DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 27 August 2025. This communication is the first action on merits. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This application 19/160,099 filed on 27 August 2025 is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2024/013840 filed on 3 April 2024, which claims priority from Japan application JP2023-076711 filed on 8 May 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 30 December 2025, 27 August 2025 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
transfer determining unit in claims 1-7, 12, 15.
environment information reception unit in claims 2-5.
flight route calculation unit in claims 6, 15.
route information transmission unit in claims 6, 15.
environment information transmission unit in claim 15.
route information reception unit in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 includes “the flight object” in line 11 which is likely a misspelling of the previously referenced “flying object” (lines 3-4, lines 5-7, line 9). The Office recommends amending to match the language for consistency and preclude an interpretation of indefiniteness for lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5:
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 4 and 11-12 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.
Claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the specified landing site" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the alternative landing site or the transfer site. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to the transfer site.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the specified landing site" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the alternative landing site or the transfer site. For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to the transfer site.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the transfer determining unit" in lines 7 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, these will be interpreted as a newly introduced transfer determining unit.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15:
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite an apparatus; claims 8-14 recite a method; and claim 15 recites a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-15 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites determin[ing] an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by a flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination, based on self-location information of the flying object, surrounding environment information of the flying object, site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands, flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object, and ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination. Independent claim 8 recites to determine an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by the flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination, based on self-position information of the flying object, surrounding environment information of the flying object, site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands, flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object, and ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination. Independent claim 15 recites determin[ing] an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by a flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination, based on self-position information of the flying object, surrounding environment information of the flying object, site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands, flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object, and ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination, calculat[ing] a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site. The claim(s) as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities.
First, the limitations of determin[ing] an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by a flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination, based on self-location information of the flying object, surrounding environment information of the flying object, site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands, flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object, and ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination; and calculat[ing] a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site are methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, mitigating risks includes determining an alternative landing site and ground vehicle…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes determining an alternative landing site and ground vehicle…, calculating a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site…; and following rules or instructions includes determining an alternative landing site and ground vehicle…, calculating a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site. The presence of generic / general computer components such as a transfer determining unit (e.g. side system of Applicant Specification ¶[0044], Fig 4), operation control apparatus (e.g. controller / CPU of Applicant Specification ¶[0019], Fig 2), flight route calculation unit (e.g. side system of Applicant Specification ¶[0032], Fig 4) does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. mitigating risk, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-15 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. transfer determining unit, operation control apparatus, flight route calculation unit) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 15) transmitting / receiving flight route and its steps of a route information transmission unit that transmits the flight route to the flight object; a flying object including… a route information reception unit that receives flight route information from the operation control apparatus are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the results of the calculating), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the route information transmission unit (e.g. side system of Applicant Specification ¶[0032], Fig 4), flying object, route information reception unit (e.g. small flying object side system of Applicant Specification ¶[0027], Fig 4), operation control apparatus (e.g. controller / CPU of Applicant Specification ¶[0019], Fig 2) (generic computers, other machinery in its ordinary capacity) are only being used as a tool in the transmitting / receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). The flying object route information reception unit represents generally linking use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (i.e. aerial vehicles, aerial transportation), and is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(h). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding transmitting / receiving flight route information more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of (claim 15) transmitting surrounding environment information and its steps of a flying object including an environment information transmission unit that transmits the surrounding environment information to the operation control apparatus are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the determining), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the environment information transmission unit (e.g. small flying object side system of Applicant Specification ¶[0027], Fig 4), flying object, operation control apparatus (generic computers, other machinery in its ordinary capacity) are only being used as a tool in the transmitting / receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). The flying object environment information transmission unit represents generally linking use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (i.e. aerial vehicles, aerial transportation), and is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(h). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding transmitting / receiving flight route information more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of controlling flight and the steps of (claim 8) operation control apparatus controls flight operation of a flying object; (claim 15) a flying object including… a flight controller that controls flight based on the route information received by the route information reception unit are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting the determined landing site for the transported subject / calculated route), and amounts to extra-solution activity, and physically relocating an item which is a post-solution activity, and not a particular transformation / reduction to a different state, which are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g), and 2106.05(c). Also, the (claim 8) operation control apparatus and (claim 15) flying object including a flight controller represent using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity after the fact to an abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (transfer determining unit, operation control apparatus, flight route calculation unit) applied to a field of use (aerial vehicles / aerial transportation); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (transmitting / receiving data, controlling flight). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a transfer determining unit, operation control apparatus, flight route calculation unit to perform determining an alternative landing site and ground vehicle…, calculating a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 15) transmitting / receiving flight route are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting the results of the calculating), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer elements (route information transmission unit, route information reception unit, operation control apparatus) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The flying object route information reception unit represents generally linking use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (i.e. aerial vehicles, aerial transportation), and is not an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these transmitting / receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, data storage, outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0026], ¶[0032] describing the additional element of receiving route information transmitting from the operation control apparatus at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the (claim 15) transmitting surrounding environment information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the determining), and amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer elements (environment information transmission unit, operation control apparatus) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The flying object environment information transmission unit represents generally linking use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (i.e. aerial vehicles, aerial transportation), and is not an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0016], ¶[0025] describing the additional element of transmitting surrounding environment information apparatus at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of (claim 8, 15) controlling flight is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transporting the determined landing site for the transported subject / calculated route), and amounts to physically relocating an item which is an extra/post-solution activity, and amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment / field of use (e.g. aerial vehicles). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity / general linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g), MPEP 2106.05(h). Also note that controlling flight is an extra-solution / post-solution activity to the determining, and changing the location of an item does not satisfy a particular transformation that is significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0026] describing the additional element of a flight controller that controls flight based on the route information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars of controlling flight operations / controlling flight to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use (aerial vehicles / aerial transportation), and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as transmitting data / data gathering. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / commercial problem (i.e. how should a shipper decide on an alternative landing site and ground transportation vehicle for delivery), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers, aerial vehicles), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of a flying object itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 8, 15, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting an implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Also, the architecture in combination is well-understood, routine, conventional as previously known in the industry and therefore does not provide significantly more. See the background of the 2013 Miller patent (US 8,366,054 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the architecture (see Miller col 1 ln 19-21 detailing it is known to utilize a UAV for directing to a desired target through a remote user interface, i.e. computer and flying object). See the abstract of “Hybrid Truck-Drone Delivery Systems: A systematic Literature Review” (2022) to Mandani et al. demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the architecture (Mandani Abstract details a number of logistics providers have suggested the incorporation of drones with trucks, including 95 publications related to hybrid truck-drone delivery systems). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: First, the limitation wherein the site information includes information of a candidate for a transfer site for transfer from the alternative landing site to the ground vehicle merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (mitigating risk, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the transfer determining unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: First, the limitation an environment information reception unit that receives problem information including information regarding a type of an event that causes a problem with the flight operation of the flying object or the transport of the carried subject, and a location where the problem has occurred represents an additional element (extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the environment information reception unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), and is not a practical application or significantly more. The receiving step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Second, the limitations wherein the transfer determining unit determines, based on the problem information, a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site, and determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (mitigating risk, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the transfer determining unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4: First, the limitation wherein the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the transfer determining unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: First, the limitation wherein the site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site and the candidate for the transfer site merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitations if the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the alternative landing site to the destination, and if the ground vehicle is not permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site where the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the transfer determining unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: First, the limitation wherein the flying object includes a flight route calculation unit that calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the flight route calculation unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer; and the flying object amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment / field of use (e.g. aerial vehicles). Second, the limitation of a route information transmission unit that transmits the flight route to the flying object represents an additional element (extra-solution transmitting data) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the route information transmission unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), and is not a practical application or significantly more. The transmitting step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: First, the limitation wherein the surrounding environment information includes flatland information obtained by measuring an area of a flatland surrounding the flying object, and visibility level information indicating a level of visibility merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation and the transfer determining unit searches for a candidate for the alternative landing site based on the self-position information and the surrounding environment information is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the transfer determining unit is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: First, the limitation wherein the site information includes information of a candidate for the transfer site for transfer from the alternative landing site to the ground vehicle merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation and the operation control apparatus determines the transfer site, the alternative landing site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (mitigating risk, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: First, the limitation wherein the operation control apparatus receives problem information including information regarding a type of an event that causes a problem with the flight operation of the flying object or the transport of the carried subject, and a location where the problem has occurred represents an additional element (extra-solution data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), and is not a practical application or significantly more. The receiving step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Second, the limitations the operation control apparatus determines a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site based on the problem information, and determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (mitigating risk, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11: First, the limitation wherein the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the operation control apparatus determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12: First, the limitation wherein the site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site and the candidate for the transfer site merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitations in the operation control apparatus, if the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the alternative landing site to the destination, and if the ground vehicle is not permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site where the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the operation control apparatus and the transfer determining unit are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13: First, the limitation wherein the operation control apparatus calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer; and the flying object amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment / field of use (e.g. aerial vehicles). Second, the limitation of the operation control apparatus transmits the flight route to the flying object represents an additional element (extra-solution transmitting data) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), and is not a practical application or significantly more. The transmitting step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14: First, the limitation wherein the surrounding environment information includes flatland information obtained by measuring an area of a flatland surrounding the flying object, and visibility level information indicating a level of visibility merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation and the operation control apparatus searches for the candidate for the alternative landing site based on the self-position information and the surrounding environment information is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the operation control apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 15, and the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are ineligible.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0130510 A1 to Eck et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2023-059674A to Tsukamoto.
Claim 1:
Eck, as shown, teaches the following:
An operation control apparatus (Eck ¶[009-10] details a delivery server that communicates with service assets) comprising
a transfer determining unit that determines an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by a flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination (Eck ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details once the delivery server creates the package transport routine and shipping agenda, monitoring performance of the drone and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to another delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, delivery server selects a second package receiving drone to receive the package (e.g. ground delivery drone (GDD)) and a service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site) with the greatest efficiency),
With respect to the following:
based on self-location information of the flying object,
Eck, as shown in ¶[0051], ¶[0172], ¶[0193-194] details determining an alternate destination transfer site and a ground vehicle based to meet the initial package delivery vehicle based on proximity to the route between the current location of the package carrying drone (i.e. location information of the flying object) and the destination, and/or closeness to the GPS location of the GDD, but does not explicitly state that location information of the flying object is self-location information. However, Tsukamoto teaches this limitation receiving the satellite positioning information from the aircraft from GPS, and the aircraft transmits the position to the server (Tsukamoto ¶[0024], ¶[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck, with the motivation to “reduce the risk that the first flying object cannot reach the destination point due to fuel shortage or the like” (Tsukamoto ¶[0056]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Eck (in view of Tsukamoto) also teaches the following:
surrounding environment information of the flying object (Eck ¶[0045], ¶[0183-184] details monitoring a service drone’s weather, encountered obstacles, changes in surrounding traffic and determine if updates to the existing shipping agenda and route planning including whether transfer is needed, which per Figs 21-23, ¶[0191-194] include selecting a second drone to receive the package and selecting a service station for transfer),
site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands (Eck ¶[0045], ¶[0194] details selecting a service station for the transfer that is located in closest proximity to an otherwise direct delivery route between the current location of the package-carrying drone and the destination of the package, or proximity to the GDD, i.e. location information of candidate alternative landing site),
flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object (Eck ¶[0009], ¶[0045], ¶[0193-194] details monitoring the service drone’s travel from the origin to the destination and referencing the shipping agenda and the an otherwise direct delivery route to determine a selected GDD and most efficient service station for transfer), and
ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination (Eck ¶[0193-194] details identifying whether a ground vehicle is of a particular type for handle a change along the route after a package transfer, and using the proximity to the GDD in selecting a service station for the transfer, i.e. location information of the candidate ground vehicle).
Claim 2:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Eck also teaches the following:
wherein the site information includes information of a candidate for a transfer site for transfer from the alternative landing site to the ground vehicle (Eck ¶[0194] details location information of the candidate alternative landing site - selecting a service station for the transfer that is located in closest proximity to an otherwise direct delivery route between the current location of the package-carrying drone and the destination of the package, or proximity to the GDD, i.e. location information of candidate alternative landing site), and
the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination (Eck ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details the delivery server monitoring performance of the drone and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to another delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, delivery server selects a second package receiving drone to receive the package (e.g. ground delivery drone (GDD)) and a service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site, transfer site) with the greatest efficiency).
Claim 6:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Tsukamoto also teaches the following:
wherein the flying object includes a flight route calculation unit that calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site (Tsukamoto ¶[0037], ¶[0059] details acquiring the fight route from the flying object (i.e. flying object calculates the flight route), and the flight route can include a new destination point to a position where a transfer to alternative means of transportation is possible), and
a route information transmission unit that transmits the flight route to the flying object (Tsukamoto ¶[0060-62] details the server transmitting the flight route to the flying object, and the flying object then controls the airframe to fly according to the changed flight route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the flying object includes a flight route calculation unit that calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site; and a route information transmission unit that transmits the flight route to the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), with the motivation to “reduce the risk that the first flying object cannot reach the destination point due to fuel shortage or the like” and “reduce the risk that the person or cargo being transported by the first flying body cannot reach the destination point” (Tsukamoto ¶[0056], ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the flying object includes a flight route calculation unit that calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site; and a route information transmission unit that transmits the flight route to the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8:
Eck, as shown, teaches the following:
An operation control method in which an operation control apparatus controls flight operation of a flying object (Eck Fig 1, ¶[0037] details a delivery server controlling service drones including ground delivery drones (GDD) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)), the operation control method comprising:
causing the operation control apparatus to determine an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by the flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination (Eck ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details once the delivery server creates the package transport routine and shipping agenda, monitoring performance of the drone and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to another delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, delivery server selects a second package receiving drone to receive the package (e.g. GDD) and a service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site) with the greatest efficiency),
With respect to the following:
based on self-location information of the flying object,
Eck, as shown in ¶[0051], ¶[0172], ¶[0193-194] details determining an alternate destination transfer site and a ground vehicle based to meet the initial package delivery vehicle based on proximity to the route between the current location of the package carrying drone (i.e. location information of the flying object) and the destination, and/or closeness to the GPS location of the GDD, but does not explicitly state that location information of the flying object is self-location information. However, Tsukamoto teaches this limitation receiving the satellite positioning information from the aircraft from GPS, and the aircraft transmits the position to the server (Tsukamoto ¶[0024], ¶[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck, with the motivation “reduce the risk that the first flying object cannot reach the destination point due to fuel shortage or the like” and “reduce the risk that the person or cargo being transported by the first flying body cannot reach the destination point” (Tsukamoto ¶[0056], ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Eck (in view of Tsukamoto) also teaches the following:
surrounding environment information of the flying object (Eck ¶[0045], ¶[0183-184] details monitoring a service drone’s weather, encountered obstacles, changes in surrounding traffic and determine if updates to the existing shipping agenda and route planning including whether transfer is needed, which per Figs 21-23, ¶[0191-194] include selecting a second drone to receive the package and selecting a service station for transfer),
site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands (Eck ¶[0045], ¶[0194] details selecting a service station for the transfer that is located in closest proximity to an otherwise direct delivery route between the current location of the package-carrying drone and the destination of the package, or proximity to the GDD, i.e. location information of candidate alternative landing site),
flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object (Eck ¶[0009], ¶[0045], ¶[0193-194] details monitoring the service drone’s travel from the origin to the destination and referencing the shipping agenda and the an otherwise direct delivery route to determine a selected GDD and most efficient service station for transfer), and
ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination (Eck ¶[0193-194] details identifying whether a ground vehicle is of a particular type for handle a change along the route after a package transfer, and using the proximity to the GDD in selecting a service station for the transfer, i.e. location information of the candidate ground vehicle).
Claim 9:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 8. Eck also teaches the following:
wherein the site information includes information of a candidate for the transfer site for transfer from the alternative landing site to the ground vehicle (Eck ¶[0194] details location information of the candidate alternative landing site - selecting a service station for the transfer that is located in closest proximity to an otherwise direct delivery route between the current location of the package-carrying drone and the destination of the package, or proximity to the GDD, i.e. location information of candidate alternative landing site), and
the operation control apparatus determines the transfer site, the alternative landing site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination (Eck ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details the delivery server monitoring performance of the drone and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to another delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, delivery server selects a second package receiving drone to receive the package (e.g. ground delivery drone (GDD)) and a service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site, transfer site) with the greatest efficiency).
Claim 13:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Tsukamoto also teaches the following:
wherein the operation control apparatus calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site (Tsukamoto ¶[0037], ¶[0059] details the control unit of the server may generate the flight route of the first flying object using a flight route generating algorithm, and change the flight route by setting a new destination point to a position where a transfer to alternative means of transportation is possible), and
the operation control apparatus transmits the flight route to the flying object (Tsukamoto ¶[0060-62] details the server transmitting the flight route to the flying object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the operation control apparatus calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site; and the operation control apparatus transmits the flight route to the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), with the motivation to “reduce the risk that the first flying object cannot reach the destination point due to fuel shortage or the like” and “reduce the risk that the person or cargo being transported by the first flying body cannot reach the destination point” (Tsukamoto ¶[0056], ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the operation control apparatus calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site; and the operation control apparatus transmits the flight route to the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 15:
Eck, as shown, teaches the following:
An operation control system comprising:
an operation control apparatus (Eck ¶[009-10] details a delivery server that communicates with service assets) including
a transfer determining unit that determines an alternative landing site and a ground vehicle for transporting a subject carried by a flying object from the alternative landing site to a destination (Eck ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details once the delivery server creates the package transport routine and shipping agenda, monitoring performance of the drone and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to another delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, delivery server selects a second package receiving drone to receive the package (e.g. ground delivery drone (GDD)) and a service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site) with the greatest efficiency),
With respect to the following:
based on self-location information of the flying object,
Eck, as shown in ¶[0051], ¶[0172], ¶[0193-194] details determining an alternate destination transfer site and a ground vehicle based to meet the initial package delivery vehicle based on proximity to the route between the current location of the package carrying drone (i.e. location information of the flying object) and the destination, and/or closeness to the GPS location of the GDD, but does not explicitly state that location information of the flying object is self-location information. However, Tsukamoto teaches this limitation receiving the satellite positioning information from the aircraft from GPS, and the aircraft transmits the position to the server (Tsukamoto ¶[0024], ¶[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck, with the motivation “reduce the risk that the first flying object cannot reach the destination point due to fuel shortage or the like” and “reduce the risk that the person or cargo being transported by the first flying body cannot reach the destination point” (Tsukamoto ¶[0056], ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Eck (in view of Tsukamoto) also teaches the following:
surrounding environment information of the flying object (Eck ¶[0045], ¶[0183-184] details monitoring a service drone’s weather, encountered obstacles, changes in surrounding traffic and determine if updates to the existing shipping agenda and route planning including whether transfer is needed, which per Figs 21-23, ¶[0191-194] include selecting a second drone to receive the package and selecting a service station for transfer),
site information that is information of a candidate for the alternative landing site where the flying object lands (Eck ¶[0045], ¶[0194] details selecting a service station for the transfer that is located in closest proximity to an otherwise direct delivery route between the current location of the package-carrying drone and the destination of the package, or proximity to the GDD, i.e. location information of candidate alternative landing site),
flight operation plan information to the destination of the flying object (Eck ¶[0009], ¶[0045], ¶[0193-194] details monitoring the service drone’s travel from the origin to the destination and referencing the shipping agenda and the an otherwise direct delivery route to determine a selected GDD and most efficient service station for transfer), and
ground vehicle information that is information of a candidate for the ground vehicle at a transfer destination (Eck ¶[0193-194] details identifying whether a ground vehicle is of a particular type for handle a change along the route after a package transfer, and using the proximity to the GDD in selecting a service station for the transfer, i.e. location information of the candidate ground vehicle),
a flight route calculation unit that calculates a flight route for the flying object to land on the alternative landing site (Eck ¶[0009], ¶[0040] details generating a shipping agenda that includes the selection of at least one service drone and generating the navigation route from an origin to a destination, and optionally the selection of at least one service station (i.e. alternative landing site) if needed), and
a route information transmission unit that transmits the flight route to the flight object (Eck ¶[0040], ¶[0042], ¶[0188] details the server communication unit sending and receiving signals for communicating with the UAV drones, and the server generating navigation routes for the service drones to traverse the service regions as needed from mapping data and sharing the mapping data with the service drones, and the delivery updating the navigation route to now include a stop at the waypoint in the new navigation route for the package carrying drone to execute to the waypoint for the first portion of the updated navigation route; see also/alternatively in further support of obviousness Tsukamoto ¶[0059-61] details the control unit of the server transmitting the changed flight route of the first aircraft to the first aircraft and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable); and
a flying object (Eck ¶[0037] details a drone may include an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); see also/alternatively in further support of obviousness Tsukamoto ¶[0013] details a flying object as a vertical take-off and landing aircraft, drone, or any flying object such as a helicopter, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable) including
an environment information transmission unit that transmits the surrounding environment information to the operation control apparatus (Eck ¶[0041], ¶[0045] details the drone encountering obstacles and transferring this information regarding their presence or positions back to the delivery server central control unit (CCU); see also/alternatively in further support of obviousness Tsukamoto ¶[0028] details the flying object / aircraft transmits weather data collected during flight to the server and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include this feature as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable),
Tsukamoto (of Eck in view of Tsukamoto) also teaches the following:
a route information reception unit that receives flight route information from the operation control apparatus (Tsukamoto ¶[0060-61] details the control unit of the server transmits the changed flight route of the first aircraft to the aircraft and as a result the control unit of the first aircraft displays the changed flight route and/or controls the airframe to fly according to the changed route), and
a flight controller that controls flight based on the route information received by the route information reception unit (Tsukamoto ¶[0060-61] details the control unit of the server transmits the changed flight route of the first aircraft to the aircraft and as a result the control unit of the first aircraft controls the airframe to fly according to the changed route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flying object including… a route information reception unit that receives flight route information from the operation control apparatus; and a flight controller that controls flight based on the route information received by the route information reception unit as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), with the motivation to “reduce the risk that the person or cargo being transported by the first flying body cannot reach the destination point” (Tsukamoto ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include self-location information of the flying object as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0130510 A1 to Eck et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2023-059674A to Tsukamoto, as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2015/0142223 A1 to Barbour.
Claim 3:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Eck also teaches the following:
an environment information reception unit that receives problem information including information regarding a type of an event that causes a problem with the flight operation of the flying object or the transport of the carried subject, and a location where the problem has occurred (Eck ¶[0041], ¶[0045] details the drone using sensors to recognize and record the presence of obstacles (i.e. a type of problem) encountered in the environment and calculating the positions of those obstacles within the regional mapping data (i.e. location of where the problem has occurred) and this information is monitored by the delivery server,
With respect to the following:
wherein the transfer determining unit determines, based on the problem information, a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site, and
Eck, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0159-161], ¶[0172] details the delivery server determining based on monitoring the drone’s travel including a change in weather or that the drone has encountered an obstacle or that the drone has an insufficient power capacity to complete an assigned transport task (i.e. problem information), then update the route planning as needed, such as determining a transfer station will assist in the transfer between an assigned UAV and GDD, but Eck does not explicitly state the transfer determining unit determines based on the problem information a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site. However, Barbour teaches this limitation with the UAV exchanging communication with the ground control stations to receive commands and provide statuses, evaluating the aileron deflection of the UAV while it is flight and determining when the UAV center of gravity change is too severe (i.e. type of problem and degree of urgency) then perform a remedial operation, where one of the remedial operations include navigating the UAV to the alternative landing site, which may include a condition such that the UAV should attempt to complete part of the mission and then return to one of the landing sites which includes the alternative landing site (Barbour Fig 4, ¶[0037], ¶[0056-59], ¶[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the transfer determining unit determines, based on the problem information, a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site as taught by Barbour with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, with the motivation to solve the problem that “the fixed-wing UA may succumb to catastrophic failure” (Barbour ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the transfer determining unit determines, based on the problem information, a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site as taught by Barbour in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Eck (in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour) also teaches the following:
determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination (Eck ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details the delivery server monitoring performance of the drone and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to another delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, delivery server selects a second package receiving drone to receive the package (e.g. ground delivery drone (GDD)) and a service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site, transfer site) with the greatest efficiency).
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0130510 A1 to Eck et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2023-059674A to Tsukamoto in view of US patent application publication 2015/0142223 A1 to Barbour, as applied to claims 3 and 10 above, and further in view of US patent publication 9,701,408 B1 to Willison.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Alternate rejections are provided for claims 4 and 11 based on the breadth of the term ‘public transport institution’, providing multiple examples to further demonstrate obviousness.
Claim 4:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. With respect to the following:
wherein the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution, and
Eck, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details identifying location information (i.e. site information) for the transfer station based on its proximity to the GDD or its proximity to the delivery route between the current location of the package delivery drone, but does not explicitly state that site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution. However, Willison teaches this limitation, identifying parcel data regarding potential landing spots for UAVs in including for emergency landing locations and the parcel data indicates whether it is a public parcel (e.g. a park, school, roads), and can be transported using a plane, truck, van, train, motorcycle, bicycle, or any combination (i.e. transferred) (Willison col 1 ln 14-22, col 4 ln 44-65, col 13 ln 25-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution as taught by Willison with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour, with the motivation of determining a landing site “that could be used as an emergency landing location for the unmanned aerial vehicle” (Willison col 13 ln 40-43). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution as taught by Willison in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information.
Eck, as shown in ¶[0010], ¶[0116], ¶[0172], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details the delivery server monitoring performance of a UAV drone carrying a package and the shipping agenda is updated as needed based on changes that may occur during execution of the package transport routine such as whether there is a need for the current package-carrying drone to execute a package transfer to pass the package-carrying to container to a ground delivery drone for execution of a next portion of the shipping request, and selecting the service station for transfer (i.e. alternate landing site, transfer site) of the package (i.e. the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination) with the greatest efficiency based on the site location information; but does not explicitly state if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information. However, Willison teaches this limitation, identifying parcel data regarding potential landing spots for UAVs in including for emergency landing locations and the parcel data indicates whether it is a public parcel (e.g. a park, school, roads), and selecting the landing site needed for a UAV emergency landing location as an open public area including a public parcel (e.g. road, cul-de-sac) from the county parcel data (noting that roads are a public transport institution), a package can be transported using a plane, truck, van, train, motorcycle, bicycle, or any combination (i.e. transferred), and the package is delivered to its delivery location (Willison Fig 7, col 1 ln 14-22, col 15 ln 47-53, col 4 ln 44-65, col 13 ln 25-44, col 18 ln 60 through col 19 ln 5; also note that in col 18 ln 60 through col 19 ln 5 the system identifies what percentage of residential parcels are land-able by a UAV, suggesting that if this percentage is 0% then the system must select a public parcel (e.g. road, per col 4 ln 64) for the UAV to land as an alternate / emergency location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information as taught by Willison with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour (in view of Williston), with the motivation to “be assured that the unmanned aerial vehicles will be able to land safely and efficiently” (Willison col 2 ln 36-38). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information as taught by Willison in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour (in view of Willison), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0130510 A1 to Eck et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2023-059674A to Tsukamoto in view of US patent application publication 2015/0142223 A1 to Barbour, as applied to claims 3 and 10 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2021/0279678 A1 to Ur.
Claim 4:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. With respect to the following:
wherein the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution, and
Eck, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details identifying location information (i.e. site information) for the transfer station based on its proximity to the GDD or its proximity to the delivery route between the current location of the package delivery drone, but does not explicitly state that site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution. However, Ur teaches this limitation, obtaining a schedule of public transportation vehicles / buses that may serve as landing sites for delivery drones, including when the drone changes route (Ur ¶[0047], ¶[0053], ¶[0077], ¶[0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution as taught by Ur with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour, with the motivation to solve problems regarding “the limitation on the range the drone can carry a package… though recharging may be possible for the drone mid-way, stopping for charging will generally delay delivery of the package” (Ur ¶[0041]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the site information includes information regarding whether the candidate for the transfer site corresponds to a public transport institution as taught by Ur in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Ur (of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour in view of Ur) also teaches the following:
if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information (Ur ¶[0069], ¶[0047], ¶[0069], ¶[0094], and Fig 3B (345) and ¶[0139] details when the drone has deviated from the originally planned route or the route is changed (by the server or drone) the drone will land on a different vehicle, such as a requested public transportation bus (i.e. public transportation institution) to stop at the next station for the drone to land on a landing pad on the roof of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information as taught by Ur with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour (in view of Ur), with the motivation to solve problems regarding “the limitation on the range the drone can carry a package… though recharging may be possible for the drone mid-way, stopping for charging will generally delay delivery of the package” (Ur ¶[0041]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the specified landing site is the public transport institution, the transfer determining unit determines the public transport institution for transporting the subject carried by the flying object to the alternative landing site and the destination based on the site information as taught by Willison in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Barbour (in view of Ur), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0130510 A1 to Eck et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2023-059674A to Tsukamoto, as applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of US patent publication 6,421,606 B1 to Asai et al.
Claim 5:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. With respect to the following:
wherein the site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site and the candidate for the transfer site,
Eck, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details identifying location information (i.e. site information) for the transfer station which may also be an updated landing site (i.e. alternative landing site) selected based on its proximity to the GDD or its proximity to the delivery route between the current location of the package delivery drone, but does not explicitly state that site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate site. However, Asai teaches this remaining limitation, acquiring parking lot information for the nearby station and confirming whether there is a vacancy in a parking lot near the station, and when there is such a vacancy, decide whether to use this station; when the vehicle cannot be parked due to full parking lots at the nearby station, a route to the next closest station is searched for (Asai col 7 ln 46-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the transfer site (which is also the alternative landing site, per Eck) as taught by Asai with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, with the motivation of “achieving enhanced user convenience” (Asai col 1 ln 57-58). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the transfer determining unit determines, based on the problem information, a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site as taught by Barbour in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Asai (of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Asai, applying that the transporting subject is originally carried by the flying object, and the alternative landing site and transfer site are the same location, per Eck above) also teaches the following:
if the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the alternative landing site to the destination (Asai col 7 ln 46-54 details if there is confirmed vacancy in a parking lot near the station and the ground vehicle can be parked, then decide to use this station, and after the station a route to the final destination is determined), and
if the ground vehicle is not permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site where the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination (Asai col 7 ln 46-54 details if the ground vehicle cannot be parked due to full parking lots at the station, then the next closest station is searched for, and after deciding the station a route to the final destination is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include if the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative (landing, per Eck) site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative (landing, per Eck) site and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject (carried by the flying object, per Eck) from the alternative (landing site, per Eck) to the destination; and if the ground vehicle is not permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative (landing, per Eck) site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative (landing, per Eck) site, the transfer site where the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject (carried by the flying object, per Eck) from the transfer site to the destination as taught by Asai with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, with the motivation of “achieving enhanced user convenience and increased reliability of navigation systems” (Asai col 1 ln 56-58).
Claim 12:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 8. With respect to the following:
wherein the site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site and the candidate for the transfer site,
Eck, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0183], ¶[0193-194] details identifying location information (i.e. site information) for the transfer station which may also be an updated landing site (i.e. alternative landing site) selected based on its proximity to the GDD or its proximity to the delivery route between the current location of the package delivery drone, but does not explicitly state that site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate site. However, Asai teaches this remaining limitation, acquiring parking lot information for the nearby station and confirming whether there is a vacancy in a parking lot near the station, and when there is such a vacancy, decide whether to use this station; when the vehicle cannot be parked due to full parking lots at the nearby station, a route to the next closest station is searched for (Asai col 7 ln 46-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the site information includes information indicating whether the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the transfer site (which is also the alternative landing site, per Eck) as taught by Asai with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, with the motivation of “achieving enhanced user convenience” (Asai col 1 ln 57-58). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the transfer determining unit determines, based on the problem information, a degree of urgency of the problem and a condition for the alternative landing site as taught by Barbour in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Asai (of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Asai, applying that the transporting subject is originally carried by the flying object, and the alternative landing site and transfer site are the same location, per Eck above) also teaches the following:
in the operation control apparatus, if the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the alternative landing site to the destination (Asai col 7 ln 46-54 details if there is confirmed vacancy in a parking lot near the station and the ground vehicle can be parked, then decide to use this station, and after the station a route to the final destination is determined), and
if the ground vehicle is not permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative landing site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative landing site, the transfer site where the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject carried by the flying object from the transfer site to the destination (Asai col 7 ln 46-54 details if the ground vehicle cannot be parked due to full parking lots at the station, then the next closest station is searched for, and after deciding the station a route to the final destination is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the operation control apparatus, if the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative (landing, per Eck) site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative (landing, per Eck) site and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject (carried by the flying object, per Eck) from the alternative (landing site, per Eck) to the destination; and if the ground vehicle is not permitted to be parked in the candidate for the alternative (landing, per Eck) site, the transfer determining unit determines the alternative (landing, per Eck) site, the transfer site where the ground vehicle is permitted to be parked, and the ground vehicle for transporting the subject (carried by the flying object, per Eck) from the transfer site to the destination as taught by Asai with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto (in view of Asai), with the motivation of “achieving enhanced user convenience and increased reliability of navigation systems” (Asai col 1 ln 56-58).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0130510 A1 to Eck et al. in view of Japan patent application publication 2023-059674A to Tsukamoto, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in further view of US patent application publication 2021/0312823 A1 to Browne et al.
Claim 7:
Eck in view of Tsukamoto, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein the surrounding environment information includes flatland information obtained by measuring an area of a flatland surrounding the flying object, and visibility level information indicating a level of visibility, and
Eck, as shown in ¶[0045], ¶[0183-184] details monitoring a service drone’s weather, encountered obstacles, changes in surrounding traffic, and ¶[0144-145] identifying different terrains for different portions of the route (e.g. paved road, wetlands, snow, sand); and Tsukamoto, as shown in ¶[0023], ¶[0039] details collecting weather data that includes fog density (i.e. surrounding environment information includes visibility level information); but does not explicitly state surrounding environment information includes flatland information obtained by measuring an area of a flatland surrounding the flying object. However, Browne teaches this remaining limitation analyzing candidate landing sites for size/area, dimensions, and terrain flatness (Browne ¶[0011], ¶[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the surrounding environment information includes flatland information obtained by measuring an area of a flatland surrounding the flying object as taught by Browne with the teachings of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, with the motivation “to ensure for a safe landing” (Browne ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the surrounding environment information includes flatland information obtained by measuring an area of a flatland surrounding the flying object as taught by Browne in the system of Eck in view of Tsukamoto, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Tsukamoto (of Eck in view of Tsukamoto in view of Browne, applying that surrounding environment information for candidate landing site size/area and terrain flatness, per Browne above) also teaches the following:
the transfer determining unit searches for a candidate for the alternative landing site based on the self-position information and the surrounding environment information (Tsukamoto ¶[0024], ¶[0028], ¶[0056-59] details changing a flight route by setting a new destination point to a position where a transfer to an alternative means of transportation is possible, based on the acquired position information from the flying object (i.e. self-position information) and its fuel state whether the object can reach its destination point and the acquired weather and environment conditions which include fog density).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transfer determining unit searches for a candidate for the alternative landing site based on the self-position information and the surrounding environment information as taught by Tsukamoto with the teachings of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto in view of Browne), with the motivation to “reduce the risk that the person or cargo being transported by the first flying body cannot reach the destination point” (Tsukamoto ¶[0059]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the transfer determining unit searches for a candidate for the alternative landing site based on the self-position information and the surrounding environment information as taught by Tsukamoto in the system of Eck (in view of Tsukamoto in view of Browne), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 7.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent publication 9,959,771 to Carlson details unmanned aerial vehicle routing using real-time weather data.
US patent application publication 2018/0059688 A1 to Benraz details an autonomous public transportation system.
US patent application publication 2020/0122831 to Rivaya details delivering a package from a drone to a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights