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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, 20 recite the limitation “possibly outside the range of control”. However, the metes and bounds required to infringe upon the phrase possibly outside is unclear. It is unclear to whether possibly outside includes outside, inside, or a probability. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the range” in the claims. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected claims.
Claims 1, 11, 20 recite the “an image or a signal acquired within a predetermined region”. The metes and bounds required for the limitation are unclear because it is unclear to what the predetermined region is relative to; further, it is unclear to whether the image or signal is regarding the first moving body within a predetermined region or that the computer of the navigation control method is within the predetermined region acquiring the image or signal. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected claims.
Claims 4, 14 recite “the calculated value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims because the claim previously recited “calculate a possibility”.
Claims 5, 15 recite “wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire image data obtained by imaging the first moving body, and estimate at least one of a position and a type of the first moving body from the image data and identifies whether the first moving body is the control target by comparing an estimation result with the control information”. However, it appears that the limitation would be better understood as “wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire image data obtained by imaging the first moving body[[, and]]; estimate at least one of a position and a type of the first moving body from the image data; and [[identifies]] identify whether the first moving body is the control target by comparing an estimation result with the control information”. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected claims.
Claims 9, 19 recite the limitation a storage apparatus configured to store the control information that is shared with and updatably controlled by the another control system. However, it is unclear to what updatably controlled requires and the metes and bounds required by updatably controlled by the another control system. The specification does not provide a definition for new term updatably.
Claim 10 recites processor configured to execute the instructions to comprising control information acquisition means for acquiring acquire the control information from a centralized control system that updatably stores the control information. However, it is unclear to what updatably stores requires. The specification does not provide a definition for new term updatably.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 11, 20 are directed to a system, method, non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, the claims 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 MPEP 2106, 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(s) 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a first moving body that is possibly outside the range of control based on an image or a signal acquired within a predetermined region;
identify whether the first moving body is a control target based on control information shared with another control system;
determine whether an avoidance operation of a second moving body that is the control target is necessary based on a position or a movement of the first moving body, in a case where the first moving body is not identified as the control target; and
share control information including information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary with the other another control system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying that a first vehicle is a control target or part of a fleet based on collected information and determining whether an avoidance maneuver may be required between the first vehicle and a second vehicle.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, 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 MPEP 2106, 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 limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 1 recites:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a first moving body that is possibly outside the range of control based on an image or a signal acquired within a predetermined region;
identify whether the first moving body is a control target based on control information shared with another control system;
determine whether an avoidance operation of a second moving body that is the control target is necessary based on a position or a movement of the first moving body, in a case where the first moving body is not identified as the control target; and
share control information including information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary with the other another control system.
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, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals, transmitting/outputting a result), and amounts to mere data gathering and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract 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 MPEP 2106, representative independent claim 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 amount 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, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 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 additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210035459 (Yamada’459) in view of US 20210350717 (Yamada’717).
As per claims 1, 11, 20, Yamada’459 discloses a navigation control system comprising:
a memory storing instructions (see at least [0028]: memory); and
a processor (see at least [0030]: processor) configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a first moving body that is possibly outside the range of control based on an image or a signal acquired within a predetermined region (see at least [0045]: detects other air vehicle 10 that is present within a predetermined range from air vehicle 10. This detection may also be performed according to whether or not the identification signal has been received from other air vehicle 10);
identify whether the first moving body is a control target based on control information shared with another control system (see at least [0046]: Determining unit 116 determines whether or not other air vehicle 10 is under predetermined management by referencing operation management database 123, [0063]: step S104, determining unit 116 of server apparatus 20 performs processing for determining whether or not air vehicle 10A is under the predetermined management by referencing operation management database 123);
determine whether an avoidance operation of a second moving body that is the control target is necessary based on a position or a movement of the first moving body, in a case where the first moving body is not identified as the control target (see at least [0050]: Specifying unit 118 specifies the type of other air vehicle 10 detected by detection unit 113…“type” refers to a distinction made according to a type corresponding to the management status and flight status of air vehicle 10, [0052]: Determining unit 120 determines the possibility that air vehicle 10 and other air vehicle 10 will collide, based on the attribute relating to the movement of other air vehicle 10).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose share control information including information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary with the another control system.
However, Yamada‘717 teaches share control information including information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary with the another control system (see at least [0055]: each server device 10 has a group to which drone 20 belongs, [0066]: First collision specification unit 105, for example, with the same method as in the case where drone 20 belonging to the control group is the target (a method using the distance between drones 20), specifies drone 20 at risk of collision using drones 20 belonging to non-control groups as the target, [0068]: Flight irregularity notification unit 107 transmits the supplied flight information to other server devices 10, and thus notification of the flight status of drone 20 that is performing irregular flight indicated by the transmitted flight information is given to all other server devices 10, Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Yamada‘717 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support safe flight of an aerial vehicle (Yamada’717 [0001], [0024]: flight plans of respective drones 20 can be shared more efficiently by being once collected in integrated management device 30 and then distributed to each server device 10, rather than by server devices 10 sharing the flight plans with each other).
As per claims 2, 12, Yamada’459 discloses wherein the processor configured execute the instructions to acquire identification information of the first moving body (see at least [0047]: identifiers of air vehicles 10, the flight plan of air vehicle 10, and the priority level of the flight purpose in the flight plan are stored in association with each other in operation management database 123. Only the identifiers of air vehicles 10 that are under predetermined management are included in operation management database 123. That is, the identifier of air vehicle 10 that is not under predetermined management is not included in operation management database 123, [0050]: Specifying unit 118 specifies the type of other air vehicle 10 detected by detection unit 113…“type” refers to a distinction made according to a type corresponding to the management status and flight status of air vehicle 10), and
identify whether the first moving body is the control target by comparing the identification information with the control information (see at least [0047]: identifiers of air vehicles 10, the flight plan of air vehicle 10, and the priority level of the flight purpose in the flight plan are stored in association with each other in operation management database 123. Only the identifiers of air vehicles 10 that are under predetermined management are included in operation management database 123. That is, the identifier of air vehicle 10 that is not under predetermined management is not included in operation management database 123, [0050]: Specifying unit 118 specifies the type of other air vehicle 10 detected by detection unit 113…“type” refers to a distinction made according to a type corresponding to the management status and flight status of air vehicle 10).
As per claims 3, 13, Yamada’459 discloses wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to identify whether the first moving body is the control target, by determining whether position data acquired from the first moving body is included within a predetermined range of a planned route of a moving body that is the control target included in the control information (see at least [0034]: measures the current position of air vehicle 10 based on GPS signals received from a plurality of satellites, [0062]: acquisition unit 114 of air vehicle 10B transmits, to server apparatus 20, a request inquiring whether or not other air vehicle 10A detected in step S102 is under the predetermined management, [0096]).
As per claims 4, 14, Yamada’459 discloses wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to calculate a possibility that the first moving body and the second moving body come into contact with each other from position information included in the identification information and determine that the avoidance operation is necessary in a case where the calculated value is higher than a predetermined threshold (see at least [0058]: Server apparatus 20 keeps track of the flight statuses of air vehicles 10 based on the position information received from air vehicles 10 and the flight plans of air vehicles 10 included in operation management database 123, [0066], [0071]-[0072]: FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a collision possibility determining method…if air vehicle 10A belongs to the first type or the third type, when the movement direction measured in step S107 is the direction of approaching air vehicle 10B, it is determined that there is a collision possibility…If air vehicle 10A belongs to the second type, when the flight paths overlap at the same time between the flight plan of air vehicle 10A and the flight plan of air vehicle 10B stored in storage 13, it is determined that there is a collision possibility, [0077]: flight control unit 122 of air vehicle 10B performs collision avoidance control for controlling the flight of air vehicle 10B in order to avoid collision with other air vehicle 10A, [0094]: determining unit 120 may also determine how likely a collision is instead of whether or not there is a possibility of collision. In this case, if the likelihood of collision determined by determining unit 120 is a predetermined value or more, flight control unit 122 may also perform collision avoidance control according to the type specified by specifying unit 118…even if it is determined by determining unit 120 that there is a possibility of collision, if the likelihood of collision is smaller than a predetermined value, flight control unit 122 need not perform collision avoidance control).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose share information including that the avoidance operation is necessary, with the another control system.
However, Yamada‘717 teaches share information including that the avoidance operation is necessary, with the another control system (see at least [0055]: each server device 10 has a group to which drone 20 belongs, [0066]: First collision specification unit 105, for example, with the same method as in the case where drone 20 belonging to the control group is the target (a method using the distance between drones 20), specifies drone 20 at risk of collision using drones 20 belonging to non-control groups as the target, [0068]: Flight irregularity notification unit 107 transmits the supplied flight information to other server devices 10, and thus notification of the flight status of drone 20 that is performing irregular flight indicated by the transmitted flight information is given to all other server devices 10, Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Yamada‘717 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support safe flight of an aerial vehicle (Yamada’717 [0001], [0024]: flight plans of respective drones 20 can be shared more efficiently by being once collected in integrated management device 30 and then distributed to each server device 10, rather than by server devices 10 sharing the flight plans with each other).
As per claims 8, 18, Yamada’459 discloses wherein in a case where the second moving body is the control target of the another control system (see at least [0086]: if other air vehicle 10 that is present within a predetermined range from air vehicle 10 is detected using beacon apparatus 17 and an apparatus other than beacon apparatus 17, when other air vehicle 10 is detected using only the apparatus other than beacon apparatus 17, specifying unit 118 may specify the first type as the type of other air vehicle 10).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose the processor configured to execute the instructions to share information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary, with the another control system.
However, Yamada‘717 teaches the processor configured to execute the instructions to share information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary, with the another control system (see at least [0055]: each server device 10 has a group to which drone 20 belongs, [0066]: First collision specification unit 105, for example, with the same method as in the case where drone 20 belonging to the control group is the target (a method using the distance between drones 20), specifies drone 20 at risk of collision using drones 20 belonging to non-control groups as the target, [0068]: Flight irregularity notification unit 107 transmits the supplied flight information to other server devices 10, and thus notification of the flight status of drone 20 that is performing irregular flight indicated by the transmitted flight information is given to all other server devices 10, Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Yamada‘717 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support safe flight of an aerial vehicle (Yamada’717 [0001], [0024]: flight plans of respective drones 20 can be shared more efficiently by being once collected in integrated management device 30 and then distributed to each server device 10, rather than by server devices 10 sharing the flight plans with each other).
As per claims 9, 19, Yamada’459 discloses a storage apparatus configured to store the control information that is shared with and updatably controlled by another control system (see at least [0047]: Operation management database 123 is stored in storage 23, [0105]).
Should Yamada’459 be found to not explicitly disclose a storage apparatus configured to store the control information that is shared with and updatably controlled by another control system, Yamada‘717 teaches a storage apparatus configured to store the control information that is shared with updatably controlled by the another control system (see at least [0025]: storage, [0055]: each server device 10 has a group to which drone 20 belongs, [0066]: First collision specification unit 105, for example, with the same method as in the case where drone 20 belonging to the control group is the target (a method using the distance between drones 20), specifies drone 20 at risk of collision using drones 20 belonging to non-control groups as the target, [0068]: Flight irregularity notification unit 107 transmits the supplied flight information to other server devices 10, and thus notification of the flight status of drone 20 that is performing irregular flight indicated by the transmitted flight information is given to all other server devices 10, Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Yamada‘717 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support safe flight of an aerial vehicle (Yamada’717 [0001], [0024]: flight plans of respective drones 20 can be shared more efficiently by being once collected in integrated management device 30 and then distributed to each server device 10, rather than by server devices 10 sharing the flight plans with each other).
As per claim 10, Yamada ‘459 discloses the server with a storage (see at least [0063]: step S104, determining unit 116 of server apparatus 20 performs processing for determining whether or not air vehicle 10A is under the predetermined management by referencing operation management database 123. Specifically, determining unit 116 determines whether or not the identifier included in the request is included in operation management database 123, Fig. 4 (23) storage), but Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose the processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire the control information from a centralized control system that updatably stores the control information, and output the information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary, to the centralized control system.
However, Yamada‘717 teaches the processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire the control information from a centralized control system that updatably stores the control information (see at least [0024]: Integrated management device 30 gathers information (flight plans, flight information, and the like) handled by the plurality of server devices 10, and performs processing for smooth information sharing among the devices and the like), and output the information related to whether the avoidance operation is necessary, to the centralized control system (see at least [0055]: each server device 10 has a group to which drone 20 belongs, [0066]: First collision specification unit 105, for example, with the same method as in the case where drone 20 belonging to the control group is the target (a method using the distance between drones 20), specifies drone 20 at risk of collision using drones 20 belonging to non-control groups as the target, [0068]: Flight irregularity notification unit 107 transmits the supplied flight information to other server devices 10, and thus notification of the flight status of drone 20 that is performing irregular flight indicated by the transmitted flight information is given to all other server devices 10, Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Yamada‘717 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide smooth data sharing and support safe flight of an aerial vehicle (Yamada’717 [0001], [0024]: Integrated management device 30 gathers information (flight plans, flight information, and the like) handled by the plurality of server devices 10, and performs processing for smooth information sharing among the devices and the like).
Claim(s) 5-7, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada’459 in view of Yamada’717, and further in view of US 20230109408 (Urushido).
As per claims 5, 15, Yamada’459 discloses wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to acquire image data obtained by imaging the first moving body (see at least [0085]: other air vehicle may also be detected using image capturing apparatus 16 of air vehicle 10 in addition to or instead of beacon apparatus 17…detected using image capturing apparatus 16 of air vehicle 10 in addition to or instead of beacon apparatus 17. In this case, image recognition is performed on the image captured by image capturing apparatus 16 of air vehicle 10. Other air vehicle 10, which is present within the predetermined range, may also be detected in the case where other air vehicle 10 is recognized in the image as a result of the image recognition, [0086]: if other air vehicle 10 that is present within a predetermined range from air vehicle 10 is detected using beacon apparatus 17 and an apparatus other than beacon apparatus 17, when other air vehicle 10 is detected using only the apparatus other than beacon apparatus 17, specifying unit 118 may specify the first type as the type of other air vehicle 10), and
estimate at least one of a position and a type of the first moving body from the image data (see at least [0086]: if other air vehicle 10 that is present within a predetermined range from air vehicle 10 is detected using beacon apparatus 17 and an apparatus other than beacon apparatus 17, when other air vehicle 10 is detected using only the apparatus other than beacon apparatus 17, specifying unit 118 may specify the first type as the type of other air vehicle 10, [0087]: If the function information indicates that other air vehicle 10 does not have a collision avoidance function, when it is determined by determining unit 120 that there is a possibility of collision, flight control unit 122 may also perform collision avoidance control regardless of the priority level of the flight purpose) and
identifies whether the first moving body is the control target by comparing an estimation result with the control information (see at least [0087]: If the function information indicates that other air vehicle 10 does not have a collision avoidance function, when it is determined by determining unit 120 that there is a possibility of collision, flight control unit 122 may also perform collision avoidance control regardless of the priority level of the flight purpose).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose but Urushido teaches estimate at least one of a position of the first moving body from the image data (see at least abstract: an imaging unit which acquires image data by capturing an image of an environment including a traveling direction of a moving object; and a control unit which detects another moving object existing in the traveling direction of the moving object on the basis of the image data and performs an action of preventing a collision with the other moving object on the basis of information regarding the other moving object, [0098]: detecting another drone existing in the traveling direction of the drone 101 on the basis of the image data captured by the imaging unit 11. The other drone existing in the traveling direction is referred to as an “interfering drone” as a drone which may interfere with the own drone, [0105]: position or distance of the interference drone can be calculated using, for example, image data captured by a stereo camera).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Urushido with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent a collision with another moving object (Urushido abstract: collision with another moving object is prevented).
As per claims 6, 16, Yamada’459 discloses wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to identify whether the first moving body is the control target, by estimating whether the first moving body in the image data is included within a predetermined range of a planned route of a moving body that is the control target included in the control information (see at least [0071]-[0072]: FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a collision possibility determining method…if air vehicle 10A belongs to the first type or the third type, when the movement direction measured in step S107 is the direction of approaching air vehicle 10B, it is determined that there is a collision possibility…If air vehicle 10A belongs to the second type, when the flight paths overlap at the same time between the flight plan of air vehicle 10A and the flight plan of air vehicle 10B stored in storage 13, it is determined that there is a collision possibility, [0085]: other air vehicle may also be detected using image capturing apparatus 16 of air vehicle 10 in addition to or instead of beacon apparatus 17…detected using image capturing apparatus 16 of air vehicle 10 in addition to or instead of beacon apparatus 17. In this case, image recognition is performed on the image captured by image capturing apparatus 16 of air vehicle 10. Other air vehicle 10, which is present within the predetermined range, may also be detected in the case where other air vehicle 10 is recognized in the image as a result of the image recognition,).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose but Urushido teaches estimate at least one of a position of the first moving body from the image data (see at least (see at least abstract: an imaging unit which acquires image data by capturing an image of an environment including a traveling direction of a moving object; and a control unit which detects another moving object existing in the traveling direction of the moving object on the basis of the image data and performs an action of preventing a collision with the other moving object on the basis of information regarding the other moving object, [0098]: detecting another drone existing in the traveling direction of the drone 101 on the basis of the image data captured by the imaging unit 11. The other drone existing in the traveling direction is referred to as an “interfering drone” as a drone which may interfere with the own drone, [0105]: position or distance of the interference drone can be calculated using, for example, image data captured by a stereo camera, [0277]: drone 101 calculates the time until the drone collides with the interference drone on the basis of the speed of the own drone, the speed of the interference drone, the distance from the own drone to the interference drone, and the braking performance of the own drone. In the case in which the time is less than the predetermined value, information regarding the drone 101 is transmitted to the base station 201 and the base station 201 is caused to determine the priority).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Urushido with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent a collision with another moving object (Urushido abstract: collision with another moving object is prevented).
As per claims 7, 17, Yamada’459 discloses wherein the processor configured to execute the instructions to calculate a possibility that the first moving body and the second moving body come into contact with each other from a the estimated position of the first moving body (see at least [0058]: Server apparatus 20 keeps track of the flight statuses of air vehicles 10 based on the position information received from air vehicles 10 and the flight plans of air vehicles 10 included in operation management database 123, [0066], [0071]-[0072]: FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a collision possibility determining method…if air vehicle 10A belongs to the first type or the third type, when the movement direction measured in step S107 is the direction of approaching air vehicle 10B, it is determined that there is a collision possibility…If air vehicle 10A belongs to the second type, when the flight paths overlap at the same time between the flight plan of air vehicle 10A and the flight plan of air vehicle 10B stored in storage 13, it is determined that there is a collision possibility, [0077]: flight control unit 122 of air vehicle 10B performs collision avoidance control for controlling the flight of air vehicle 10B in order to avoid collision with other air vehicle 10A, [0094]: determining unit 120 may also determine how likely a collision is instead of whether or not there is a possibility of collision. In this case, if the likelihood of collision determined by determining unit 120 is a predetermined value or more, flight control unit 122 may also perform collision avoidance control according to the type specified by specifying unit 118…even if it is determined by determining unit 120 that there is a possibility of collision, if the likelihood of collision is smaller than a predetermined value, flight control unit 122 need not perform collision avoidance control) and
determine that the avoidance operation is necessary in a case where the calculated value is higher than a predetermined threshold ([0058]: Server apparatus 20 keeps track of the flight statuses of air vehicles 10 based on the position information received from air vehicles 10 and the flight plans of air vehicles 10 included in operation management database 123, [0066], [0071]-[0072]: FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a collision possibility determining method…if air vehicle 10A belongs to the first type or the third type, when the movement direction measured in step S107 is the direction of approaching air vehicle 10B, it is determined that there is a collision possibility…If air vehicle 10A belongs to the second type, when the flight paths overlap at the same time between the flight plan of air vehicle 10A and the flight plan of air vehicle 10B stored in storage 13, it is determined that there is a collision possibility, [0077]: flight control unit 122 of air vehicle 10B performs collision avoidance control for controlling the flight of air vehicle 10B in order to avoid collision with other air vehicle 10A, [0094]: determining unit 120 may also determine how likely a collision is instead of whether or not there is a possibility of collision. In this case, if the likelihood of collision determined by determining unit 120 is a predetermined value or more, flight control unit 122 may also perform collision avoidance control according to the type specified by specifying unit 118…even if it is determined by determining unit 120 that there is a possibility of collision, if the likelihood of collision is smaller than a predetermined value, flight control unit 122 need not perform collision avoidance control).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose but Urushido teaches estimate at least one of a position of the first moving body from the image data (see at least (see at least abstract: an imaging unit which acquires image data by capturing an image of an environment including a traveling direction of a moving object; and a control unit which detects another moving object existing in the traveling direction of the moving object on the basis of the image data and performs an action of preventing a collision with the other moving object on the basis of information regarding the other moving object, [0098]: detecting another drone existing in the traveling direction of the drone 101 on the basis of the image data captured by the imaging unit 11. The other drone existing in the traveling direction is referred to as an “interfering drone” as a drone which may interfere with the own drone, [0105]: position or distance of the interference drone can be calculated using, for example, image data captured by a stereo camera, [0277]: drone 101 calculates the time until the drone collides with the interference drone on the basis of the speed of the own drone, the speed of the interference drone, the distance from the own drone to the interference drone, and the braking performance of the own drone. In the case in which the time is less than the predetermined value, information regarding the drone 101 is transmitted to the base station 201 and the base station 201 is caused to determine the priority).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Urushido with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent a collision with another moving object (Urushido abstract: collision with another moving object is prevented).
Yamada’459 does not explicitly disclose share information including that the avoidance operation is necessary, with the another control system.
However, Yamada‘717 teaches share information including that the avoidance operation is necessary, with the another control system (see at least [0055]: each server device 10 has a group to which drone 20 belongs, [0066]: First collision specification unit 105, for example, with the same method as in the case where drone 20 belonging to the control group is the target (a method using the distance between drones 20), specifies drone 20 at risk of collision using drones 20 belonging to non-control groups as the target, [0068]: Flight irregularity notification unit 107 transmits the supplied flight information to other server devices 10, and thus notification of the flight status of drone 20 that is performing irregular flight indicated by the transmitted flight information is given to all other server devices 10, Fig. 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Yamada’459 by incorporating the teachings of Yamada‘717 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support safe flight of an aerial vehicle (Yamada’717 [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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 at 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights