satisfy the predetermined weather condition].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Michini by incorporating the determination of if an aircraft should operate in fixed wing or vertical flight mode based on assessed weather conditions as taught by Habib.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Habib in at least Paragraph 0147, the flying vehicle may appropriately respond to environmental factors causing potential hazards, improving the control of the aerial vehicle to avoid hazardous conditions.
Regarding Claim 3:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the weather information includes information on an air current, a wind speed, or a climate.
Michini does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the weather information includes information on an air current, a wind speed, or a climate.
However Habib teaches in at least Paragraph 0111 wherein weather states monitored may include temperature, dew point, pressure, and visibility [i.e. the weather information includes information on a climate].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Michini by incorporating the determination of climate information as part of monitoring weather states as taught by Habib.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Habib in at least Paragraph 0147, the flying vehicle may appropriately respond to environmental factors causing potential hazards, improving the control of the aerial vehicle to avoid hazardous conditions.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Gariel (US 2022/0189325 A1): Gariel recites a method for landing an aerial vehicle, including the selection of a sequence of waypoints for the vehicle to follow. Based on the determined route, the aircraft may be controlled to follow the selected sequence of waypoints.
Priest (US 2020/0258401 A1): Priest recites a drone control system for managing UAV flight in a geographic region. An air traffic control system may provide a flight plan to the UAV, including through the integration of real-time weather information to manage flying lanes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights