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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21, 33, and 40 are amended. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that their claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter and are similar to that of example 38 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility examples. Examiner disagrees. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating, planning, and optimizing a number of multi-modal transportation services and vehicles throughout an operational time period, by anticipating servicing events so that future consequences of a multi-modal transportation itinerary and schedule can be identified. The claim limitations correspond to certain methods or organizing human activity (managing personal behavior; commercial interactions (business relations); following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations relating to computing flight itineraries in which passengers travel and performing simulations based the flight itineraries, constraints, battery model, implementing servicing options for the vehicles that transport the passengers based on the simulations. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the limitations describe the observation or evaluation of various data and simulations, and making a judgment or opinion (e.g., implementing service options) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea. Further, the claims are in no way similar to that of example 38. Example 38 is drawn to replicating the sound quality of an analog audio mixer by accounting for the slight variances in analog circuit values that are generated during the circuit’s manufacturing to create a more authentic sound that is preferential for the listener. Example 38 is technical in nature, does not recite a judicial exception, and is directed to eligible subject matter, unlike the applicant’s claims and invention. The claim in example 38 recites the limitations of initializing a model of an analog circuit in the digital computer, said model including a location, initial value, and a manufacturing tolerance range for each of the circuit elements within the analog circuit; generating a normally distributed first random value for each circuit element, using a pseudo random number generator, based on a respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range; and simulating a first digital representation of the analog circuit based on the first random value and the location of each circuit element within the analog circuit. These limitations do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes. This is not the same case in the applicant’s invention which recites limitations that directly correspond to organizing human activity in facilitating, planning, and optimizing a number of multi-modal transportation services and vehicles throughout an operational time period, by anticipating servicing events, and mental processes by describing the observation or evaluation of various data and simulations, and making a judgment or opinion (e.g., implementing service options) based on the observed and evaluated data . The claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the human mind cannot practically initialize a simulation, use the simulation to simulate performance of a VTOL aircraft in a simulated environment and battery performance of the aircraft, and implement servicing options based on simulating the performance of an aircraft. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Applicant relies on the assertion that a human cannot physically perform the claim operations as implemented on a computer. The proper analysis under step 2A Prong One is whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Steps that correspond to observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion (e.g., decision-making) fall within the mental processes category. The fact that a computer is used to perform the steps (e.g., the “computer-implemented method” that performs the simulation steps) does not change the underlying nature of the claims. Labeling a set of evaluating and decision-making steps as a “simulation” also does not change the nature of the claims. A simulation merely utilizes a computer to predict outcomes, and is the case in the applicant’s invention. The simulation of VTOL performance using a battery model, flight itineraries, and constraints directly correspond to the evaluation and observation of data. Implementing a servicing option based on the performance simulation (or analyzed data) is a decision-making step that includes adjusting a charging rate of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft. These steps and operations are mental processes even if carried out by a computer and described as a simulation. Accordingly, the computer implementation and terminology used does not remove the claim from the mental processes category. Additionally, a human mind very well can perform the observation and evaluation of data, and implementing a decision (judgment or opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. It is not required that the human mind be able to perform the claimed steps in the same manner, at the same scale, or with the same speed as a computer.
Regarding certain methods of organizing human activity, applicant argues that the Office Action improperly inserts terms such as “riders” and “transportation service” into the claim language to form the basis for the assertion, and instead the preamble states that the method of for simulating aircraft battery performance. Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s emphasis on the simulation of aircraft battery performance does not alter the character of the claimed invention. While the claims pace greater focus on the battery-related computations, the claims as a while continue to recite determining and optimizing flight itineraries and transportation-related constraints. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, applicant’s specification discloses in [0002] that the disclosure related generally to facilitating multi-modal transportation services for riders. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for optimizing multi-modal transportation services via simulations. Further, [0026] discloses “ Aspects of the present disclosure are directed to improved systems and methods for multi-modal transportation service systems. In particular, aspects of the present disclosure are directed to utilizing simulated multi-modal transportation itineraries to schedule real-time multi- modal services such as, for example, aerial transportation services, aerial vehicle servicing services, or both.” This paragraph also details the transportation services for riders or passengers. The specification in [0028] details “In addition, the service entity computing system can leverage servicing data to detect and schedule servicing events (e.g., vehicle maintenance, vehicle charging/fueling, etc.) during an operational time period for vehicles configured to provide services for the service entity and optimize the simulated transportation itineraries to account for the servicing events. This can include, for example, modifying a departure time for an aerial leg of a transportation itinerary to accommodate one or more charging and/or fueling advantages/disadvantages, etc. To do so, the service entity computing system can obtain vehicle data (e.g., from service entity vehicles, from third-party vehicle providers, etc.) associated with the vehicles and the simulation data described herein. The vehicle data can identify a component state (e.g., charge level, last date of servicing, structural integrity, etc.) for a number of components (e.g., a power component (e.g., a battery, fuel tank, etc.), one or more other hardware components, one or more software components, etc.)”… Based on the vehicle and simulation data, the service entity computing system can identify a number of servicing events and generate a servicing schedule for the one or more anticipated servicing events during the operational time period. Again, when considered as a whole in light of the specification, the claims remain directed to facilitating, planning, and optimizing a number of multi-modal transportation services and vehicles throughout an operational time period, by anticipating servicing events (e.g., charging) so that future consequences of a multi-modal transportation itinerary and schedule can be identified. The simulation of aircraft battery performance is used in furtherance of this broader objective and does not, by itself, redefine the invention (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claims remain directed to a method or organizing human activity notwithstanding the inclusion of battery simulation. The claimed simulation is not an end itself, but is instead used to inform and optimize transportation planning services.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that the claims address a technical problem and reflect a technical improvement described in the disclosure, specifically addressing the alleged technical problem faced in maximizing the operation and performance of aircraft and aircraft batteries by the system identifying, through servicing option, “a charging advantage associated with the charging service for the respective aerial vehicle. The charging advantage, for instance, can be associated with an increase and/or decrease to the long-term health and/or a short-term health of an electric battery (e.g., as indicated by a respective vehicle model) of the respective aerial vehicle.” Examiner disagrees. Applicant characterizes the problem as maximizing operation and performance of aircraft batteries and identifies features such as determining a “charging advantage” associated with battery health, but this characterization does not reflect the claims as a hoe. The claims do not recite an improvement to computers or computer functionality, battery technology, nor battery operation. Instead, the claims (and applicant’s argument), recites obtaining data (including outputs from simulation, optimization, or scheduling systems…see Spec. [0077] which applicant fails to cite in addition to [0078]), evaluating servicing options, and modifying transportation services or servicing schedules based on those evaluations. The identification of a “charging advantage” reflects an assessment of information (e.g., battery health impact) used to inform these transportation planning decisions. The alleged improvement is not to a technological system, but to the selection and scheduling of services based on evaluated data. At best, this is an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not computers or [battery] technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the selection and scheduling of services based on evaluated data, not an improvement in technology.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that “Because the claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A-Prong One and, in arguendo, the claim integrates into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two, it is not "directed to" an abstract idea or certain method of organizing human activity and is patent eligible under § 101. MPEP § 2106. Thus, claim 21 need not be analyzed under Step 2B.” Examiner disagrees. Claim 21 remains ineligible under Step 2B as well for the reason provided in the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis of this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, examiner would like to address that the argument that the prior art should be withdrawn based on the treatment of the claims of a different application. This argument is misplaced. The referenced application contains claims of a different scope, and any prior determinations made therein were based on the claim limitations considered as a whole and not on any portion of a single claim limitation as applicant attempts to argue. In contrast, the present application is evaluated on the basis of its own claim set, the prior art applied in the current rejection is mapped to the claims as whole, and the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references with respect to the entirety of the claim limitations. Applicant improperly isolates a single portion of a claim limitation of a different application while disregarding the broader context in which the prior art was withdrawn. Accordingly, applicant has not identified any deficiency in the applied art as it related to the presently claimed invention, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-40 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 21, 33, and 40 recite “and implementing one or more servicing options for the VTOL aircraft based on simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft, wherein implementing one or more servicing options comprises adjusting a charging rate of at least one battery the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft.” It appears that the word “of” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 22-32 and 34-39 are also objected due to their dependency in the objected claims above.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-32 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 33-39 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claim 40 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 21-40 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 21, 33, and 40 recites the limitations of: accessing a [battery model] of [a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft], the [battery model] being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of [one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft] based on a structure of [the one or more batteries]; computing, using a candidate model, a plurality of candidate flight itineraries for [the VTOL aircraft]; computing, for the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, one or more constraints associated with charging [the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft]; initializing a simulation based on [the battery model] of the aircraft, the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, and the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries; simulating, using the initialized simulation, a performance [the VTOL aircraft] within comprises simulating, using the [battery model], a performance of [the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft] across a plurality of simulated flights within the simulation environment, the plurality of simulated flights being based on the plurality of candidate flight itineraries and the constraints associated with charging [the one or more batteries]; and implementing one or more servicing options for the [VTOL aircraft] based on simulating the performance of the [VTOL aircraft], wherein implementing one or more servicing options comprises adjusting a charging rate of at least one [battery the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft]. The invention and claims are drawn towards facilitating, planning, and optimizing a number of multi-modal transportation services and vehicles throughout an operational time period, by anticipating servicing events so that future consequences of a multi-modal transportation itinerary and schedule can be identified. The claim limitations correspond to certain methods or organizing human activity (managing personal behavior; commercial interactions (business relations); following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations relating to computing flight itineraries in which passengers travel and performing simulations based the flight itineraries, constraints, battery model, implementing servicing options for the vehicles that transport the passengers based on the simulations. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the limitations describe the observation or evaluation of various data and simulations, and making a judgment or opinion (e.g., implementing service options) based on the observed and evaluated data. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a VTOL aircraft, one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft, one or more processors (claims 33 and 40), one or mor tangible non-transitory computer readable media (claims 33 and 40), and a battery model. The additional elements of the one or more processors and one or more tangible non-transitory computer readable media are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the additional element of a VTOL aircraft, battery model, and one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (facilitating, planning, and optimizing a number of multi-modal transportation services and vehicles). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 26 and 38 recites the limitation of outputting instructions indicative of the selected flight itinerary to [a computing device associated with the VTOL aircraft]. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a computing device associated with the VTOL aircraft. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, the 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-25, 27-32, 34-37, and 39 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 22-25, 27-32, 34-37, and 39 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-23, 31-35, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (2018/0308366) in view of Gu (2020/0218270) further in view of Schmalzried (2019/0126769).
Claim 21: A computer-implemented method for simulating aircraft battery performance, the method comprising:
accessing a battery model of a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft, the battery model being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft based on a structure of the one or more batteries;
Goel discloses accessing a battery model of a VTOL aircraft, the battery model being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft: (Goel ¶0064 disclosing a parameter selection module that presents various parameters to be used in modelling the transportation network including battery consumption rate at cruising; battery consumption for take-off and landing; battery recharging rate, etc.). Goel does not explicitly disclose that the battery model is based on the structure of the one or more batteries. Gu suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Gu ¶0063 disclosing receiving data including an identifier of a type of battery of the vehicle and/or an identifier that otherwise identifies one or more characteristics of the battery (e.g., number of cells, age, chemistry, etc.); ¶0064 disclosing training instance input includes an identifier that identifies one or more characteristics of the battery, training instances can be generated in method that are based on various types of batteries having varying characteristics; the machine learning model can be trained based on such training instances; the model predicts an appropriate output given the characteristics of an indicated battery (as indicated by input data being processed), while enabling the machine learning model to be trained based on training data that is based on vehicles having a variety of batteries having a variety of characteristics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include accessing a battery model of a VTOL aircraft, the battery model being configured to model one or more performance characteristics of one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft based on the structure of the one or more batteries as taught by Gu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Goel, as modified above, discloses the following limitations:
computing, using a candidate model, a plurality of candidate flight itineraries for the VTOL aircraft; (Goel ¶0111 disclosing determining routing for a fleet of VTOLs within a transport network.; ¶0113 disclosing the routing data is information about the routes assigned to each VTOL; a route may include information such as: a destination, way points to visit en route; ¶0063 disclosing the route optimization system that determines the routing of VTOL aircrafts; ¶0097 disclosing the network flow module determines how to route VTOL aircraft through the transport network; network flow module may calculate a probability of each request being serviced by each mode of transport based on factors such as: the origin, the destination, the time, convenience (e.g., ingress and egress times), demographics, and the like. In other embodiments, different models for optimizing the routing may be used)
computing, for the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft; (Goel ¶0025 disclosing the system including information regarding the hubs the VTOLs travel to which include whether a hub has multiple charging stations for recharging battery-powered VTOL aircraft, or whether a hub is located in a sparely populated suburb might include infrastructure for a single VTOL aircraft and have no charging station (constraints), ¶0026 the hub management system monitors he hubs to which the VTOLS fly into and/out of and determines whether there is a fault in a charging station making it unavailable at a hub (constraints); ¶0063 disclosing the route optimization subsystem determines the routing of VTOL aircraft; ¶0064 disclosing parameter selection module (like its counterparts in the candidate hub identification subsystem and hub optimization subsystem ) provides a user interface for defining various parameters to be used in modelling the transport network; for each VTOL type, the VTOL parameters may include: battery consumption rate when cruising, battery consumption for take-off and landing, battery recharging rate, whether the battery may be switched at a hub and how long switching takes, etc.; the parameters include the data available from the hub management system (including the unavailability of charging stations, etc.)
initializing a simulation based on the battery model of the aircraft, the plurality of candidate flight itineraries, and the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries; (Goel ¶0066 disclosing the flow modelling module models the flow of VTOL aircraft and riders through the transport network trying to maximize efficiency in view of the selected objective (listed for the above limitation in ¶0064 and also mentioned in ¶0065 that other objectives and parameters may be used); the flow modelling module discretizes time into segments and calculates an optimum or substantially optimum routing for the fleet of VTOLs for each segment to determine how each VTOL aircraft should be routed to meet the selected objective; ¶0067-¶0091, etc. disclosing the parameters used in the network flow model (including battery charging, constraints, itineraries (nodes, hubs, etc.))
simulating, using the initialized simulation, a performance the VTOL aircraft within a simulated environment, wherein simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft comprises simulating, using the battery model, a performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft across a plurality of simulated flights within the simulation environment, the plurality of simulated flights being based on the plurality of candidate flight itineraries and the constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries, and (Goel ¶0097 thus, the network flow module can determine how to route VTOL aircraft through the transport network by finding the shortest path using negative weights and fuel constraints; ¶0098 disclosing route visualization module presents the results of modelling the flow of VTOL aircraft; ¶0099 disclosing if the user selects a VTOL flightpath, information about the corresponding VTOL aircraft and the flightpath may be shown (e.g., an identifier of the particular VTOL aircraft, identifiers of the riders currently being serviced, origin and destination hubs, battery charge remaining, and time remaining to arrival; (recall from above: ¶0066 disclosing the flow modelling module models the flow of VTOL aircraft and riders through the transport network trying to maximize efficiency in view of the selected objective (listed for the above limitation in ¶0064 and also mentioned in ¶0065 that other objectives and parameters may be used); the flow modelling module discretizes time into segments and calculates an optimum or substantially optimum routing for the fleet of VTOLs for each segment to determine how each VTOL aircraft should be routed to meet the selected objective; ¶0067-¶0091, etc. disclosing the parameters used in the network flow model (including battery charging, constraints, itineraries (nodes, hubs, etc.))
Goel in view of Gu further in view of Schmalzried discloses:
implementing one or more servicing options for the VTOL aircraft based on simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft, wherein implementing one or more servicing options comprises adjusting a charging rate of at least one battery the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft.
Goel discloses simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft as indicated in the previous limitation, Goel does not explicitly disclose implementing one or more servicing options for the VTOL aircraft based on simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft, wherein implementing one or more servicing options comprises adjusting a charging rate of at least one battery the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft. Schmalzried suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Schmalzried ¶0021 embodiments can be implemented to adjust charge rates across a fleet of UAVs, in an effort to balance the need for rapid UAV delivery with the desire to preserve the useful lives of the UAVs' batteries; to do so, example embodiments may vary the charge rates for UAVs in a group of UAVs based on the demand for the delivery services by the group (and perhaps other factors as well); a central control system for a UAV fleet may consider a number of factors when adjusting UAV charge rates to more efficiently meet demand for UAV delivery services, such as infrastructure location (e.g., location of UAV charging stations), historical, known, and/or predicted levels of demand for UAV delivery service, etc.; ¶0100 UAV delivery infrastructure, such as that shown in FIG. 3, may be configured to intelligently control functionality such as recharging and/or flight scheduling for a group of UAVs; central control system can then send instructions for each UAV to the charging station where the UAV is located (or where the UAV is expected to arrive next), so that the charging station can adjust the charging rate used to charge the UAV's battery system; ¶0101 disclosing the ground control infrastructure 402 for a plurality of UAVs; ¶0105 ground control infrastructure may include or have access to UAV data for a group of UAVs 411a to 411i. UAV data 424 can include current, past, and/or future (e.g., predicted) state information for the individual UAVs in the group (simulation); battery state information can include expected remaining useful life for a UAV′ battery or batteries; ¶0106 ground control infrastructure also includes a charging coordination module and a demand evaluation module; ¶0107 the charging coordination module has access to transport service database that can include information related to current item-transport requests and/or fulfillment thereof (e.g., information relating to scheduled and/or in-progress item-transport flights); e.g., transport service database may include scheduling and/or flight plan information for fulfillment of the item-transport request by the UAV fleet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel in view of Gu to include implementing one or more servicing options for the VTOL aircraft based on simulating the performance of the VTOL aircraft, wherein implementing one or more servicing options comprises adjusting a charging rate of at least one battery the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft as taught by Schmalzried. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Goel in view of Gu in order increase battery lifetime (see ¶0004 of Schmalzried)
Claims 33 and 40: Claims 33 and 40 are directed to a system and one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media, respectively. Claims 33 and 40 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 21, which is directed towards a method. Claims 33 and 40 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 21. Furthermore claims 33 and 40 recite:
(Claim 33): A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Goel ¶0103 the storage device is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; memory holds instructions and data used by the processor)
(Claim 40): One or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Goel ¶0103 the storage device is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; memory holds instructions and data used by the processor)
Claim 22: The computer-implemented method of claim 21,
wherein the structure of the one or more batteries indicates at least one of: a cell type, a cell chemistry, an organizational structure of cells, how cell modules are packed together, or a material used in the one or more batteries.
Goel discloses a battery of the VTOL, but does not explicitly disclose that the structure of the one or more batteries indicates at least one of: a cell type, a cell chemistry, an organizational structure of cells, how cell modules are packed together, or a material used in the one or more batteries. Gu discloses these limitations/concepts: (Gu ¶0037 disclosing the battery can include one or more cells of the same or different battery chemistries; ¶0063 disclosing receiving data which may include a type of battery of the vehicle and/or an identifier that otherwise identifies one or more characteristics of the battery (e.g., number of cells, age, chemistry, etc.)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel to include the structure of the one or more batteries indicates at least one of: a cell type, a cell chemistry, an organizational structure of cells, how cell modules are packed together, or a material used in the one or more batteries as taught by Gu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 34: Claim 34 is directed to a system. Claim 34 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 22, which is directed towards a method. Claim 34 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 22.
Claim 23: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more performance characteristics comprise at least one of: an expected short-term performance or an expected long-term performance of the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0064 disclosing parameters may include battery consumption rate when cruising, battery consumption for take-off and landing, battery recharging rate; ¶0113 disclosing the parameter selection module retrieving current VTOL data including current battery level, a maximum battery level)
Claim 35: Claim 35 is directed to a system. Claim 35 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 23, which is directed towards a method. Claim 35 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 23.
Claim 31: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries comprise at least one of: an available charging time, an available type of charge, or available charging equipment. (Goel ¶0025 disclosing the system including information regarding the hubs the VTOLs travel to which include whether a hub has multiple charging stations for recharging battery-powered VTOL aircraft, or whether a hub is located in a sparely populated suburb might include infrastructure for a single VTOL aircraft and have no charging station, ¶0026 whether there is a fault in a charging station making it unavailable at a hub (all of these are constraints))
Claim 32: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the one or more constraints associated with charging the one or more batteries comprise: a current constraint associated with charging the one or more batteries or a predicted constraint associated with charging the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0025 disclosing the system including information regarding the hubs the VTOLs travel to which include whether a hub has multiple charging stations for recharging battery-powered VTOL aircraft, or whether a hub is located in a sparely populated suburb might include infrastructure for a single VTOL aircraft and have no charging station, ¶0026 whether there is a fault in a charging station making it unavailable at a hub (all of these are constraints))
Claim(s) 24-30 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (2018/0308366) in view of Gu (2020/0218270) further in view of Schmalzried (2019/0126769) further in view of Bolotski (US 10,663,529).
Claim 24: The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
computing, based on the performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft within the simulated environment, a health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries.
Goel in view of Gu discloses a battery health, but does not explicitly disclose computing, based on the performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft within the simulated environment, a health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries. Bolotski suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Bolotski Col. 2, Ln. 30-35 disclosing the battery charging device may send a battery health report to the battery management service; the health report may describe one or more attributes of a rechargeable battery; the health report may include the internal resistance and/or capacity of the rechargeable battery, a current duty cycle, and a predicted life duty cycle; Col. 2, Ln. 49-58 disclosing the battery management service may determine a probability of failure of a battery; the battery management service may generate a prediction model for predicting a failure of a battery and/or a threshold degradation of a battery's charge capacity based at least in part on charging logs associated with the battery and/or one or more health reports associated with the battery; the battery management service may update the prediction model as additional battery charging logs and/or battery health reports are received from battery charging devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goel in view of Gu further in view of Schmalzried to include computing, based on the performance of the one or more batteries of the VTOL aircraft within the simulated environment, a health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries as taught by Bolotski. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Goel in view of Gu further in view of Schmalzried in order determine optimal battery charge settings for one or more battery types (see col.3, Ln. 35-37 of Bolotski).
Claim 36: Claim 36 is directed to a system. Claim 36 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 24, which is directed towards a method. Claim 36 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 24.
Claim 25: The computer-implemented method of claim 24, further comprising: computing, based on the health of the one or more batteries for each of the candidate flight itineraries, a selected flight itinerary for the VTOL aircraft. (Goel ¶0109 disclosing the transportation network management system calculates route optimization stats based on selected information including additional parameters such as battery capacity (health); the transportation network management system determines the optimal routing for the VTOL aircraft to meet the hypothetical demand and calculates corresponding routing information)
Claim 37: Claim 37 is directed to a system. Claim 37 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 25, which is directed towards a method. Claim 37 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 25.
Claim 26: The computer-implemented method of claim 25, further comprising: outputting instructions indicative of the selected flight itinerary to a computing device associated with the VTOL aircraft. (Goel ¶0116 disclosing the route optimization subsystem may send routing instructions to some or all of the VTOLs, which may include instructions to fly to a particular hub and charge its battery for a specified time)
Claim 38: Claim 38 is directed to a system. Claim 38 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 26, which is directed towards a method. Claim 38 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 26.
Claim 27: The computer-implemented method of claim 24, further comprising: computing, based on the health of the one or more batteries for at least one candidate flight itinerary, a change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time)
Claim 28: The computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary comprises a change to a charging time or a type of charge. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time)
Claim 29: The computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary increases a flight range of the VTOL aircraft. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time (thus increasing the flight range))
Claim 30: The computer-implemented method of claim 27, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary increases the health of the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level and a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time (thus increasing battery health))
Claim 39: The computing system of claim 36, further comprising: computing, based on the health of the one or more batteries for at least one candidate flight itinerary, a change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary, wherein the change to the at least one candidate flight itinerary comprises at least one of: a change to a charging time, a change to a type of charge, a change that increases a flight range of the VTOL aircraft, or a change that increases the health of the one or more batteries. (Goel ¶0112 and Fig. 9 disclosing updating the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs based on the current conditions; this involves in ¶0113 retrieving current VTOL and routing data about each of the VTOLs including current battery level, a maximum battery level (both considered battery health), and the like; ¶0116 discloses the routing update based on both current conditions and demand data including the instructions might direct a VTOL to fly to a particular hub, charge its battery for a specified time)
Additional Relevant Prior Art References:
Additional references found that are relevant to the applicant’s invention but are not currently relied on in the prior art rejection includes:
Venturelli (2020/0142433): discloses a system that determine a plurality of plans for each of a plurality of UAVs and for a predetermined time period based at least on the first telemetric data, and iteratively revise the plurality of plans
Pandit (2019/0271563): discloses a system that utilized forecasted conditions (including battery) used to generate a flight plan for an aerial vehicle from a start location to an end location.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights