DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 9/11/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 13-20 . Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to JP2023-048277, filed on 3/24/2023.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
[0120], [0123], [0124]: The paragraphs reference “FIG. 16” but there is no FIG. 16. From at least the context of para. [0011], it appears that the paragraphs are referring to “FIG. 11”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 19 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
Claim 1: “the recommended operation selection means” – lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 4:
missing “and” before the final clause; the current instance of “and” is introduced too early.
“the determination means” lacks antecedent basis
Claims 5, 13 and 19: “a weather” is grammatically awkward – the element should rather read “a weather condition” or the like.
Claim 7: “the monitoring device includes at least two or more monitoring devices” – the element constitutes awkward phrasing which redefines a singular antecedent as including a plurality of elements.
Claim 8: “the moving body includes a plurality of moving body” – the element constitutes awkward phrasing which redefines a singular antecedent as including a plurality of elements.
Claim 11: the claim was amended but does not have the signifier “(Currently Amended)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” which is coupled with functional language.
Additionally, 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) either 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 limitations are: “a monitoring device for monitoring” in claims 1, 9 and 15 (with dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20, respectively), “photographed by an imaging means” in claims 5, 13 and 19 and “the environmental information acquired by the second monitoring device is transmitted” in claim 7.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes:
Monitoring device (including the second monitoring device):
environment sensor 313 - ¶ 26-27 and FIG. 3; see also ¶ 39.
processor, memory - ¶ 120-124 and FIG. 11.
Imaging means:
camera - ¶ 35.
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5, 13 and 19 is/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.
As to claim 5, 13 and 19, the recitation “wherein the environmental information is an obstacle or a weather that is likely to hinder the flight of the moving body or is unlikely to hinder the flight of the moving body” is vague and indefinite. Namely, it is vague and unclear what criteria clearly delineates an obstacle or a weather [condition] as “likely to hinder” or “unlikely to hinder” the flight of a moving body. There’s discussion at [0017]-[0019], with [0018] concretely defining a building height of 100 meters as corresponding to environmental information likely to hinder the flight of the moving body. However, this only refers to environmental information as it relates to a building; the metes and bounds between “likely” and “unlikely” to hinder flight are generally unclear for the BRI of obstacles and weather conditions covered by the claim. In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Therefore, claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim(s) 1, 9 and 15.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Claim 9: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Claim 15: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claim 1 is provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold. Examiner notes that claims 9 and 15 recite similar subject matter but for minor differences; hence, the analysis of claim 1 will pertain to claims 9 and 15 as well.
1. A control system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions;
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions;
acquire movement information including a progress status with respect to a flight plan of a moving body;
acquire environmental information associated with flight of the moving body from a monitoring device for monitoring a movement route of the moving body;
select a recommended operation according to the progress status of the moving body based on the movement information and the environmental information; and
output a signal indicating the recommended operation by the recommended operation selection means.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to selecting a recommended operation is a process which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing an evaluation/judgment over acquired data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components—i.e., memory, processor, computer, and non-transitory computer readable medium—that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
acquire movement information including a progress status with respect to a flight plan of a moving body
acquire environmental information associated with flight of the moving body from a monitoring device for monitoring a movement route of the moving body
Insignificant post-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
output a signal indicating the recommended operation by the recommended operation selection means
Per Applicant’s Specification at [0050], the BRI of this limitation can include either outputting a signal to a moving body to fly while performing a recommended operation, or outputting a signal to a monitor of a terminal. The latter falls constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity because it merely entails the well-understood and conventional activity of providing a notification pertaining to a result of performing an abstract idea.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
determine whether a flight state of the moving body is dangerous,
select the recommended operation from a plurality of danger avoidance operations set in advance,
analyze a cause of a dangerous flight state,
determine whether the analyzed cause is a cyberattack,
select the recommended operation based on a determination result of the determination means,
select a recommended operation based on the movement information and the environmental information received by the first monitoring device from the second monitoring device,
select a recommended operation for each moving body based on the movement information of each moving body and the environmental information acquired from the monitoring device monitoring a movement route of the moving body
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
photographing image data,
acquiring weather information,
transmitting environmental information to a first monitoring device,
acquire the environmental information received by the first monitoring device from the second monitoring device,
monitoring different movement routes or monitoring different regions,
monitoring a movement route of each moving body in which the moment route is included,
acquire movement information of each moving body,
acquire environmental information associated with flight of the moving body
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 do not render the claimed invention patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claims 2-6 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
Claims 1-20 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Panchangam (US20220309934A1; “Panchangam”).
As to independent claim 1, Panchangam discloses a control system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (“at least one memory storing instructions” - ¶ 7.); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (“at least one processor executing the instructions” - ¶ 7. ) to:
acquire movement information including a progress status with respect to a flight plan of a moving body (“FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary [] system …. The system 200 depicted in FIG. 2 may include one or more aircraft, such as aircraft 131, one or more intruder aircraft 230, a cloud service 205, one or more communications station(s) 210, and/or one or more ground station(s) 215.” ¶ 28 and FIG. 2. “The cloud service 205 may also receive all planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for the aircraft 131. The cloud service 205 may store the received planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 in the collective vehicle state information.” ¶ 66. “[T]he cloud service 205 may receive aircraft positioning data from the aircraft 131 on a continuous/periodic basis. The cloud service 205 may store the received aircraft positioning data in a manner to track the aircraft 131 (hereinafter referred to as ‘collective vehicle state information’).” ¶ 65. “The known vehicle process may determine whether the detected (known) vehicle is: (1) following a planned/unplanned flight path …. To perform the known vehicle process, the cloud service 205 may compare the vehicle information to the vehicle state information; determine whether the detected (known) vehicle is … within the second threshold envelope of the planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for the detected (known) vehicle; and generate a message based on a result of the determining.” ¶ 73.);
acquire environmental information associated with flight of the moving body from a monitoring device for monitoring a movement route of the moving body (“Each of the one or more ground station(s) 215 may include a transponder system, a radar system, and/or a datalink system.” ¶ 29. “If the radar system detects an object and the transponder system does not receive a corresponding identification message from the object (or does receive an identification message, but it is an invalid identification message, e.g., an identifier of un-authorized aircraft), the ground station 215 may determine that the object is an intruder aircraft 230. The ground station 215 may then transmit an intruder alert message to the cloud service 205.” ¶ 32. “The unknown vehicle process may determine whether the detected (unknown) vehicle is a danger to any other vehicle (either based on current speed, position, etc. of planned/unplanned flight paths of the other vehicles). To perform the unknown vehicle process, the cloud service 205 may compare the vehicle information to the vehicle state information; determine whether the detected (unknown) vehicle is within a first threshold envelope of any vehicle of the vehicle state information and/or within the first threshold envelope of the planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for any vehicle of the vehicle state information; and generate a message based on a result of the determining.” ¶ 72.);
select a recommended operation according to the progress status of the moving body based on the movement information and the environmental information (“[T]he cloud service 205 may generate one or more messages based on the analysis result of the known vehicle process or the unknown vehicle process. The one or more messages may be: (1) a confirmation message if the detected (known) vehicle is within the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path of detected (known) vehicle and/or not in danger of any other vehicle; (2) an alert message if the detected known vehicle is outside the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path of detected (known) vehicle; (3) an alert message if the detected (known) vehicle is in danger of any other vehicle; (4) an intruder message if the detected (unknown) vehicle is within the first threshold envelope of any other vehicle (for instance such as a known vehicle that also has been detected); and (5) a possible intruder message if the detected (unknown) vehicle is not within the first threshold envelope of any other vehicle.” ¶ 79; see also ¶¶ 81-85.); and
output a signal indicating the recommended operation by the recommended operation selection means (“The cloud service 205 may transmit the one or more messages to the relevant vehicles. For instance, if the detected (unknown) vehicle causes an intruder message to be generated, the cloud service 205 may transmit the intruder message to the vehicles that the detected (unknown) vehicle may endanger; if the detected (unknown) vehicle causes a possible intruder message to be generated, the cloud service 205 may transmit the possible intruder message to the vehicles that are in a same region/route 141 as the detected (unknown) vehicle; if the detected (known) vehicle causes an confirmation message to be generated, the cloud service 205 may transmit the confirmation message to the detected (known) vehicle; if the detected (known) vehicle causes an alert message to be generated, the cloud service 205 may transmit the alert message to the detected (known) vehicle to inform the detected (known) vehicle that the detected (known) vehicle is outside the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path.” ¶ 84; see also ¶¶ 79 81-83 and 85.).
Independent claims 9 and 15 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 8, Panchangam discloses wherein:
the moving body includes a plurality of moving bodies (“The flight routing program 344 may, using the communications systems 306, generate/receive flight plan information 338 and receive system vehicle information 336 from the cloud service 205. …. The system vehicle information 336 may include other aircraft positioning information for other aircraft with respect to the aircraft 131 (called a ‘receiving aircraft 131’ for reference). For instance, the other aircraft positioning information may include positioning information of the other aircraft. The other aircraft may include: all aircraft 131-133 and/or intruder aircraft 230; aircraft 131-133 and/or intruder aircraft 230 within a threshold distance of the receiving aircraft 131; aircraft 131-133 and/or intruder aircraft 230 using a same route 141 (or is going to use the same route 141 or crossing over the same route 141) of the receiving aircraft; and/or aircraft 131-133 and/or intruder aircraft 230 within a same geographic area (e.g., city, town, metropolitan area, or sub-division thereof) of the receiving aircraft.” ¶ 51 and FIG. 2.),
the monitoring device includes at least two or more monitoring devices monitoring different movement routes or monitoring different regions in the movement route (“FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary a system, according to one or more embodiments. The system 200 depicted in FIG. 2 may include one or more aircraft, such as aircraft 131, one or more intruder aircraft 230, a cloud service 205, one or more communications station(s) 210, and/or one or more ground station(s) 215. The one or more aircraft 131 may be traveling from a first hub (e.g., hub 114) to a second hub (e.g., hub 112) along a route of routes 141. Between, near, and/or on hubs, such as hubs 111-117, the one or more ground station(s) 215 may be distributed (e.g., evenly, based on traffic considerations, etc.) along/near/on/under routes 141. Between, near, and/or on hubs, such as hubs 111-117, the one or more communications station(s) 210 may be distributed (e.g., evenly, based on traffic considerations, etc.). Some (or all) of the one or more ground station(s) 215 may be paired with a communication station 210 of the one or more communications station(s) 210.” ¶ 28 and FIG. 2. See also ¶¶ 60-62 and 64.),
the monitoring device monitors a movement route of each moving body in which the movement route is included in a region monitored by the monitoring device (“[T]he ground station(s) 215 (referred to as ‘node’ or ‘nodes’) may control the radar systems and the interrogator systems of the respective nodes to scan for vehicles, such as aircraft 131, in a three-dimensional coverage of a beam 220 of the nodes; detect vehicles, such as aircraft 131, using radar return information from the radar systems or based on interrogator signals of the interrogator systems; and in response to detecting the vehicles, transmit detection messages to the cloud service 205.” ¶ 60; see also ¶¶ 61-62, 64 and FIG. 2.),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire movement information of each moving body (“The cloud service 205 may also receive all planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for the aircraft 131. The cloud service 205 may store the received planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 in the collective vehicle state information.” ¶ 66. “[T]he cloud service 205 may receive aircraft positioning data from the aircraft 131 on a continuous/periodic basis. The cloud service 205 may store the received aircraft positioning data in a manner to track the aircraft 131 (hereinafter referred to as ‘collective vehicle state information’).” ¶ 65. “The known vehicle process may determine whether the detected (known) vehicle is: (1) following a planned/unplanned flight path …. To perform the known vehicle process, the cloud service 205 may compare the vehicle information to the vehicle state information; determine whether the detected (known) vehicle is … within the second threshold envelope of the planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for the detected (known) vehicle; and generate a message based on a result of the determining.” ¶ 73.),
acquire, from each of the monitoring devices, environmental information associated with flight of the moving body in which the movement route is included in a region monitored by the monitoring device (“Each of the one or more ground station(s) 215 may include a transponder system, a radar system, and/or a datalink system.” ¶ 29. “If the radar system detects an object and the transponder system does not receive a corresponding identification message from the object (or does receive an identification message, but it is an invalid identification message, e.g., an identifier of un-authorized aircraft), the ground station 215 may determine that the object is an intruder aircraft 230. The ground station 215 may then transmit an intruder alert message to the cloud service 205.” ¶ 32. “The unknown vehicle process may determine whether the detected (unknown) vehicle is a danger to any other vehicle (either based on current speed, position, etc. of planned/unplanned flight paths of the other vehicles). To perform the unknown vehicle process, the cloud service 205 may compare the vehicle information to the vehicle state information; determine whether the detected (unknown) vehicle is within a first threshold envelope of any vehicle of the vehicle state information and/or within the first threshold envelope of the planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for any vehicle of the vehicle state information; and generate a message based on a result of the determining.” ¶ 72.), and
select a recommended operation for each moving body based on the movement information of each moving body and the environmental information acquired from the monitoring device monitoring a movement route of the moving body (“[T]he cloud service 205 may generate one or more messages based on the analysis result of the known vehicle process or the unknown vehicle process. The one or more messages may be: (1) a confirmation message if the detected (known) vehicle is within the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path of detected (known) vehicle and/or not in danger of any other vehicle; (2) an alert message if the detected known vehicle is outside the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path of detected (known) vehicle; (3) an alert message if the detected (known) vehicle is in danger of any other vehicle; (4) an intruder message if the detected (unknown) vehicle is within the first threshold envelope of any other vehicle (for instance such as a known vehicle that also has been detected); and (5) a possible intruder message if the detected (unknown) vehicle is not within the first threshold envelope of any other vehicle.” ¶ 79; see also ¶¶ 81-85.).
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Panchangam in view of Ahn Ji Soo et al. (KR20190052897A; “Soo”).
As to claims 2, 10 and 16, Panchangam fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the movement information further includes an operation state of a drive unit of the moving body.
Nevertheless, Soo teaches: wherein movement information further includes an operation state of a drive unit of a moving body (“The flight control unit (300) transmits the measurement values of the authorized motor rotation speed detection sensor (400) and the transmission voltage measurement sensor (500) to a separate monitoring control unit (600).” ¶ 35; see also ¶¶ 12 and 14.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Panchangam to include the feature of: wherein movement information further includes an operation state of a drive unit of a moving body, as taught by Soo, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “maintaining safer flight performance and preventing flight accidents”. (Soo, ¶ 12.)
Claim(s) 3, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Panchangam in view of Kanda (US20210053673A1; “Kanda”)
As to claims 3, 11 and 17, Panchangam discloses: determine whether a flight state of the moving body is dangerous based on the movement information and the environmental information (“The known vehicle process may determine whether the detected (known) vehicle is: (1) following a planned/unplanned flight path; and/or (2) in danger of any other vehicle. To perform the known vehicle process, the cloud service 205 may compare the vehicle information to the vehicle state information; determine whether the detected (known) vehicle is within a second threshold envelope of any vehicle of the vehicle state information and/or within the second threshold envelope of the planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for the detected (known) vehicle; and generate a message based on a result of the determining.” ¶ 73. “Generally, the cloud service 205 may determine: (1) the detected (known) vehicle is: (A) following its planned/unplanned flight path, (B) in danger of another known vehicle based on position or the flight path of the another known vehicle, and/or (C) in danger of another non-cooperative vehicle based on position of the another non-cooperative vehicle; and/or (2) the detected (unknown) vehicle is: (A) putting another known vehicle in danger based on position or the flight path of the another known vehicle.” ¶ 78.).
Panchangam fails to explicitly disclose: select, in a case where it is determined that the flight of the moving body is dangerous, the recommended operation from a plurality of danger avoidance operations set in advance.
Nevertheless, Kanda teaches: select, in a case where it is determined that the flight of the moving body is dangerous, the recommended operation from a plurality of danger avoidance operations set in advance (“In step S2, the controller 10 controls the flight device 1A to perform a predetermined avoidance action. Here, the predetermined avoidance action may be various kinds of actions. For example, when the flight device 1A can obtain the information on the course of the flight device 1B, the predetermined avoidance action may be an action by the flight device 1A to avoid the course of the flight device 1B. Further, for example, the predetermined avoidance action may be determined in advance as an action to change the course to the right in all flight devices including the flight device 1A and the flight device 1B. In this case, for example, even if both the flight device 1A and the flight device 1B cannot obtain the course information to each other, they can avoid each other.” ¶ 65.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Panchangam to include the feature of: select, in a case where it is determined that the flight of the moving body is dangerous, the recommended operation from a plurality of danger avoidance operations set in advance, as taught by Kanda, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for successfully performing an avoidance action, thereby enhancing danger avoidance capabilities.
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Panchangam in view of Mestha et al. (US20190260768A1; “Mestha”)
As to claims 4, 12 and 18, Panchangam discloses: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: analyze a cause of a dangerous flight state of the moving body (“Generally, the cloud service 205 may determine: (1) the detected (known) vehicle is: (A) following its planned/unplanned flight path, (B) in danger of another known vehicle based on position or the flight path of the another known vehicle, and/or (C) in danger of another non-cooperative vehicle based on position of the another non-cooperative vehicle; and/or (2) the detected (unknown) vehicle is: (A) putting another known vehicle in danger based on position or the flight path of the another known vehicle.” ¶ 78.).
Panchangam fails to explicitly disclose:
determine whether the analyzed cause is a cyberattack; and
select the recommended operation based on a determination result of the determination means.
Nevertheless, Mestha teaches:
determine whether the analyzed cause is a cyberattack (“At S310, the system may perform cyber-attack detection for a UAV system (as described in connection with FIGS. 4 through 11).” ¶ 57 and FIGS. 4-11.); and
select the recommended operation based on a determination result of the determination means (“Thus, some embodiments may provide an advanced anomaly detection algorithm to detect cyber-attacks on, for example, key UAV control sensors. The algorithm may identify which signals(s) are being attacked using control signal-specific decision boundaries and may inform a UAV system to take accommodative actions.” ¶ 100.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Panchangam to include the feature of: determine whether the analyzed cause is a cyberattack; and select the recommended operation based on a determination result of the determination means, as taught by Mestha, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for performing corrective actions when a moving body is under cyberattack, thereby hindering the efficacy of a cyberattack on the moving body and, hence, enhancing safety.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Panchangam in view of Navot et al. (US10847041B1; “Navot”)
As to claims 5, 13 and 19, Panchangam fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the environmental information is an obstacle or a weather that is likely to hinder the flight of the moving body or is unlikely to hinder the flight of the moving body included in the image data photographed by an imaging means included in the monitoring device.
Nevertheless, Navot teaches: wherein the environmental information is an obstacle that is likely to hinder the flight of the moving body included in the image data photographed by an imaging means included in the monitoring device (“Each AMS 250 may also include a plurality of image capture devices 202 oriented toward the AMS coverage area” – col. 5, ll. 65-66. “images obtained by the cameras may be processed at the AMS to determine topography changes, weather changes, positions of UAVs, etc.” – col. 4, ll. 34-36. “The sense and avoid information includes areas within a coverage area that are to be avoided by UAVs. For example, sense and avoid information may identify the position and/or height of buildings within the coverage area that are to be avoided by UAVs. The updated sense and avoid information is provided to UAVs positioned in the UAV coverage area and/or that are anticipated to be entering the UAV coverage area, as in 510.” Col. 10, ll. 60-67 and FIG. 5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Panchangam to include the feature of: wherein the environmental information is an obstacle that is likely to hinder the flight of the moving body included in the image data photographed by an imaging means included in the monitoring device, as taught by Navot, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for determining potential obstacles near a moving body which may pose a hazard towards the moving body, thereby enhancing safety and Panchangam ’s efficacy.
As to claims 6, 14 and 20, Panchangam fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the environmental information is weather information of the movement route acquired by an environment sensor included in the monitoring device.
Nevertheless, Navot teaches: wherein the environmental information is weather information of the movement route acquired by an environment sensor included in the monitoring device (“The AMS may also include a weather station 204 that can monitor the weather (e.g., wind speed, temperature, dew point, precipitation, etc.) at the AMS coverage area. Likewise, the weather station 204 may utilize sensors 206 or cameras to monitor for weather that may be approaching the AMS coverage area.” Col. 6, ll. 22-27.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Panchangam to include the feature of: wherein the environmental information is weather information of the movement route acquired by an environment sensor included in the monitoring device, as taught by Navot, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for monitoring weather conditions which may affect operation of a moving body, thereby enabling Panchangam to monitor a moving body in a more holistic and therefore more effective manner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Panchangam in view of Hoh et al. (US20200365040A1; “Hoh”)
As to claim 7, Panchangam discloses:
the monitoring device includes at least two or more monitoring devices including a first monitoring device and a second monitoring device monitoring different regions on a movement route of the moving body (“the ground station(s) 215 (referred to as ‘node’ or ‘nodes’) may control the radar systems and the interrogator systems of the respective nodes to scan for vehicles, such as aircraft 131, in a three-dimensional coverage of a beam 220 of the nodes; detect vehicles, such as aircraft 131, using radar return information from the radar systems or based on interrogator signals of the interrogator systems; and in response to detecting the vehicles, transmit detection messages to the cloud service 205.” ¶ 60; see also ¶¶ 61-62, 64 and FIG. 2.),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire the environmental information from a monitoring device (“Each of the one or more ground station(s) 215 may include a transponder system, a radar system, and/or a datalink system.” ¶ 29. “If the radar system detects an object and the transponder system does not receive a corresponding identification message from the object (or does receive an identification message, but it is an invalid identification message, e.g., an identifier of un-authorized aircraft), the ground station 215 may determine that the object is an intruder aircraft 230. The ground station 215 may then transmit an intruder alert message to the cloud service 205.” ¶ 32. “The unknown vehicle process may determine whether the detected (unknown) vehicle is a danger to any other vehicle (either based on current speed, position, etc. of planned/unplanned flight paths of the other vehicles). To perform the unknown vehicle process, the cloud service 205 may compare the vehicle information to the vehicle state information; determine whether the detected (unknown) vehicle is within a first threshold envelope of any vehicle of the vehicle state information and/or within the first threshold envelope of the planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 for any vehicle of the vehicle state information; and generate a message based on a result of the determining.” ¶ 72.), and
select a recommended operation based on movement information and environmental information received by the monitoring device (“[T]he cloud service 205 may generate one or more messages based on the analysis result of the known vehicle process or the unknown vehicle process. The one or more messages may be: (1) a confirmation message if the detected (known) vehicle is within the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path of detected (known) vehicle and/or not in danger of any other vehicle; (2) an alert message if the detected known vehicle is outside the second threshold envelope of the planned/unplanned flight path of detected (known) vehicle; (3) an alert message if the detected (known) vehicle is in danger of any other vehicle; (4) an intruder message if the detected (unknown) vehicle is within the first threshold envelope of any other vehicle (for instance such as a known vehicle that also has been detected); and (5) a possible intruder message if the detected (unknown) vehicle is not within the first threshold envelope of any other vehicle.” ¶ 79; see also ¶¶ 81-85.).
Panchangam fails to explicitly disclose:
the environmental information acquired by the second monitoring device is transmitted to the first monitoring device;
acquire the environmental information received by the first monitoring device from the second monitoring device, and
select a recommended operation based on the movement information and the environmental information received by the first monitoring device from the second monitoring device.
Nevertheless, Hoh teaches: environmental information acquired by a second monitoring device is transmitted to a first monitoring device (“As the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 travels from the origin 162 to the destination 164 following the route 166, a view of the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 is obtained based on images of the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 captured by a plurality of imaging devices of collaborative camera sensor networks. For example, the imaging device 114 may initiate capturing of the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 as the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 travels following the route 166. The imaging device 114 may constantly transmit captured images to the edge server 140 or the cloud server 102 which in turn transmits the captured images to the user 160 (e.g., a device 163 of the user 160). When the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 comes proximate to the road-side imaging device 116 (e.g., when the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 is within a viewing distance of the road-side imaging device 116), the road-side imaging device 116 may capture images of the unmanned aerial vehicle 104 and transmit the images to the edge server 140 or the cloud server 102 which in turn transmits the images to the user 160.” ¶ 25.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Panchangam to include the feature of: environmental information acquired by a second monitoring device is transmitted to a first monitoring device, as taught by Hoh, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “for obtaining a real-time view of an unmanned aerial vehicle traveling a long distance.” (Hoh, ¶ 3.) In more detail, Panchangam establishes the core invention of monitoring different regions of a movement route of a moving body via at least first and second monitoring devices, and then using environmental information received by the monitoring devices to perform the “select” limitation. Hoh provides the explicit teaching that environmental data captured by a second monitoring device can be directly transmitted to a first monitoring device for monitoring a movement route of a moving body. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to follow a predictable design variation of obtaining “collaborative” environmental information to monitor a movement route of a moving body because, as penned above, this feature is useful for monitoring a moving body over a long distance – such aligns with Panchangam ’s aim to monitor a moving body over a long distance which may go beyond an operator’s line of sight. (See Panchangam , ¶¶ 2-4.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights