DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0139160, filed on 10/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 filed on 04/15/2025 are presently examined. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 11-12 filed on 04/15/2025 have been amended.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method; claim 11 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. a machine); and claim 12 is directed to a computer program executed by a computer (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claims 1-12 are 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 12 recites similar limitations as independent claims 1 and 11 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 12 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program, wherein
the computer program, when executed by a processor, includes instructions that cause the processor to perform a method for monitoring trajectory conformance of advanced air mobility (AAM) the method according to any one of comprising:
obtaining information on scheduled airspace segments through which the AAM is scheduled to pass, selected among a plurality of airspace segments within airways based on a flight plan of the AAM; and
obtaining information on actual operating segments through which the AAM actually passed, determined among the plurality of airspace segments based on a flight path of the AAM, and
monitoring trajectory conformance of the AAM by comparing the information on the actual operating segments with the information on the scheduled airspace segments.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally monitoring the conformance of the AAM’s trajectory based on the actual and scheduled airspace segment travel based on information gathered. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program, wherein
the computer program, when executed by a processor, includes instructions that cause the processor to perform a method for monitoring trajectory conformance of advanced air mobility (AAM) the method according to any one of comprising:
obtaining information on scheduled airspace segments through which the AAM is scheduled to pass, selected among a plurality of airspace segments within airways based on a flight plan of the AAM; and
obtaining information on actual operating segments through which the AAM actually passed, determined among the plurality of airspace segments based on a flight path of the AAM, and
monitoring trajectory conformance of the AAM by comparing the information on the actual operating segments with the information on the scheduled airspace segments.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 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 elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 2-10 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/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramana et al. (US 20190180631 A1) in view of Panchangam (US 20220309934 A1) and Evans et al. (US 20190103031 A1) and, hereinafter referred to as Venkataramana, Panchangam, and Evans, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Venkataramana discloses A method for monitoring trajectory conformance of aircraft by an electronic device including a memory and a processor ([abstract] “Methods and systems … for monitoring conformance of an aircraft to an actual and predicted 4-dimensional (4D) trajectory” [0030—0031] method performed on processor with memory.), the method comprising:
obtaining information on scheduled airspace segments through which the aircraft is scheduled to pass, based on a flight plan of the aircraft ([0016] “A designated flight plan is typically composed of a contiguous sequence of ARINC 424 lateral legs from the origin to the destination. It is advantageous to define an ideal 4D trajectory which will incorporate at minimum the approved flight plan but will also consider … lateral and vertical deviation allowable limits etc. This ideal 4D trajectory defined and referred to as a Reference Business Trajectory (RBT).” 4D meaning legs (or segments) of the plan through 3D airspace and time.); and
obtaining information on actual operating segments through which the aircraft actually passed, determined among the plurality of airspace segments based on a flight path of the aircraft, and monitoring trajectory conformance of the aircraft by comparing the information on the actual operating segments with the information on the scheduled airspace segments ([0025] “If the actual or predicted 4D flight trajectory is not in compliance with the RBT 212, the conformance monitor will generate an advisory for an aircrew member of the aircraft that notifies them of the actual or anticipated future deviations 214.”).
Venkataramana discloses general aircraft but fails to explicitly disclose advanced air mobility (AAM). Applicant’s specification describes AAM as [0004] “the advanced air mobility, utilizing the sky as a transportation route by combining vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capable personal air vehicles.”
However, Panchangam teaches advanced air mobility (AAM) using 4D trajectories and tracking positions of the air vehicles within their flight plans similar to Venkataramana ([0019] “present disclosure relate generally to improving the safety of UAM vehicles” [0023] “a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL)” [0052] “The planned/received flight path may include a 4-D trajectory of a flight trajectory” [0065] “receive aircraft positioning data from the aircraft 131 on a continuous/periodic basis.” [0084] “inform the detected (known) vehicle that the detected (known) vehicle is outside the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana’s aircraft trajectory conformance monitoring system with Panchangam’s teaching of a similar 4D flight plan with a management system that tracks positions of urban air mobility (UAM) air vehicles including VTOL aircraft. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include UAM vehicles in order to similarly track flight plan trajectory conformance of modern advanced air vehicles.
Venkataramana’s flight plan is a 4D trajectory and has a plurality of legs, but Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose that the aircrafts scheduled flight plan segments are selected among a plurality of airspace segments within airways.
However, Evans teaches the scheduled airspace segments through which the aircraft is scheduled to pass, are selected among a plurality of airspace segments within airways based on a flight plan of the aircraft ([FIG. 4] [0008] “divide airspace into airspace voxels that each represent a three-dimensional portion of airspace” [claim 1] “receive one or more flight parameters regarding a potential flight plan of an aircraft through a plurality of airspace voxels, including the airspace voxel, during the particular time period; analyze the one or more flight parameters and a plurality of airspace parameters, associated with the plurality of airspace voxels, using one or more airspace rules; and output a recommendation regarding the potential flight plan based on analyzing the one or more flight parameters and the plurality of airspace parameters.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Evans’ teaching of a plurality of airspace segments for the use in planning flight trajectories and also tracking the airspace segments the aircraft flies through. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a plurality of airspace segments for the use in planning flight trajectories and also tracking the airspace segments the aircraft flies through in order to improve the flight plans of a plurality of air vehicle (Evans [0079] “These airspace voxels and associated airspace parameters can be used to analyze and provide recommendations regarding flight plans for tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, or more UAVs to consistently generate safe, efficient flight plans. Such flight plans can be analyzed before a UAV flight, or can be generated in real-time via direct communication with the UAV while the UAV is in flight. In this way, a large quantity of UAV flight plans can be improved or optimized to increase flight safety, reduce accidents, conserve UAV energy (e.g., battery power, fuel, etc.), reduce flight time, and/or the like.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramana in view of Panchangam and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Faccin (US 20220028279 A1), hereinafter referred to as Faccin.
Regarding claim 2, Venkataramana fails to disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the information on the scheduled airspace segments includes identification information on each of the scheduled airspace segments, an expected entry points of time when the AAM is expected to enter each of the scheduled airspace segments, and an expected exit points of time when the AAM is expected to exit each of the scheduled airspace segments.
However, Evans teaches the information on the scheduled airspace segments includes identification information on each of the scheduled airspace segments ([0049-0050] “receiving one or more flight parameters regarding a potential flight plan of an aircraft through a plurality of airspace voxels … a flight plan can include voxels to be traversed by the aircraft, an order or sequence in which the voxels are to be traversed” [0038] “UAV management device 260 can receive the information that identifies an airspace voxel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Evans’ teaching of scheduled airspace voxels containing identifying information of each voxel. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use identifying information of the voxels for scheduled flight plans through a plurality of voxels in order to identify occupancy states of voxels to avoid collisions or identify the order through which the aircraft should traverse a plurality of voxels ([Evans] [0047] “occupancy condition can identify whether another aircraft is to be located in the airspace voxel” [0050] “order or sequence in which the voxels are to be traversed”).
Further, Faccin teaches an expected entry points of time when the AAM is expected to enter each of the scheduled airspace segments, and an expected exit points of time when the AAM is expected to exit each of the scheduled airspace segments ([FIG. 4] [0043] “an approved flight plan which may include one or more approved flight plan sectors … comprising … four dimensional polygons … expected transition time for the polygon, e.g. expected time stamps for when the polygon needs to be entered and when it needs to be exited.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of flight plans using 4D volumes of airspace with approved durations of time the aircraft may occupy planned volumes and their corresponding entry and exit times. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to plan and track this information for aircraft flight plans in order to prevent collisions and provide efficient routing based on the planned durations of occupancy of aircraft in airspace volumes in such a system ([Faccin] [0093] “Such tracking and prediction of the UAV position facilitates efficient routing of traffic and collision avoidance techniques for UAVs and other types of aircraft.” [0140] “each flight plan sector of the set of contiguous flight plan sectors includes a volume and a time period corresponding to a duration that the UE is permitted to occupy the volume.”).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramana in view of Panchangam and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Faccin and Chen et al. (US 20220392356 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 3, Venkataramana discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM includes: comparing trajectories and rules of the flight plan ([at least abstract] “monitoring conformance of an aircraft to an actual and predicted 4-dimensional (4D) trajectory with respect to a reference business trajectory (RBT)”).
Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose determining whether identification information on the actual operating segments matches identification information on the scheduled airspace segments.
However, Faccin teaches determining whether identification information on the actual operating segments matches identification information on the scheduled airspace segments ([claim 10] “each approved flight plan sector of the plurality of approved flight plan sectors comprises one or both of a sector identification or a sector number.” [0045] “the UAV may communicate one or more of its current position and its expected position(s) within one or more flight plan sectors as it traverses”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of inputting current and expected position of the AAM among the approved flight plan sectors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to determine the correctness of the AAM’s position along the flight path in relation to the expected flight sector (Faccin [0098] “The RAN may compare the information provided by the UAV 255 with the information received from the core network to verify correctness.”).
Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose comparing actual entry points of time when the AAM entered the actual operating segments with an expected entry points of time for the scheduled airspace segments to determine whether a difference between an actual entry point of time when the AAM entered each of the actual operating segments and an expected entry point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within a preset entry error.
However, Chen teaches comparing actual entry points of time when the AAM entered the actual operating segments with an expected entry points of time for the scheduled airspace segments to determine whether a difference between an actual entry point of time when the AAM entered each of the actual operating segments and an expected entry point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within a preset entry error ([0022] “CTO: denoting a sequencing passing time of the aircraft” this is a scheduled entry time of the aircraft into a scheduled waypoint along a flight plan. [0115] “ATO: denoting an actual passing time of the flight at the waypoint” this is an actual entry time of the aircraft at a waypoint along a flight plan [0114] “Res Div: denoting a deviation limit between an actual passing time at the sequencing key point and the sequencing passing time of the flight” [0278] “As long as the actual passing time ATO of the flight at the sequencing key point satisfies [mathematical threshold expression], it means that the flight is running normally according to the sequencing time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Chen’s teaching of comparing the expected scheduled entry times and actual entry times of waypoints on a flight plan to determine deviation against a threshold. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to compare actual to expected entry time points of an aircraft on planned waypoints of a flight plan in order to correct the flight parameters such as speed if the aircraft is flying too quickly in the flight plan as evidenced by the deviation limit ([Chen] [0279] “The reference trajectory circle of the flight in the figure lags behind the actual position of the flight, indicating that the flight is flying too fast at present and needs to be adjusted according to the sequencing time and deviation limit”).
Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose comparing actual exit points of time when the AAM exited the actual operating segments with expected exit points of time for the scheduled airspace segments to determine whether a difference between an actual exit point of time when the AAM exited each of the actual operating segments and an expected exit point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within a preset exit error.
Faccin teaches expected entry points of time when the aircraft is expected to enter each of the scheduled airspace sectors, and expected exit points of time when the aircraft is expected to exit each of the scheduled airspace sectors ([0043] “an approved flight plan which may include one or more approved flight plan sectors … comprising … four dimensional polygons … expected transition time for the polygon, e.g. expected time stamps for when the polygon needs to be entered and when it needs to be exited.”). Faccin, similar to Venkataramana, fails to explicitly teach determine whether a difference between an actual exit point of time when the AAM exited each of the actual operating segments and an expected exit point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within a preset exit error.
However, Chen teaches comparing actual waypoint time when the AAM exited the actual operating segments with expected waypoint time for the scheduled airspace segments to determine whether a difference between an actual waypoints time when the AAM exited each of the actual operating segments and an expected waypoints time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within a preset exit error ([0022] “CTO: denoting a sequencing passing time of the aircraft” this is a scheduled entry time of the aircraft into a scheduled waypoint along a flight plan. [0115] “ATO: denoting an actual passing time of the flight at the waypoint” this is an actual entry time of the aircraft at a waypoint along a flight plan [0114] “Res Div: denoting a deviation limit between an actual passing time at the sequencing key point and the sequencing passing time of the flight” [0278] “As long as the actual passing time ATO of the flight at the sequencing key point satisfies [mathematical threshold expression], it means that the flight is running normally according to the sequencing time.”). Chen teaches this deviation analysis at least of waypoints, but not explicitly for exit points. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Chen’s entry point time deviation analysis with Faccin’s 4D flight plan expected and actual volume exit timestamps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of explicit 4D flight plan volumes with entry and exit times and Chen’s teaching of comparing the expected scheduled waypoint times and actual waypoint times of waypoints on a flight plan to determine deviation against a threshold. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to compare actual to expected exit time points of an aircraft on planned waypoints of a flight plan in order to correct the flight parameters such as speed if the aircraft is flying too quickly in the flight plan as evidenced by the deviation limit ([Chen] [0279] “The reference trajectory circle of the flight in the figure lags behind the actual position of the flight, indicating that the flight is flying too fast at present and needs to be adjusted according to the sequencing time and deviation limit”).
Venkataramana discloses monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments ([at least abstract] “monitoring conformance of an aircraft to an actual and predicted 4-dimensional (4D) trajectory with respect to a reference business trajectory (RBT)”).
Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments based on the determination of the matching of the identification information on the actual operating segments with the identification information on the scheduled airspace segments, the determination of whether the actual entry point of time falls within the entry error, and the determination of whether the actual exit point of time falls within the exit error.
However, Faccin teaches monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments based on the determination of the matching of the identification information on the actual operating segments with the identification information on the scheduled airspace segments ([claim 10] “each approved flight plan sector of the plurality of approved flight plan sectors comprises one or both of a sector identification or a sector number.” [0045] “the UAV may communicate one or more of its current position and its expected position(s) within one or more flight plan sectors as it traverses” [0098] “The RAN may compare the information provided by the UAV 255 with the information received from the core network to verify correctness.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of inputting current and expected position of the AAM among the approved flight plan sectors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to provide efficient routing and avoiding collisions with other AAM and aircraft (Faccin [0045] “Such tracking and prediction of the UAV position facilitates efficient routing of traffic and collision avoidance techniques for UAVs and other types of aircraft.”).
Further, Chen teaches monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments based on … the determination of whether the actual entry point of time falls within the entry error ([0022] “CTO: denoting a sequencing passing time of the aircraft” this is a scheduled entry time of the aircraft into a scheduled waypoint along a flight plan. [0115] “ATO: denoting an actual passing time of the flight at the waypoint” this is an actual entry time of the aircraft at a waypoint along a flight plan [0114] “Res Div: denoting a deviation limit between an actual passing time at the sequencing key point and the sequencing passing time of the flight” [0278] “As long as the actual passing time ATO of the flight at the sequencing key point satisfies [mathematical threshold expression], it means that the flight is running normally according to the sequencing time.”).
Chen teaches this deviation analysis at least of waypoint, but not explicitly for exit points. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Chen’s waypoint time deviation analysis with Faccin’s 4D flight plan expected and actual volume exit timestamps.
Faccin teaches expected entry points of time when the aircraft is expected to enter each of the scheduled airspace sectors, and expected exit points of time when the aircraft is expected to exit each of the scheduled airspace sectors ([0043] “an approved flight plan which may include one or more approved flight plan sectors … comprising … four dimensional polygons … expected transition time for the polygon, e.g. expected time stamps for when the polygon needs to be entered and when it needs to be exited.”). Faccin, similar to Venkataramana, fails to explicitly teach determine whether a difference between an actual exit point of time when the AAM exited each of the actual operating segments and an expected exit point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within a preset exit error.
Further, Chen teaches monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments based on … the determination of whether the actual waypoint point of time falls within the waypoint error. ([0022] “CTO: denoting a sequencing passing time of the aircraft” this is a scheduled entry time of the aircraft into a scheduled waypoint along a flight plan. [0115] “ATO: denoting an actual passing time of the flight at the waypoint” this is an actual entry time of the aircraft at a waypoint along a flight plan [0114] “Res Div: denoting a deviation limit between an actual passing time at the sequencing key point and the sequencing passing time of the flight” [0278] “As long as the actual passing time ATO of the flight at the sequencing key point satisfies [mathematical threshold expression], it means that the flight is running normally according to the sequencing time.”). Chen teaches this deviation analysis at least of waypoints, but not explicitly for entry vs. exit points. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Chen’s waypoint time deviation analysis with Faccin’s 4D flight plan expected and actual volume exit timestamps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of explicit 4D flight plan volumes with entry and exit times and Chen’s teaching of comparing the expected scheduled waypoints times and actual waypoints times on a flight plan to determine deviation against a threshold. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to compare actual to expected exit time points of an aircraft on planned waypoints of a flight plan in order to correct the flight parameters such as speed if the aircraft is flying too quickly in the flight plan as evidenced by the deviation limit ([Chen] [0279] “The reference trajectory circle of the flight in the figure lags behind the actual position of the flight, indicating that the flight is flying too fast at present and needs to be adjusted according to the sequencing time and deviation limit”).
Regarding claim 4, Venkataramana discloses The method of claim 3, wherein the monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments includes: evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is consistent when it is determined that the actual trajectory remains within the reference trajectory using rules and allowable tolerances, identifying nonconformance when those tolerances are exceeded ([0025] “the conformance monitor may have predetermined allowable limits for actual or anticipated future deviations. This limit allows an aircrew sufficient time to correct the actual or anticipated deviation prior to generating an advisory.”).
Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is consistent when it is determined that the identification information on the actual operating segments matches the identification information on the scheduled airspace segments, the difference between the actual entry point of time when the AAM entered each of the actual operating segments and the expected entry point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within the entry error, and the actual exit point of time falls within the exit error from the expected exit point of time.
However, Faccin teaches evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is consistent when it is determined that the identification information on the actual operating segments matches the identification information on the scheduled airspace segments ([claim 10] “each approved flight plan sector of the plurality of approved flight plan sectors comprises one or both of a sector identification or a sector number.” [0045] “the UAV may communicate one or more of its current position and its expected position(s) within one or more flight plan sectors as it traverses” [0098] “The RAN may compare the information provided by the UAV 255 with the information received from the core network to verify correctness.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of inputting current and expected position of the AAM among the approved flight plan sectors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to provide efficient routing and avoiding collisions with other AAM and aircraft (Faccin [0045] “Such tracking and prediction of the UAV position facilitates efficient routing of traffic and collision avoidance techniques for UAVs and other types of aircraft.”).
Further, Chen teaches teaches evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is consistent when … the difference between the actual entry point of time when the AAM entered each of the actual operating segments and the expected entry point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments falls within the entry error ([0022] “CTO: denoting a sequencing passing time of the aircraft” this is a scheduled entry time of the aircraft into a scheduled waypoint along a flight plan. [0115] “ATO: denoting an actual passing time of the flight at the waypoint” this is an actual entry time of the aircraft at a waypoint along a flight plan [0114] “Res Div: denoting a deviation limit between an actual passing time at the sequencing key point and the sequencing passing time of the flight” [0278] “As long as the actual passing time ATO of the flight at the sequencing key point satisfies [mathematical threshold expression], it means that the flight is running normally according to the sequencing time.”).
Chen teaches this deviation analysis at least of waypoint time, but not explicitly for exit points of airspace segments/sectors. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Chen’s waypoint time deviation analysis with Faccin’s 4D flight plan expected and actual volume exit timestamps:
Faccin teaches expected entry points of time when the aircraft is expected to enter each of the scheduled airspace sectors, and expected exit points of time when the aircraft is expected to exit each of the scheduled airspace sectors ([0043] “an approved flight plan which may include one or more approved flight plan sectors … comprising … four dimensional polygons … expected transition time for the polygon, e.g. expected time stamps for when the polygon needs to be entered and when it needs to be exited.”). Faccin, similar to Venkataramana, fails to explicitly teach evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is consistent when … the actual exit point of time falls within the exit error from the expected exit point of time.
Chen teaches evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is consistent … when the actual waypoint time falls within the waypoint time error from the expected waypoint time error. ([0022] “CTO: denoting a sequencing passing time of the aircraft” this is a scheduled entry time of the aircraft into a scheduled waypoint along a flight plan. [0115] “ATO: denoting an actual passing time of the flight at the waypoint” this is an actual entry time of the aircraft at a waypoint along a flight plan [0114] “Res Div: denoting a deviation limit between an actual passing time at the sequencing key point and the sequencing passing time of the flight” [0278] “As long as the actual passing time ATO of the flight at the sequencing key point satisfies [mathematical threshold expression], it means that the flight is running normally according to the sequencing time.”). Chen teaches this deviation analysis at least of waypoints, but not explicitly for entry vs. exit points. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Chen’s waypoint time deviation analysis with Faccin’s 4D flight plan expected and actual volume exit timestamps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of explicit 4D flight plan volumes with entry and exit times and Chen’s teaching of comparing the expected scheduled waypoints times and actual waypoints times on a flight plan to determine deviation against a threshold. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to compare actual to expected exit time points of an aircraft on planned waypoints of a flight plan in order to correct the flight parameters such as speed if the aircraft is flying too quickly in the flight plan as evidenced by the deviation limit ([Chen] [0279] “The reference trajectory circle of the flight in the figure lags behind the actual position of the flight, indicating that the flight is flying too fast at present and needs to be adjusted according to the sequencing time and deviation limit”).
Regarding claim 5, Venkataramana fails to disclose The method of claim 3, wherein the monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM for the actual operating segments includes:
evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is inconsistent when it is determined that identification information on the actual operating segments does not match identification information on the scheduled airspace segments, the difference between the actual entry point of time when the AAM entered each of the actual operating segments and the expected entry point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments does not fall within the entry error, or the difference between the actual entry point of time when the AAM entered each of the actual operating segments and the expected entry point of time for each of the scheduled airspace segments does not fall within the exit error (Examiner notes for claim 5, only one of the above evaluations is required due to “or.”).
However, Faccin teaches evaluating that a route of the actual operating segments is inconsistent when it is determined that identification information on the actual operating segments does not match identification information on the scheduled airspace segments ([claim 10] “each approved flight plan sector of the plurality of approved flight plan sectors comprises one or both of a sector identification or a sector number.” [0045] “the UAV may communicate one or more of its current position and its expected position(s) within one or more flight plan sectors as it traverses” [0098] “The RAN may compare the information provided by the UAV 255 with the information received from the core network to verify correctness.” If the position indication indicating the current and expected sector does not match, the correctness verification would result in a mismatch.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of inputting current and expected position of the AAM among the approved flight plan sectors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to provide efficient routing and avoiding collisions with other AAM and aircraft (Faccin [0045] “Such tracking and prediction of the UAV position facilitates efficient routing of traffic and collision avoidance techniques for UAVs and other types of aircraft.”).
Examiner notes that the combination of Chen and Faccin teach the entry and exit points of time and their respective error thresholds as mapped and rejected in at least claim 4, but it is not required for claim 5 due to the alternative language brought forth by “or.”
Regarding claim 6, Venkataramana discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the monitoring of the trajectory conformance of the aircraft includes determining whether the actual trajectory is maintained within a conformance boundary 308 ([0027-0028] [FIGs 3-4]).
Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose the monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM further includes: determining whether the actual operating segments fall within a route conformance region, and
wherein the evaluating of the route of the actual operating segments being inconsistent has: evaluating the inconsistency further based on the determination of whether the actual operating segments fall within the route conformance region.
Venkataramana merely fails to disclose that the sequence of lateral legs of the flight plan correspond to 4D airspace segments and that its aircraft is an AAM.
However, Panchangam teaches advanced air mobility (AAM) using 4D trajectories and tracking positions and the conformance of trajectories of the AAMs within their flight plans similar to Venkataramana ([0019] “present disclosure relate generally to improving the safety of UAM vehicles” [0023] “a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL)” [0052] “The planned/received flight path may include a 4-D trajectory of a flight trajectory” [0065] “receive aircraft positioning data from the aircraft 131 on a continuous/periodic basis.” [0084] “inform the detected (known) vehicle that the detected (known) vehicle is outside the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana’s aircraft trajectory conformance monitoring system with Panchangam’s teaching of a similar 4D flight plan with a management system that tracks positions of urban air mobility (UAM) air vehicles including VTOL aircraft. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include UAM vehicles in order to similarly track flight plan trajectory conformance of modern advanced air vehicles.
Venkataramana’s flight plan is a 4D trajectory and has a plurality of “lateral legs,” but Venkataramana fails to explicitly disclose that the aircraft’s scheduled flight plan’s lateral legs of the flight plan correspond to 4D airspace segments and that the conformance of the aircraft is based on these airspace segments.
However, Faccin teaches determining whether the actual operating segments fall within a route conformance region, and wherein the evaluating of the route of the actual operating segments being inconsistent has: evaluating the inconsistency further based on the determination of whether the actual operating segments fall within the route conformance region ([claim 10] “each approved flight plan sector of the plurality of approved flight plan sectors comprises one or both of a sector identification or a sector number.” [0045] “the UAV may communicate one or more of its current position and its expected position(s) within one or more flight plan sectors as it traverses” [0098] “The RAN may compare the information provided by the UAV 255 with the information received from the core network to verify correctness.” If the position indication indicating the current and expected sector does not match, the correctness verification would result in a mismatch, meaning non-conformance.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Faccin’s teaching of inputting current and expected position of the AAM among the approved flight plan sectors. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to provide efficient routing and avoiding collisions with other AAM and aircraft (Faccin [0045] “Such tracking and prediction of the UAV position facilitates efficient routing of traffic and collision avoidance techniques for UAVs and other types of aircraft.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramana in view of Panchangam, Evans, Faccin, and Chen as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Seo (US 20230035682 A1), hereinafter referred to as Seo.
Regarding claim 7, Venkataramana discloses The method of claim 6 wherein the trajectory conformance of the aircraft includes determining whether the actual trajectory is maintained within a conformance boundary 308 ([0027-0028] [FIGs 3-4]).
Venkataramana fails to disclose a weight is assigned based on whether the actual operating segments fall within the route conformance region, and
wherein a weight in a state where the actual operating segments do not fall within the route conformance region is set to be larger than a weight in a state where the actual operating segments fall within the route conformance region.
However, Seo teaches a weight is assigned based on whether the actual operating segments fall within the route conformance region, and wherein a weight in a state where the actual operating segments do not fall within the route conformance region is set to be larger than a weight in a state where the actual operating segments fall within the route conformance region ([claims 1-6] [FIGs 3-4D and 7-8] [Equations 1-3] [Table 1] Seo teaches the comparison of a scheduled drone flight path in a preset airspace with the time-series actual drone flight data. An error is calculated indicating the extent of deviation of the actual flight relative to the scheduled flight plan path. The error accrues over the time the drone flies according to the flight plan. For actual flight path data within the conformance of the flight plan, there is no error or penalty associated. A score for the flight is calculated using the reference planned flight path subtracting the error. Therefore, when the aircraft is conforming to the plan, there is a smaller error or weight. The greater the aircraft deviates from the flight plan path, the greater the error or weight is subtracted from the ideal score. [0063] The actual flight path data and scheduled reference flight path are comprised of small rectangle 430a. These are the airspace segments.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Seo’s teaching of tracking deviation of an aircraft’s actual flight path data relative to its planned flight path and assigning a score for the flight data as it progresses according to the error/deviation of the actual flight path vs. planned flight path, calculated by subtracting the error from the score. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to score the actual flight as described above in order to not only assign an instantaneous Boolean score like Venkataramana’s conformance vs. non-conformance and enable the ability to enlarge or reduce the airspace of a drone’s scheduled flight path (Seo [0009] “managing routes in the sky by analyzing a flight error of a drone and selectively enlarging or reducing an air space of the drone based on the analysis results.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramana in view of Panchangam, Evans as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Li et al. (US 20200250993 A1), hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 8, Venkataramana fails to disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM includes:
identifying the actual operating segments as the airspace segments of a structure that includes a second airspace segment, in a state where the plurality of airspace segments have a first airspace segment of a predetermined size and the second airspace segment of a size smaller than the predetermined size, the second airspace segment is arranged within a partial region of the first airspace segment, and the second airspace segment is set as one of the scheduled airspace segments; and
providing a preset value as a value for monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM, based on identifying the actual operating segments as the first airspace segments of the structure that has the second airspace segment.
However, Li teaches identifying the actual operating segments as the airspace segments of a structure that includes a second airspace segment, in a state where the plurality of airspace segments have a first airspace segment of a predetermined size and the second airspace segment of a size smaller than the predetermined size, the second airspace segment is arranged within a partial region of the first airspace segment, and the second airspace segment is set as one of the scheduled airspace segments ([0129-0140] [0182-0196] [0355-0364] Li teaches 3D paths/waypoints as airspace segments and organizes the airspace hierarchically: zones contain segments and segments contain smaller 3D paths and waypoints.); and
providing a preset value as a value for monitoring the trajectory conformance of the AAM, based on identifying the actual operating segments as the first airspace segments of the structure that has the second airspace segment ([0102-0103] [0190-0196] [0212-0231] Li teaches “missions” through lower level paths but permits an aggregated route at the zone level. Li also provides path conforming profiles at the lower level paths, and when the lower level path conformance information is absent or zero, the higher level zone conformance value is used.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Li’s teaching of hierarchically constructed airspaces of zones, segments, and paths as well as the conformance values associated with the lowest level and at aggregate levels. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to the monitored data may be available at different spatial resolutions or if the lowest level conformance value is zero or unavailable ([Li [0190-0196] [0225-0231]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramana in view of Panchangam, Evans as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Seo and Voznesenksy (US 20200309543 A1), hereinafter referred to as Voznesenksy. La Civita (US 20150057915 A1), hereinafter referred to as Civita.
Regarding claim 9, Venkataramana fails to disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising:
comparing, when there is at least one actual operating segment, a first score, which is a sum of scores assigned to the scheduled airspace segments, with a second score, which is a sum of scores assigned to the actual operating segments, respectively, based on results of monitoring the trajectory conformance for each actual operating segment; and
determining whether the AAM's operation is normal based on whether a difference between the first score and the second score is within a preset threshold difference.
However, Civita teaches comparing, when there is at least one actual operating segment, a first score, which is a sum of scores assigned to the scheduled airspace segments, with a second score, which is a sum of scores assigned to the actual operating segments, respectively, based on results of monitoring the trajectory conformance for each actual operating segment; and determining whether the AAM's operation is normal based on whether a difference between the first score and the second score is within a preset threshold difference ([0014] [0023] [0028-0031] [claims 7, 10, 11,] Civita compares a reference aircraft trajectory with an actual aircraft trajectory and calculates the score for flight segments based on the deviation of the actual trajectory vs. the reference trajectory. [0023] “an overall consistency score derived from the length of the respective calculated trajectory that deviates from the observed trajectory by less than a threshold value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Civita’s teaching of scoring observed flight path segments according to their deviation from the reference trajectory and comparing the difference of the two to a threhsold. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to score segments of an actual flight path relative to the ideal score of the reference calculated path and compare the consistency score derived from the reference and observed path scores to a threshold value in order to reward flight path segment trajectories with a low deviation (Civita [0023] “it promotes trajectories that produce reasonable matches to the observed trajectory for as much of the observed trajectory as possible”).
Regarding claim 10, Venkataramana fails to disclose The method of claim 9, wherein the determining whether the AAM's operation is normal includes: determining whether the AAM's operation is normal up to a predetermined point of time when the actual operating segment corresponds to at least one airspace segment that the AAM passed
However, Civita teaches determining whether the AAM's operation is normal includes: determining whether the AAM's operation is normal up to a predetermined point of time when the actual operating segment corresponds to at least one airspace segment that the AAM passed through up to the predetermined point of time during the AAM's operation ([0020] “Predictive uses require fast analysis of a trajectory of an aircraft still in flight” [0029] “Each step may comprise optimizing the candidate aircraft intents for one flight segment, and proceeding one flight segment at a time.” [0095] “the evolutionary algorithm stage operate one flight segment at a time. That is, the candidate aircraft intents are optimized for a particular flight segment, before the evolutionary algorithm progresses to optimizing the aircraft intents for the next flight segment, and so on.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramana with Civita’s teaching of scoring observed flight path segments according to their deviation from the reference trajectory and comparing the difference of the two to a threhsold. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to score segments of an actual flight path relative to the ideal score of the reference calculated path and compare the consistency score derived from the reference and observed path scores to a threshold value in order to reward flight path segment trajectories with a low deviation (Civita [0023] “it promotes trajectories that produce reasonable matches to the observed trajectory for as much of the observed trajectory as possible”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights