DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/11/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejections
Due to the terminal disclaimer filed 7/6/2026, the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Due to the amendment filed 8/11/2026, new issues are presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment filed 8/11/2026, the claims are determined to contain allowable subject matter, as discussed in the allowable subject matter section below.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 5 recite determining the payload-inclusive weight includes… However, there is no step of “determining a payload-inclusive weight” in claim 1. A separate “determining” step should be recited, or amendments to claims 4 and 5 that correspond to the “adjusted” step in claim 1 should be made.
Claims 11, 12, and 17 are objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, there is no support for the limitation of the flight-time variable is determined based on a payload-inclusive weight. Paragraph [0020] of the specification filed 5/13/2025 defines the flight-time variable as the payload-inclusive weight and does not determine the flight-time variable from the payload-inclusive weight. Specifically, paragraph [0020] recites:
“As used herein, the term flight-time variable refers to some metric, measurement, or parameter which can vary over time and/or on a flight-by-flight basis such that its value is not necessarily certain until the flight time. One example of a flight-time variable is a payload-inclusive weight, which is a weight that includes the payload, such as a payload (only) weight (e.g., the weight of the pilot plus any baggage) or the weight of the occupied aircraft (e.g., the weight of the unoccupied aircraft, pilot, and any baggage).”
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 4, there is no support of the limitation of:
determining the payload-inclusive weight includes:
obtaining a thrust associated with a rotor while the aircraft is flying; and
determining the payload-inclusive weight based at least in part on the thrust;
determining whether the aircraft is airworthy includes comparing the flight-time variable to a variable threshold; and
automatically landing the aircraft in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy includes automatically landing the aircraft in response to determining that the flight-time variable exceeds the variable threshold, in light of the limitations of claim 1.
Specifically, claim 1 recites that the flight-time variable is compared to a “flight-time variable threshold,” defined as corresponding to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions, so as to land in response to the flight-time variable being “equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold.” Claim 4 introduces a new “variable threshold,” in which the aircraft also lands if the flight-time variable “exceeds the variable threshold.” There is no disclosure in which two separate thresholds are evaluated to make the same decision to automatically land for the same flight-time variable. The specification describes one embodiment that uses a weight threshold in paragraph [0034] and a different embodiment that uses a first threshold for marginal airworthiness and a second threshold for non-airworthy conditions in paragraph [0048].
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 5, there is no support for the limitation of determining whether the aircraft is airworthy includes:
comparing the flight-time variable to a first variable threshold; and
comparing the flight-time variable to a second variable threshold, wherein the first variable threshold is less than the second variable threshold;
automatically landing the aircraft in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy includes automatically landing the aircraft in response to determining that the flight-time variable exceeds the second variable threshold, in light of the limitations of claim 1.
Specifically, claim 1 recites that the flight-time variable is compared to a “flight-time variable threshold,” defined as corresponding to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions, so as to land in response to the flight-time variable being “equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold.” Claim 4 introduces a new “second variable threshold,” in which the aircraft also lands if the flight-time variable “exceeds the second variable threshold.” There is no disclosure in which two separate thresholds are evaluated to make the same decision to automatically land for the same flight-time variable. The specification describes an embodiment that uses one weight threshold in paragraph [0034] and different embodiment that uses a first threshold for marginal airworthiness and a second threshold for non-airworthy conditions in paragraph [0048].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for incorporating the errors of claims 1, 8, and 15 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of the flight-time variable further includes one or more of the following: a center of mass of the aircraft when occupied, environmental information, weather information, an amount of precipitation, a temperature, or an air density, while claim 1 recites the limitation of in response to a determination that the flight-time variable is equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold, determine that the aircraft is not airworthy, wherein the flight-time variable threshold corresponds to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how non-weight data, such as “environmental information,” “weather information,” etc. of claim 2, can be compared as “equal to or greater than” a weight threshold.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 3 recites the limitation of the first variable threshold is less than the second variable threshold, wherein the flight-time variable threshold corresponds with the second variable threshold; and it is determined that the aircraft is marginally airworthy in response to determining that the flight-time variable exceeds the first variable threshold and does not exceed the second variable threshold, while claim 1 recites the limitation of in response to a determination that the flight-time variable is equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold, determine that the aircraft is not airworthy. Claim 1 defines “not airworthy” when a flight-time variable is “equal to or greater than” the threshold, which overlaps with the boundary of the “marginally airworthy” condition in claim 3, in which the flight-time variable “does not exceed” (i.e. less than or equal to) the same threshold, assuming the limitation of “corresponds to” indicates that the second variable threshold is the flight-variable threshold.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation of the flight-time variable further includes environmental information, while claim 1 recites the limitation of in response to a determination that the flight-time variable is equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold, determine that the aircraft is not airworthy, wherein the flight-time variable threshold corresponds to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how non-weight data, such as “environmental information” of claim 2, can be compared as “equal to or greater than” a weight threshold.
Claims 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 2 recites the limitation of the flight-time variable further includes one or more of the following: a center of mass of the aircraft when occupied, environmental information, weather information, an amount of precipitation, a temperature, or an air density, while claim 1 recites determine a flight-time variable…based on a payload-inclusive weight… and compare the flight-time variable with a flight-time variable threshold…wherein the flight-time variable threshold corresponds to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions. Claim 1 defines the “flight-time variable” as a single value derived from weight and compared to a maximum weight threshold, while claim 2 expands the definition of “flight-time variable” as including a collection of non-weight metrics; therefore, claim 2 attempts to broaden the scope of claim 1.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for similar reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record, Gentry et al. (US 10,112, 712 B1), hereinafter Gentry, and Daniell et al. (US 5,229,956), hereinafter Daniell, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed method, computer program product, and system, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to:
determine a flight-time variable associated with an aircraft, including by determining the flight-time variable while the aircraft is flying, wherein the flight-time variable is determined based on a payload-inclusive weight, wherein the payload-inclusive weight is adjusted based on wind speed and/or wind direction;
determine whether the aircraft is airworthy based at least in part on the flight-time variable, wherein the determining of whether the aircraft is airworthy comprises:
compare the flight-time variable with a flight-time variable threshold; and
in response to a determination that the flight-time variable is equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold, determine that the aircraft is not airworthy, wherein the flight-time variable threshold corresponds to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions; and
in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy, automatically land the aircraft.
Specifically, Gentry teaches automatically landing an aircraft in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy by comparing wind speed to a threshold (see col. 11, lines 8-32; col. 10, lines 42-63), as discussed in detail in the Office action mailed 6/23/2026. However, Gentry does not teach the features in the amendment filed 8/11/2026.
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment, Daniell has been identified as most relevant prior art. Specifically, Daniell teaches a method configured to determine a flight-time variable associated with an aircraft, including by determining the flight-time variable while the aircraft is flying (see abstract, regarding the calculation of a gross vehicle weight of a helicopter while in hover or level unaccelerated forward flight), wherein the flight-time variable is determined based on a payload-inclusive weight (see col. 2, lines 7-12, regarding the vehicle weight is determined by providing accurate weight measurement continuously during flight and reacting immediately to on-loading or off-loading weight), wherein the payload-inclusive weight is adjusted based on airspeed (see col. 3, lines 9-23, with respect to Figure 1, regarding that an airspeed sensor 38 provides an analog voltage signal proportional to the forward airspeed of the vehicle on line 40 to the weight calculation logic 32). The airspeed of Daniell would not be interpreted as wind speed and/or wind direction by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus, Daniell does not teach that the payload-inclusive weight is adjusted based on wind speed and/or wind direction. Daniell further does not teach any determination of airworthiness, such that determining of whether the aircraft is airworthy comprises compare the flight-time variable with a flight-time variable threshold, and in response to a determination that the flight-time variable is equal to or greater than the flight-time variable threshold, determine that the aircraft is not airworthy, wherein the flight-time variable threshold corresponds to a maximum weight capable of being flown by the aircraft under current atmospheric conditions, and thus, Daniell does not teach to in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy, automatically land the aircraft.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Anderson et al. (US 2019/0202463 A1) teaches instructing a UAV to automatically land when a current risk of damage exceeds a threshold (see ¶0052, ¶0027), Canoy et al. (US 2016/0246304 A1) teaches determining the weight of an autonomous aircraft by measuring power applied to the rotors (see ¶0024), Byers et al. (US 2016/0244187 A1) teaches determining whether a UAV is safe to operate based on a measured wind load (see ¶0041), and Downey et al. (US 9,607,522 B2) teaches determining that a UAV is unable to complete a flight path based on the headwind (see col. 16, lines 59-67, with respect to Figure 8).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights