DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office Action on the merits and is responsive to the originally filed application papers. Claims filed on 06/09/2025 are being examined. Claims 1-8 are being considered and further pending examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 06/09/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Applicant’s independent claim 1 is directed toward a flight plan management device. Therefore, it can be seen that it/they fall(s) within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
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 1 includes limitations that recite and abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites :
A flight plan management device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire device information of a mobile unit;
acquire a preparation state of an operator;
predict an available departure time of the mobile unit based on the device information and the preparation state; and
manage a flight plan based on prediction results.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the step “predict” encompasses a user making an observation, evaluation, or judgement, based on acquired information of a device and user state of an available departure time. Further the step “manage”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises making an observation, evaluation, or judgment of a flight plan based on predicted results. 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 idea 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 flight plan management device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire device information of a mobile unit;
acquire a preparation state of an operator;
predict an available departure time of the mobile unit based on the device information and the preparation state; and
manage a flight plan based on prediction results.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one memory configured to store instructions” and “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to”, they amount to know more than recitation of a generic computing device at a high level of generality acting in its typical capacity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire device information of a mobile unit” and “acquire a preparation state of an operator” these amount to no more than the insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering.
101 Analysis - Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as 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 “at least one memory configured to store instructions” and “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to” amount to no more than implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer. Further, the additional elements of “acquire device information of a mobile unit” and “acquire a preparation state of an operator” amount to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore, as a whole the claim is directed to an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer with insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 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 as discussed below. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-6 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitations “wherein the one or more processors acquire a scheduled departure time of the mobile unit, wherein the one or more processors compare the scheduled departure time with the available departure time and adjusts a departure time of the mobile unit” which is merely the addition the extra solution activity of data gathering along with the additional abstract idea as a the mental process of comparing two values and from the determined comparison modifying a value such as deciding a later time.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, it merely adds the limitation “wherein the one or more processors output adjustment results to a terminal device of the operation” which is merely recitation of a generic computing device recited at a high level of generality acting in its typical capacity regarding data transmission.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, it merely adds the limitations “wherein the one or more processors register the adjustment results as the scheduled departure time when the operator approves the adjustment results” which is merely recitation of a generic computing device recited at a high level of generality acting in its typical capacity regarding data storage.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “wherein, when adjusting the flight plan of the mobile unit based on the available departure time, the one or more processors adjust the flight plan of the mobile unit so that the flight plan does not conflict with flight plans of other mobile units” which is merely the addition of the abstract idea of the mental process of adjustment of a flight plan such as a determination to delay departure time.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, it merely adds the limitation “wherein, when adjusting the flight plan of the mobile unit based on the available departure time, the one or more processors propose an alternative route to the operator of the mobile unit so that the flight plan does not conflict with flight plans of other mobile units” which is merely the addition of the abstract idea of the mental process of proposal of an alternative with the intended use of avoiding conflicts with other flight plans.
Regarding independent claim 7, it recites a method with substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding independent claim 8, it recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (US 20200334992 A1) henceforth referred to as Yamada.
Regarding Claim 1 Yamada teaches A flight plan management device comprising (para [0031] : “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating the overall configuration of drone operation management system 1 according to an embodiment.”):
at least one memory configured to store instructions (para [0039] : “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating the hardware configuration of server apparatus 10 and the like. Server apparatus 10 and the like (server apparatus 10 and business operator terminal 20) are both computers that include the following apparatuses, namely processor 11, memory 12, storage 13, communication unit 14, input unit 15, output unit 16, and bus 17. The term “apparatus” used here can be replaced with “circuit”, “device”, “unit”, or the like. One or more of each apparatus may be included, and some apparatuses may be omitted.”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (para 0040] : “Processor 11 controls the computer as a whole by running an operating system, for example. Processor 11 may be constituted by a central processing unit (CPU) including an interface with peripheral apparatuses, a control apparatus, a computation apparatus, registers, and the like. Additionally, processor 11 reads out programs (program code), software modules, data, and the like from storage 13 and/or communication unit 14 into memory 12, and then executes various types of processes in accordance therewith.”):
acquire device information of a mobile unit (para [0159] : “In the present variation, function information storage unit 206 stores function information indicating the maximum speed and longest cruising distance of each drone 30 owned by the business operator. When function information storage unit 206 receives a request from server apparatus 10d, function information storage unit 206 transmits the stored function information to server apparatus 10d. Function information obtainment unit 106 obtains the transmitted function information, that is, information indicating the degree of performance of drone 30 owned by each business operator, and supplies the obtained information to flight airspace allocation unit 102. Function information obtainment unit 106 is an example of an “obtainment unit” in the present invention.”);
acquire a preparation state of an operator (para [0053] : “Flight schedule generation unit 201 of business operator terminal 20 generates the flight schedule information, which indicates the flight schedule of drone 30. Flight schedule generation unit 201 generates the flight schedule information on the basis of input information, upon the aforementioned operation manager inputting, to business operator terminal 20, a drone ID (identification) identifying drone 30 for which the flight schedule is to be input, names of the departure point, waypoint, and destination, and estimated departure time and estimated arrival time, for example. Note that the flight schedule information is merely information indicating a flight schedule desired or requested by the business operator, and does not indicate a finalized flight plan.”, where under the broadest reasonable interpretation a user input estimated departure time can be a preparation state of a user as the user is preparing to depart at the estimated departure time);
predict an available departure time of the mobile unit based on the device information and the preparation state (para [0074] : “FIG. 8 illustrates an example of flight permission periods. With respect to divided airspace R11, assuming the margin period is three minutes, for example, flight airspace allocation unit 102 tentatively determines, as the flight permission period, period K11, which takes three minutes before estimated departure time T11 as start time T111, and takes a time when the margin period of three minutes has passed following the passage of the airspace passage period (20 minutes) for divided airspace R11 from estimated departure time T11 (i.e., 23 minutes after estimated departure time T1) as end time T112.”, para [0078] : “For example, a cell ID group of the cells included in divided airspaces R11, R12, and R13, and the start times and end times of periods K11, K12, and K13, which are the flight permission periods, are associated with the drone ID “D001” indicating the drone 30a-1.”, para [0079] : “A cell ID group of the cells included in divided airspaces R21 to R24, and flight permission periods K21 to K24, are respectively associated with the drone ID “D002” indicating drone 30b-2. As described above, even if flight airspace overlaps at the tentative determination stage (even if cells having the “not sharable” attribute overlap each other), flight airspace allocation unit 102 allocates all the flight airspace as-is, and it is therefore determined whether or not to allocate the flight airspace in an overlapping state, i.e., whether or not to share the flight airspace. Flight airspace allocation unit 102 determines whether or not overlapping flight airspace allocated in this manner (overlapping airspace (also referred to as overlapping cells)) is to be shared.”, para [0165] : “Because there is limited airspace where flight is permitted, in conditions where there are many allocation requests and the flight airspace becomes overcrowded (overcrowded conditions), there may be cases where flight in an estimated period is not possible, so it is necessary to fly in another period that is vacant. On the other hand, in conditions where there are not so many allocation requests that flight airspace become overcrowded (non-overcrowded conditions), even if flight airspaces overlap at the tentative determination stage, in many cases it is possible to fly within the estimated period if the flight airspace is changed.”, as allocations use device ID and the system determines shared airspace using device ID, when it is determined that airspace can or cannot be shared it is accomplished using the device ID and the input estimated departure time); and
manage a flight plan based on prediction results (para [0165] : “Because there is limited airspace where flight is permitted, in conditions where there are many allocation requests and the flight airspace becomes overcrowded (overcrowded conditions), there may be cases where flight in an estimated period is not possible, so it is necessary to fly in another period that is vacant. On the other hand, in conditions where there are not so many allocation requests that flight airspace become overcrowded (non-overcrowded conditions), even if flight airspaces overlap at the tentative determination stage, in many cases it is possible to fly within the estimated period if the flight airspace is changed.”, where the flight plan is managed by determining the current allocation request is possible or if a different allocation is required).
Regarding Claim 2 Yamada teaches The flight plan management device according to claim 1, further Yamada teaches wherein the one or more processors acquire a scheduled departure time of the mobile unit, wherein the one or more processors compare the scheduled departure time with the available departure time and adjusts a departure time of the mobile unit (para [0074] : “FIG. 8 illustrates an example of flight permission periods. With respect to divided airspace R11, assuming the margin period is three minutes, for example, flight airspace allocation unit 102 tentatively determines, as the flight permission period, period K11, which takes three minutes before estimated departure time T11 as start time T111, and takes a time when the margin period of three minutes has passed following the passage of the airspace passage period (20 minutes) for divided airspace R11 from estimated departure time T11 (i.e., 23 minutes after estimated departure time T1) as end time T112.”, para [0085] : “However, because airspace is limited, if the number of drones 30 requesting airspace allocation is too high, a situation in which flight airspace cannot be allocated to some drones 30 may arise. In such a case, flight airspace allocation unit 102 includes information, which associates the drone ID of drone 30 for which it has been determined that airspace cannot be allocated with an indication that the allocation is not possible, in the allocation information so as to notify business operator terminal 20 that the allocation was not carried out.”, para [0086] : “For that drone 30, the aforementioned operation manager inputs a new flight schedule and requests the allocation of flight airspace again, for example. Note that a configuration may also be adopted in which, when an allocation request is made, by the operation manager inputting in advance a second desired flight schedule, it is considered that an allocation was requested again with that second desired flight schedule, and flight airspace allocation unit 102 again performs allocation (input of third and subsequent desired flight schedules is likewise possible).”, the departure time is adjusted to the new departure time of the second allocation request).
Regarding Claim 3 Yamada teaches The flight plan management device according to claim 2, further Yamada teaches wherein the one or more processors output adjustment results to a terminal device of the operator (para [0093] : “In the present embodiment, allocation result accumulation unit 104 accumulates the allocated airspace amounts represented by both the size of the allocated flight airspace and the period during which flight in the flight airspace is permitted as the allocation results. The allocation results thus accumulated are used for allocation of flight airspace on the basis of the allocation results described above (details will be described later). Flight airspace allocation unit 102 supplies the generated allocation information to allocation information transmission unit 105 together with the speed limit information in which the speed limits in the airspace information shown in FIG. 6 are associated with cell IDs. Allocation information transmission unit 105 transmits the allocation information and the speed limit information supplied from flight airspace allocation unit 102 to business operator terminal 20 used by the operation manager of drone 30 of the drone ID included in that allocation information.”).
Regarding Claim 4 Yamada teaches The flight plan management device according to claim 3, further Yamada teaches wherein the one or more processors register the adjustment results as the scheduled departure time when the operator approves the adjustment results (para [0086] : “For that drone 30, the aforementioned operation manager inputs a new flight schedule and requests the allocation of flight airspace again, for example. Note that a configuration may also be adopted in which, when an allocation request is made, by the operation manager inputting in advance a second desired flight schedule, it is considered that an allocation was requested again with that second desired flight schedule, and flight airspace allocation unit 102 again performs allocation (input of third and subsequent desired flight schedules is likewise possible).”, where input of a new flight schedule is approval of the operator and, therefore, the adjustment results have been approved by the operator).
Regarding Claim 5 Yamada teaches The flight plan management device according to claim 1, further Yamada teaches wherein, when adjusting the flight plan of the mobile unit based on the available departure time, the one or more processors adjust the flight plan of the mobile unit so that the flight plan does not conflict with flight plans of other mobile units (para [0085] : “However, because airspace is limited, if the number of drones 30 requesting airspace allocation is too high, a situation in which flight airspace cannot be allocated to some drones 30 may arise. In such a case, flight airspace allocation unit 102 includes information, which associates the drone ID of drone 30 for which it has been determined that airspace cannot be allocated with an indication that the allocation is not possible, in the allocation information so as to notify business operator terminal 20 that the allocation was not carried out.”, para [0086] : “For that drone 30, the aforementioned operation manager inputs a new flight schedule and requests the allocation of flight airspace again, for example. Note that a configuration may also be adopted in which, when an allocation request is made, by the operation manager inputting in advance a second desired flight schedule, it is considered that an allocation was requested again with that second desired flight schedule, and flight airspace allocation unit 102 again performs allocation (input of third and subsequent desired flight schedules is likewise possible).”).
Regarding Claim 7, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 8, it recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada and further in view of Flotte et al (US 20190122570 A1 henceforth referred to as Flotte.
Regarding Claim 6 Yamada teaches The flight plan management device according to claim 1, however, Yamada does not explicitly teach wherein, when adjusting the flight plan of the mobile unit based on the available departure time, the one or more processors propose an alternative route to the operator of the mobile unit so that the flight plan does not conflict with flight plans of other mobile units.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (conflict avoidance for drone flight plans), Flotte teaches wherein, when adjusting the flight plan of the mobile unit based on the available departure time, the one or more processors propose an alternative route to the operator of the mobile unit so that the flight plan does not conflict with flight plans of other mobile units (para [0072] : “The route solver unit 4 is suitable for receiving the current provisional route delivered by the route publication unit 7, the list of at-risk segments and other information relative to the collisions delivered by the conflict detection unit 3 and proposing a new provisional route making it possible to avoid the at-risk segments, which it delivers to the man-machine interface unit 5 for validation.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Yamada with the route proposal of Flotte to increase efficiency of scheduling and routing a flight plan in the case of conflicts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Borgyos et al (US 20220084420 A1) teaches a method of determining a flight plan for an unmanned aerial vehicle comprises, with a computing device, receiving a set of parameters associated with a proposed flight operation related to the unmanned aerial vehicle, identifying one or more data sources that contain data associated with one or more of the parameters, retrieving data associated with one or more of the parameters from one or more of the identified data sources, determining a level of risk associated with the proposed flight operation based on the retrieved data, and determining the flight plan based on the level of risk.
Inui et al (US 20190018407 A1) teaches a control apparatus includes a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to select, from among a plurality of wireless sections that exist in a flight range from when an aerial vehicle flies from a departure place until the aerial vehicle arrives at a destination, a flight wireless section where wireless communication is connectable from the departure place to the destination; and reserve, with wireless base stations that are located in the flight wireless section, a communication band for performing wireless communication with the aerial vehicle.
Martin et al (US 20230015165 A1) teaches a method for automatically proposing an air conflict resolution, the method includes a step of receiving air conflict and air situation data at a time when an air conflict is detected, the method comprising the steps of: determining a conflict category associated with the detected air conflict based on the conflict data; determining a degree of relevance in proposing a resolution to the air conflict according to the category and the air situation; determining one or more types of resolution to be applied to resolve the detected air conflict according to the degree of relevance; determining set of alternative trajectories corresponding to the one or more types of resolution; determining a set of candidate trajectories from among the set of alternative trajectories, a candidate trajectory being an alternative trajectory which does not generate an air conflict; selecting, from among the candidate trajectories, a candidate trajectory which fulfills a selection criterion relating to the operational relevance of the candidate trajectories and to the acceptability of the candidate trajectories by the flight plan management system; returning the candidate trajectory, the candidate trajectory being saved and re-evaluated as long as it does not generate an air conflict or has not been accepted by an air traffic controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights