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 .
Continuation
This application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.16/932,536, filed on July 17, 2020 (“Parent Application’). See MPEP §201.08. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Applications. Also, in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered “of record’ in the Parent Applications are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Applications are relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claim 1, 4, 6-16, and 18-20 are amended. Claims 5 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
Examiner Notice: claims 5 and 17 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121. In accordance to MPEP 714, a cancelled claim must be indicated as “canceled;” the text of the claim must not be presented.
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 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-4 and 6-16) and system (claim 18-20) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of “mental process” of a method managing and allocating control responsibility among participants based on territorial boundaries and rules information within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The claims further fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas of “certain methods of Organizing Human activities”. The use of computer/computer components to perform the abstract idea does not negate the abstractness of the claims. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A method for managing control of assets moving across a region of control, the method comprising the steps of: defining, by a network controller system, a region of control including a plurality of territories, each of the plurality of territories having a boundary and being associated with a respective network participant; storing, by the network controller system, a set of rules for each of the plurality of territories; controlling, by a first network participant module, an asset moving within the first territory according to a first set of rules, the first network participant being associated with the first territory; moving, under control of the first network participant module, the asset within the first territory and then across a first boundary of the first territory into a second territory of the plurality of territories; triggering transfer, from the first network participant module to a second network participant module associated with the second territory, control of the asset upon the asset crossing the boundary into the second territory; and controlling, by the second network participant module, the asset moving within the second territory according to a second set of rules. Claim 18 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1 and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to: system, a network controller system, controlling, by a first network participant module, an asset moving within the first territory according to a first set of rules, the first network participant being associated with the first territory(recited at high level of generality which falls within “apply it” and insignificant extra-solution activity), and controlling, by the second network participant module, the asset moving within the second territory according to a second set of rules (recited at high level of generality which falls within “apply it” and insignificant extra-solution activity) to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0058] describes high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. Furthermore, the “storing” step, even if evaluated as an additional element, at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not indicative of a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”). See also Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (steps of DNA amplification and analysis are not “sufficient” to render claim 1 patent eligible merely because they are physical steps).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to : system, a network controller system, controlling, by a first network participant module, an asset moving within the first territory according to a first set of rules, the first network participant being associated with the first territory(recited at high level of generality which falls within “apply it” and insignificant extra-solution activity), and controlling, by the second network participant module, the asset moving within the second territory according to a second set of rules (recited at high level of generality which falls within “apply it” and insignificant extra-solution activity)to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0058] describes high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
Even if evaluated as an additional element, the “storing” step describes insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more io the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) -Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 13271, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 616, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); BuySAFE, inc. v. Google, inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2074) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements: the asset is fully or partially autonomous (recited at high level of generality) moving, under control of the second network participant, the asset within the second territory, and then back across the first boundary, transferring, by the second one network participan(recited at high level of generality) t, control of the asset back to the first network participant when the asset moves across the first boundary into the first territory, the first network participant module loses operative communication with the asset once the second network participant module takes control of the asset(recited at high level of generality), and a positioning system in operative communication with the first network participant module when the asset is in the first territory and in operative communication with the second network participant module when the asset is in the second territory(recited at high level of generality). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0058] describes high level general purpose computer)) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 13271, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 616, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); BuySAFE, inc. v. Google, inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2074) (computer receives and sends information over a network).. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0058] describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.).
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical concept, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 6-9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming Gong (US 20160292403 A1, hereinafter “Gong”) in view of Richard Postrel (US 20160328979 A1, hereinafter “Postrel”).
Claim 1
Gong teaches:
A method for managing control of assets moving across a region of control, the method comprising the steps of: defining, by a network controller system, a region of control including a plurality of territories, each of the plurality of territories having a boundary ([0587] The geo-fencing device boundary may be open or closed. A closed geo-fencing device boundary may entire enclose a region within the geo-fencing device boundary. A closed geo-fencing device boundary may begin and end at the same point. For instance, the closed boundary may be useful for defining a flight-restricted zone. An open geo-fencing boundary may form a barrier. A barrier may be useful for forming a geo-fencing boundary at a natural physical boundary. Examples of physical boundaries may include jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., boundaries between nations, regions, states, provinces, town, cities, or property lines), naturally occurring boundaries (e.g., rivers, creeks, brooks, cliffs, ravines, canyons), man-made boundaries (e.g., walls, streets, bridges, dams, doors, entryways), or any other type of boundary);
storing, by the network controller system, a set of rules for each of the plurality of territories([0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. [0756] Alternatively, an air control system may generate a set of flight regulations. The set of flight regulations generated by the air control system may also include indications of the boundaries of the geo-fencing device).
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Postrel teaches:
being associated with a respective network participant([0037] The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone).
controlling, by a first network participant module, an asset moving within the first territory according to a first set of rules, the first network participants being associated with the first territory; moving, under control of the network participants module,the asset within the first territory and then across a first boundary of the first territory into a second territory([0036] In some instances, a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. Thus, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a drone handoff between sectors. In this example, drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504. [0037]The master drone will communicate with each sector drone as shown in FIG. 6. The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone. [0062]-[0067] The routing factors 1102 are now described in further detail. Administrative requirements 1110 include various parameters established by regulatory agencies such as the FAA and the like, which will dictate how high the drone may travel over the ground, speed of the drones, requirements to avoid airports or other types of regions, etc. The administrative requirements 1110 generally will not vary and are stored in local memory and/or accessed from a remote server computer via a network such as the Internet. For example, if the initial route 1204 calculated from the origin 1200 to the destination 1202 would take the drone 2 over an airport, and an administrative requirement states that a drone may not come within a half mile of an airport, then the initial route 1204 will be modified at step 1106 to reroute the drone around the airport so as to comply with that requirement);
triggering transfer, from the first network participant module to a second network participant module associated with the second territory, control of the asset uponcrossing the boundary into the second territory; and controlling, by the second network participant module, the asset moving within the second territory according to a second set of rules([0037]The master drone will communicate with each sector drone as shown in FIG. 6. The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone. [0036] drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504. [0062]-[0067] The routing factors 1102 are now described in further detail. Administrative requirements 1110 include various parameters established by regulatory agencies such as the FAA and the like, which will dictate how high the drone may travel over the ground, speed of the drones, requirements to avoid airports or other types of regions, etc. The administrative requirements 1110 generally will not vary and are stored in local memory and/or accessed from a remote server computer via a network such as the Internet. For example, if the initial route 1204 calculated from the origin 1200 to the destination 1202 would take the drone 2 over an airport, and an administrative requirement states that a drone may not come within a half mile of an airport, then the initial route 1204 will be modified at step 1106 to reroute the drone around the airport so as to comply with that requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong with Postrel to include a territory being associated with a respective network participant, controlling, by a first network participant module, an asset moving within the first territory according to a first set of rules, the first network participants being associated with the first territory, moving, under control of the network participants module,then across a first boundary of the first territory into a second territory
Claim 2
Gong teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of territories comprises one or more of the following: cities, counties, states, countries, economic exclusive zones, terrestrial regions, and extraterrestrial regions([0587] The geo-fencing device boundary may be open or closed. A closed geo-fencing device boundary may entire enclose a region within the geo-fencing device boundary. A closed geo-fencing device boundary may begin and end at the same point. For instance, the closed boundary may be useful for defining a flight-restricted zone. An open geo-fencing boundary may form a barrier. A barrier may be useful for forming a geo-fencing boundary at a natural physical boundary. Examples of physical boundaries may include jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., boundaries between nations, regions, states, provinces, town, cities, or property lines), naturally occurring boundaries (e.g., rivers, creeks, brooks, cliffs, ravines, canyons), man-made boundaries (e.g., walls, streets, bridges, dams, doors, entryways), or any other type of boundary).
Claim 3
Gong teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of rules comprises one or more of the following: communication protocols, fee protocols, control protocols, and maintenance protocols([0182]-[0192] The flight regulations may govern the operation of one or more sensors of an unmanned aerial vehicle. For instance, the flight regulations may govern whether the sensors are turned on or off (or which sensors are turned on or off), a mode in which information is collected, a mode about how information is pre-processed or processed, a resolution at which the information is collected, a frequency or sampling rate at which the information is collected, a range from which the information is collected, or a direction from which the information is collected. The flight regulations may govern whether the sensors can store or transmit information. [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices).
Claim 6
Gong teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one network participant module is associated with a([0767] Optionally, a geo-fencing device may be used to define multiple flight restriction zones. FIG. 24 shows an example of a geo-fencing device that may have multiple flight restriction zones. [0771] In some instances, each flight restriction zone may have its own restrictions. A set of flight regulations may be associated with the different flight restriction zone boundaries and the corresponding restrictions.).
Claim 7
Gong teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the asset is selected from the group consisting of: an aircraft, bus, truck, drone, firetruck, police cruiser, ship, snowplow, and train([0069] Any description herein of aerial vehicles, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, may apply to and be used for any movable object, such as any vehicle. Additionally, the systems, devices, and methods disclosed herein in the context of aerial motion (e.g., flight) may also be applied in the context of other types of motion, such as movement on the ground or on water, underwater motion, or motion in space).
Claim 8
Gong teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the asset is fully or partially autonomous([0133] The UAV may operate in response to controls from the user (e.g., manually through a remote controller), autonomously (e.g., without requiring user input), or semi-autonomously (e.g., may include some user input but may also include aspects that do not rely on user input)).
Claim 9
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Postrel teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein transferring control of the asset comprises transferring full or partial ownership of the asset([006]-[0037], a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. Thus, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a drone handoff between sectors. In this example, drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong with Postrel to include transferring control of the asset comprises transferring full or partial ownership of the asset. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to ensure there are no conflicts that may lead to collisions [0029].
Claim 15
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Postrel teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: subdividing, the first territory into a plurality of sub-territories, each of the plurality of sub- territories having a territorial sub-boundary; and associating each of a plurality of network sub-participants with each of the plurality of sub-territories([0032] A sector may be generally configured to include a certain number of drones that are traveling near each other at a given point in time. The size and footprint of a sector may be defined as desired.[0042] FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating a region (first territory) is divided into multiple logical zones for controlling individual, sector and master drones. logical zones are defined that segregate drones according to some logical schema as desired, irrespective of their location within a given sector. Thus, the sector layout of FIG. 9 corresponds to that of FIG. 6, with the addition of four logical zones that are defined as zone 902, zone 904, zone 906 and zone 908. The drones in each of these zones may be addressed by their zone number (in addition to their sector number and/or their unique drone identification number). [0043]a zone could be defined to cover a certain geographical or geo-political region such as a state, county, city, municipality, and the like. That is, a group of drones may belong to a particular sector that, due to physical capabilities of the drones, may stretch out over a state boundary such that some drones in a sector are in state A and other drones in the sector are in state B. Such is the case in FIG. 9, in which sector 504 extends over zone 902 as well as zone 904. Thus, if only those drones in zone 902 are to be addressed, this may be accomplished via zone addressing which will be described in further detail below.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong with Postrel to include subdividing, the first territory into a plurality of sub-territories, each of the plurality of sub- territories having a territorial sub-boundary; and associating each of a plurality of network sub-participants with each of the plurality of sub-territories. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to ensure there are no conflicts that may lead to collisions [0029].
Claim 16
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Postrel teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: moving, under control of the second network participant, the asset within the second territory, and then back across the first boundary; and transferring, by the second network participant, control of the asset back to the first network participants when the asset moves across the first boundary into the first territory([0036] In some instances, a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. Thus, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a drone handoff between sectors. In this example, drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504. [0037] The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong with Postrel to include moving, under control of the second network participant, the asset within the second territory, and then back across the first boundary; and transferring, by the second network participant, control of the asset back to the first network participants when the asset moves across the first boundary into the first territory. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to ensure there are no conflicts that may lead to collisions [0029].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Postrel, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of William Loebertmann (US 20150294268 A1, hereinafter “Loebertmann”) in view of Gary Edward Brandt (US 20080071557 A1, hereinafter “Brandt”).
Claim 4
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Postrel teaches:
the asset is located within each of the plurality of territories([0036] In some instances, a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504. [0037] The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong with Postrel to include the asset is located within each of the plurality of territories. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to ensure there are no conflicts that may lead to collisions [0029].
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Loebertmann teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of rules comprises a protocol for sharing of costs and revenues between the plurality of network participants([0004] a bilateral agreement may determine how the revenue for transporting the shipment is split amongst the airlines transporting the shipment, and the LMS may apply the agreement to calculate a particular airline's revenue for transporting the shipment. [0006] For an air waybill issued by an LMS client, the SPA defines the amount of the total revenue that must be paid to other airlines, the SPA cost, that are involved in the air waybill booking. The total revenue minus the SPA cost may be calculated to determine the LMS client's portion of the revenue. For air waybills issued by other airlines in which the LMS client carries the shipment for all or part of the total routing, the SPA defines the revenue that the LMS client will receive from the other airline for that air waybill).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong and Postrel with Loebertmann to include the set of rules comprises a protocol for sharing of costs and revenues between the plurality of network participants. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to allow a delivering carrier to transfer responsibility to ensure liability [0047].
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Brandt teaches:
based upon amounts of time during ([0053] The initial car hire amount for a car is calculated by an initial car hire module 18 as the sum of a mileage rate applied over miles traveled during a possession, and an hourly rate applied over the duration of a possession).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong, Postrel, and Loebertmann with Bandt to include the set of rules comprises a protocol for sharing of costs and revenues between the plurality of network participants based upon amounts of time during. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to allow a delivering carrier to transfer responsibility to ensure liability [0047].
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Postrel, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Loebertmann.
Claim 10
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Loebertmann teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein transferring control of the asset comprises one or more of the following: transferring a lease for the( [0035] Liability Continuity System (LCS): Developed to create the official interchange record for car hire settlement, LCS analyzes event data from TRAIN II to establish continuity among equipment interchanges, using default records when necessary. LCS was developed so that car hire calculations could be made more accurately. [0038] A possession begins either at the interchange where a railroad acquires use of the equipment. A possession ends either at the interchange where the railroad transfers use of the equipment during the accounting month. [0047] Transfer of Liability (TOL): Introduced in 1994, TOL allows a delivering carrier to transfer responsibility for car hire to a receiving carrier when that carrier cannot accept cars at interchange.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong and Postrel with Loebertmann to include transferring control of the asset comprises one or more of the following: transferring a lease for the
Claim 12
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Loebertmann teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of distributing revenues for use of the asset between a first entity associated with the first territorya second entity associated with the second territory pursuant to each of the sets of rules([0005] if an SPA exists, then the LMS may use the SPA for proration. [0006]The revenue is then split by the percent of total distance the LMS client carries the shipment. [0023] When multiple carriers transport the shipment, as identified by the air waybill routing, LMS prorates the Gross Revenue between the carriers using the special prorate agreement (SPA)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong and Postrel with Loebertmann to include comprising the step of distributing revenues for use of the asset between a first entity associated with the first territoryprovide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to allow a delivering carrier to transfer responsibility to ensure liability [0047].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Postrel, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Shelby Clark (US 2012/0330696 A1, hereinafter “Clark”).
Claim 11
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Clark teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein:([0047] The borrower can then use the car during the sharing period. The car includes a credit card that can be used to buy gas for refueling the car. The system can penalize borrowers who return cars with fuel levels below a certain threshold, such as a quarter of the gas tank. [0051]- [0052] The system provides insurance that automatically covers approved borrowers. The insurance can, for example, have a combined limit for liability, bodily injury (of others), theft, collision, and property damage of $1,000,000 per event. In some implementations, the borrower is held responsible for the first $500 of expenses in any at-fault accident, like a standard insurance deductible. If the borrower has personal auto insurance, the personal auto insurance is used as primary insurance coverage during the reservation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong and Postrel with Clark to include transferring control of the asset comprises transferring a pay-per-use contract for the asset; and the pay-per-use contact covers one or more of the following: insurance costs, maintenance costs, repair costs, and wear-and-tear. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to allow a delivering carrier to transfer responsibility to ensure liability [0051].
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Postrel in view of Loebertmann, as applied in claim 12, and further in view of Clark.
Claim 13
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Clark teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the step of distributing revenues for use of the asset takes into account costs for one or more of the following: fuel use, insurance for the asset, labor needed to operate the asset, loan costs for the([0059] the owner sets the price of the rental of the car. The owner can set a per hour amount, which can be based on factors such as make, model, and year of the car. the cost of fuel (charged on a credit card in the car) is deducted from profits given to the owner. Insurance and other costs can also be deducted prior to paying the owner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong, Postrel, and Loebertmann with Clark to include transferring control of the asset comprises transferring a pay-per-use contract for the asset; and the pay-per-use contact covers one or more of the following: insurance costs, maintenance costs, repair costs, and wear-and-tear. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to allow a delivering carrier to transfer responsibility to ensure liability [0051].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Postrel, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Bernard Grush (US 2007/0225912 A1, hereinafter “Grush”).
Claim 14
While Gong teaches in [0193] Communications of the UAV may be controlled in accordance with one or more flight regulations. For instance, the UAV may be capable of remote communication with one or more remote devices. [0595] The UAV may have a set of flight regulations stored on-board the UAV and may be able to initiate the flight response measure in compliance with the flight regulations. [0597] The geo-fencing devices may establish the boundaries of locations that may play into the flight regulations. Various types of flight regulations may be imposed as provided elsewhere herein. The geo-fencing devices may be used to establish boundaries for the different types of flight regulations, which may include regulations that may affect flight of the UAV (e.g., flight path, take-off, landing), operation of a payload of the UAV, positioning of a payload of the UAV, operation of a carrier of the UAV, operation or disposition of one or more sensors of the UAV, operation of one or more communication units of the UAV, operation of a navigation of the UAV, power disposition of the UAV, and/or any other operations of the UAV. Gong does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Grush teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of prorating fees for use of the asset between a first entity associated with the first territory and a second entity associated with the second territory according to each of the sets of rules; wherein the fees are prorated based upon a first time period that the asset is within the first territory and a second time period that the asset is within the second([0127] FIG. 10.1 illustrates the adoption of prior art to handle parking payments and road-use payments locally and anonymously so that no information is known outside the vehicle, where the system uses road maps and price maps to calculate payments, execute payment services and return account balance information. [0124] FIG. 9.1: (simplified) Several information layers are used to construct a pricing map: a map representing expected severity of multipath signal noise is derived from an existing city terrain map 901; a street layer 902; a map of zones relative to required congestion management or political zones relative to revenue re-allocation 903. From this a final pricing map 904 for use in the Pricing System 216 is produced. This pricing map adjusts pricing zones to ensure that each congestion zones is independently adjustable, that each political zone receives its fair revenue assessment. [0106] The Prep-Office 223 is a price-map preparation facility that utilizes several maps such as streets, congestion zones, financial (political) jurisdictions, and terrain maps. 0180] Zonelog Generator Step 3: Pack the remaining data into a quad-tree, Q.sub.j, for the jth journey (i.e. each cell with non-zero duration, T.sub.e-T.sub.s>0). Use differential coding and integer coding wherever feasible. Each cell in this tree holds the GNSS grid designator, start time, T.sub.s (time of first sample in that cell), end time, T.sub.e (time of last sample in that cell), weighted number of seconds in the cell (sum of time fragments), and the weighted distance traveled in the cell (sum of distance fragments)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong and Postrel with Grush to include transferring control of the asset comprises transferring a pay-per-use contract for the asset; and the pay-per-use contact covers one or more of the following: insurance costs, maintenance costs, repair costs, and wear-and-tear. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to ensure that each congestion zones is independently adjustable, that each political zone receives its fair revenue assessment [0124].
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postrel in view of Gong in view of Postrel.
Claim 18
Postrel teaches:
A system for managing control of assets moving across a plurality of territories of a region of control, each of the plurality of territories having a boundary, the system comprising: a plurality of network participant modules, each network participant module associated with a territory([0042] logical zones are defined that segregate drones according to some logical schema as desired, irrespective of their location within a given sector. Thus, the sector layout of FIG. 9 corresponds to that of FIG. 6, with the addition of four logical zones that are defined as zone 902, zone 904, zone 906 and zone 908. The drones in each of these zones may be addressed by their zone number (in addition to their sector number and/or their unique drone identification number)),
a first network participant module configured to take control of the asset moving within a first territory until it crosses a first boundary to a second territory, a second network participant module configured to take control of the asset once the asset crosses the first boundary into the second territory([0036] In some instances, a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. Thus, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a drone handoff between sectors. In this example, drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504. [0037]The master drone will communicate with each sector drone as shown in FIG. 6. The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone. [0062]-[0067] The routing factors 1102 are now described in further detail. Administrative requirements 1110 include various parameters established by regulatory agencies such as the FAA and the like, which will dictate how high the drone may travel over the ground, speed of the drones, requirements to avoid airports or other types of regions, etc. The administrative requirements 1110 generally will not vary and are stored in local memory and/or accessed from a remote server computer via a network such as the Internet. For example, if the initial route 1204 calculated from the origin 1200 to the destination 1202 would take the drone 2 over an airport, and an administrative requirement states that a drone may not come within a half mile of an airport, then the initial route 1204 will be modified at step 1106 to reroute the drone around the airport so as to comply with that requirement).
While Postrel teaches [0036] In some instances, a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. Thus, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a drone handoff between sectors. In this example, drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504. [0037] The master drone will communicate with each sector drone as shown in FIG. 6. The presence and flight paths of each drone in a sector is controlled by the sector drone. [0062]-[0067] The routing factors 1102 are now described in further detail. Administrative requirements 1110 include various parameters established by regulatory agencies such as the FAA and the like, which will dictate how high the drone may travel over the ground, speed of the drones, requirements to avoid airports or other types of regions, etc. The administrative requirements 1110 generally will not vary and are stored in local memory and/or accessed from a remote server computer via a network such as the Internet. For example, if the initial route 1204 calculated from the origin 1200 to the destination 1202 would take the drone 2 over an airport, and an administrative requirement states that a drone may not come within a half mile of an airport, then the initial route 1204 will be modified at step 1106 to reroute the drone around the airport so as to comply with that requirement and ([0042] logical zones are defined that segregate drones according to some logical schema as desired, irrespective of their location within a given sector. Thus, the sector layout of FIG. 9 corresponds to that of FIG. 6, with the addition of four logical zones that are defined as zone 902, zone 904, zone 906 and zone 908. The drones in each of these zones may be addressed by their zone number (in addition to their sector number and/or their unique drone identification number)). Postrel does not explicitly teach the following limitation. However, analogues reference, in the field of fleet management, Gong teaches:
each network participant module in operative communication with the asset while the asset is located within the territory associated with it([0738The air control system 4110 may communicate with one or more geo-fencing devices 4120a, 4120b, 4120c, 4120d. The air control system may communicate with one or more UAVs 4130a, 4130b, 4130c, 4130d. [0699] The plurality of sets of flight regulations may be stored in the memory of the air control system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Postrel with Gong to include each network participant module in operative communication with the asset while the asset is located within the territory associated with it. Doing so would provide transparency and improve the monitoring and tracking of delivery vehicles to ensure there are no conflicts that may lead to collisions. [0003].
Claim 19
Postrel teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the first network participant module loses operative communication with the asset once the second network participant module takes control of the asset([0036] a drone may change is physical location with respect to its sector such that enters the boundaries of a different sector. Thus, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a drone handoff between sectors. In this example, drone 2I is a part of sector 502, but due to its flight path has (intentionally or unintentionally) veered closer to sector 504. Drone 2I will thus be handed off from sector 502 to sector 504. In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504).
Claim 20
Postrel teaches:
The system of claim 18, wherein the asset comprises: a positioning system in operative communication with the first network participant module when the asset is in the first territory and in operative communication with the second network participant module when the asset is in the second territory([0050] a GPS receiver that determines its coordinates by communicating with the GPS satellite system and provides that information to GPS coordinate status 1010 in FIG. 10. [0028] each of the drones 2 is uniquely identified and addressed by the drone traffic management system 100. This enables the drone traffic management system 100 to communicate with individual drones if desired. In addition, the drone traffic management system 100 may issue a broadcast message in which all drones in the system (or logical groupings of drones such as sectors or zones) may listen and optionally respond to. [0036] In particular, drone 2I will broadcast its presence to sector drone 2J, and when it is determined that the sector handoff should occur, then drone 2I will separate from sector drone 2A of sector 502 and communicate with sector drone 2J of sector 504).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu Fang (US 20210092019 A1): vehicle having at least one network zone, and a policy manager circuit that interprets a policy including a local DNS, an authorization description, and a firewall configuration description. The system includes a configuration circuit that configures a gatekeeper interface circuit in response to the policy, where the gatekeeper interface circuit is interposed between one of the network zones and an external communication portal, and regulates communications between end points of the network zone and the external communication portal.
Bin Feng (US 20200275328 A): uses a property of predictable direction of a motion of the mobile station and introduces a switching resource concept to negotiate a switching resource between network access points in advance. When a mobile station requires switching, the switching resource can be used for a switching process, thereby reducing a delay time of the switching process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights