DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 5/13/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,273,021 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are anticipated by patent claim 2.
With respect to application claim 1, patent claim 2 recites a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to provide the processor with instructions (see preamble of patent claim 1) 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 includes a payload-inclusive weight (see limitation of “determine a flight-time variable associated with an aircraft including by determining the flight-time variable while the aircraft is flying, where the flight-time variable includes a payload-inclusive weight” in patent claim 1) and one or more of the following: a wind speed or a wind direction (see limitation of “wherein the flight-time variable further includes…a wind speed” in patent claim 2);
determine whether the aircraft is airworthy based at least in part on the flight-time variable (see limitation of “determine whether the aircraft is airworthy based at least in part on the flight-time variable” in patent claim 1); and
in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy, automatically land the aircraft (see limitation of “in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy, automatically land the aircraft” in patent claim 1).
Therefore, patent claim 2 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to application claim 2, patent claim 2 recites 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 (see limitation of “wherein 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” in patent claim 2). Therefore, patent claim 2 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 2. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Patent claim 2 is similarly applied to application claims 8, 9, 15, and 16. Patent claim 13 may also be similarly applied to application claims 8 and 9. The “system comprising a processor and memory coupled with the processor, wherein the memory is configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor” to perform the method in patent claim 1 reasonably teaches the “computer program product” of application claim 15, such that patent claim 2 may be applied to application claims 15 and 16.
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 3-5, 10-12, 17, 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 3 recites 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;
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; and
it is determined that the aircraft is not airworthy in response to determining that the flight-time variable exceeds 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.
Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites wherein the flight-time variable includes a payload-inclusive weight and one or more of the following: a wind speed or a wind direction. Claim 3 cannot be reasonably interpreted in light of the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, claim 3 recites a single “first variable threshold” and a single “second variable threshold” for comparison with the “flight-time variable,” defined as two separate parameters of a “payload-inclusive weight” and a “wind speed or wind direction” in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a threshold configured for comparing a payload-inclusive weight is fundamentally distinct from, and not interchangeable with, a threshold configured for evaluating wind speed or direction.
In paragraph [0082] of the Applicant’s specification, the disclosure supports two separate embodiments of the flight-time variable: (1) a flight-time variable is defined as a payload-inclusive weight that is determined using wind speed, or (2) a flight-time variable is defined as the weather information, such as wind speed, which may be interpreted as further including a payload-inclusive weight, in light of paragraph [0020]. While embodiment (1) would only require a single threshold, embodiment (2) would require respective thresholds for the payload-inclusive weight and weather information. Claim 3 attempts to improperly combine these separate embodiments. One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably interpret the limitations of claim 3, in light of the Applicant’s disclosure. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 4 recites 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. Claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites wherein the flight-time variable includes a payload-inclusive weight and one or more of the following: a wind speed or a wind direction. Similar to the discussion with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 4 cannot be reasonably interpreted in light of the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, claim 4 recites a single “variable threshold” for comparison with the “flight-time variable,” defined as two separate parameters of a “payload-inclusive weight” and a “wind speed or wind direction” in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a threshold configured for comparing a payload-inclusive weight is fundamentally distinct from, and not interchangeable with, a threshold configured for evaluating wind speed or direction. Claim 4 attempts to improperly combine the separate embodiments discussed in paragraph [0082] of the Applicant’s specification, as discussed in detail above.
Claim 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 17 by dependency.
Claim 5 recites:
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; and
the memory is further configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to: in response to determining that the aircraft is marginally airworthy, configure the aircraft with a set of one or more constrained settings, wherein it is time variable exceeds the first variable threshold and does not exceed the second variable.
Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites wherein the flight-time variable includes a payload-inclusive weight and one or more of the following: a wind speed or a wind direction. Similar to the discussion with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 5 cannot be reasonably interpreted in light of the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, claim 5 recites a single “first variable threshold” and a single “second variable threshold” for comparison with the “flight-time variable,” defined as two separate parameters of a “payload-inclusive weight” and a “wind speed or wind direction” in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a threshold configured for comparing a payload-inclusive weight is fundamentally distinct from, and not interchangeable with, a threshold configured for evaluating wind speed or direction. Claim 5 attempts to improperly combine the separate embodiments discussed in paragraph [0082] of the Applicant’s specification, as discussed in detail above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry et al. (US 10,112,712 B1), hereinafter Gentry, in view of Bitra et al. (US 2018/0259342 A1), hereinafter Bitra.
Claim 1
Gentry discloses the claimed system (see Figure 1C, depicting system 100), comprising a processor and a memory coupled with the processor (i.e. central control 150, defined as a networked computer in col. 3, lines 49-54), 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 includes a payload-inclusive weight and one or more of the following: a wind speed or a wind direction (see col. 10, lines 42-51, with respect to step 952 of Figure 9B, regarding that central control receives weather information from docking stations, which includes wind speed in a certain direction, as described in col 10, lines 52-63, where thresholds applied to the wind speed are set based on package weight, as described in col. 11, lines 1-4);
determine whether the aircraft is airworthy based at least in part on the flight-time variable (see col. 10, lines 52-63, with respect to step 955 of Figure 9B, regarding the determination of whether the wind is in a certain direction and/or exceeds a predetermined speed that is deemed inefficient to continue); and
in response to determining that the aircraft is not airworthy, automatically land the aircraft (see col. 11, lines 8-32, with respect to steps 965, 972, 975, and 980 of Figure 9B, regarding that when the weather event exceeds the predetermined threshold, central control determines the current location of the UAV and determines the closest dock station to the current location for the UAV to be secured at the docking station, where the UAV lands on the docking station to be secured at the docking station, as described in col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2).
The limitation of “airworthiness” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as measure of an aircraft’s suitability for safe flight, such that Gentry teaches the determination of airworthiness by comparing conditions to thresholds that represent inefficient or impossible flight of the UAV.
The embodiment in which the threshold is set based on the package weight (see col. 11, lines 1-4 of Gentry) clearly indicates that a “payload-inclusive weight” is required to be determined in order to set the threshold, and thus, Gentry discloses that the “flight-time variable includes a payload-inclusive weight” in addition to a wind speed for determining whether or not the UAV is deemed inefficient to continue (i.e. “whether the aircraft is airworthy”) (see col. 10, lines 52-63).
While Gentry discloses the “wind speed” as being determined while the aircraft is flying, Gentry is silent regarding when the “payload-inclusive weight” is determined in order to set the threshold and does not explicitly disclose that this determination occurs while the aircraft is flying. However, the claim does not define any parameters used to determine the “payload-inclusive weight;” therefore, it would be reasonable to determine the payload-inclusive weight while the aircraft is flying, in light of Bitra.
Specifically, Bitra teaches that processing logic is performed by a server, as described in ¶0017 (similar to the processor of Gentry) based on real-world conditions such as weight of a load being carried (similar to the payload-inclusive weight taught by Gentry) while the UAV (similar to the aircraft of Gentry) is flying (see ¶0038, regarding that processing logic determines updates for real-world conditions experiences by the UAV during flight, such as weight of a load being carried, as well as any other condition impacting the UAV’s flight, such that the processing is performed by a server connected to the UAV through a network interface, as described in ¶0017).
Since the systems of Gentry and Bitra are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a payload-inclusive weight of a UAV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “determination of the payload-inclusive weight” of Gentry to be performed while the aircraft is flying, in the same manner that the weight of a load being carried by a UAV in Bitra is determined during flight, with the predictable result of monitoring a weight of a load being carried by a UAV that is known to be experienced by and impact a UAV during flight (¶0038 of Bitra).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
Gentry further discloses that 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 (see col. 10, line 64-col. 11, line 4, regarding that rainfall above a certain rate and/or extremely cold or extremely hot temperatures are further considered in the determination of inefficient flight). Only one of the limitation of a center of mass of the aircraft when occupied, environmental information, weather information, an amount of precipitation, a temperature, or an air density is required to be taught by prior art. Gentry may be reasonably applied to the limitation of “weather information,” “temperature,” or “environmental information,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 6, 13, 18, and 19
Gentry further discloses that the flight-time variable includes environmental information; and determining the environmental information includes communicating over a wireless channel with a local weather station (see col. 10, line 39-col. 11, line 4, regarding that each docking station comprises a weather station that provides the centra control with a weather picture for the delivery area, such that the central control can identify localized weather events, such as thunderstorms, rainfall, etc.; col. 3, lines 49-57, regarding the networked docking stations 102 are in communication with central control 150 via wireless connection 160, as depicted in Figure 1C). The limitation of “environmental information” is interpreted in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, which describes the environmental information as including weather information in paragraph [0078].
Claim 8
The combination of Gentry and Bitra discloses the claimed method discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15
The combination of Gentry and Bitra discloses the claimed computer program product, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions (see col. 3, lines 49-54, regarding central control 150 is a networked computer or server, where central control performs the method of Figure 9B, as described in col. 10, lines 39-col. 11, line 32) for performing the method discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry in view of Bitra, and in further view of Canoy et al. (US 2016/0246304 A1), hereinafter Canoy.
Claims 4, 11, and 17
Gentry further discloses determining whether the aircraft is airworthy includes comparing the flight-time variable to a variable threshold (see col. 10, lines 52-63, with respect to step 955 of Figure 9B, regarding the determination of whether the wind is in a certain direction and/or exceeds a predetermined speed that is deemed inefficient to continue) 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 (see col. 11, lines 8-32, with respect to steps 965, 972, 975, and 980 of Figure 9B, regarding that when the weather event exceeds the predetermined threshold, central control determines the current location of the UAV and determines the closest dock station to the current location for the UAV to be secured at the docking station, where the UAV lands on the docking station to be secured at the docking station, as described in col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 2). The limitation of “airworthiness” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as measure of an aircraft’s suitability for safe flight, such that Gentry teaches the determination of airworthiness by comparing conditions to thresholds that represent inefficient or impossible flight of the UAV.
The combination of Gentry and Bitra does not further disclose that 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.
However, incorporating a specific method to determine the payload-inclusive weight of the combination of Gentry and Bitra would be obvious to one of ordinary skill, in light of Canoy.
Specifically, Canoy teaches a similar technique of determining weight of an autonomous aircraft (similar to the step of determining the payload-inclusive weight of Gentry and Bitra) based at least in part on a thrust associated with a rotor while the autonomous aircraft (similar to the aircraft of Gentry) is flying (see ¶0024, regarding that that autonomous aircraft lifts off and establishes a level hovering by controlling power applied to each rotor, such that the flight control system may determine the weight by measuring the power applied to the rotors). Because the Applicant’s specification defines the determination of thrust as being derived from power applied to the rotors in paragraph [0028], the claimed step of “obtaining a thrust” encompasses obtaining the underlying parameters including power applied to the rotors; therefore, by measuring the power applied to the rotors during hovering flight, Canoy further teaches obtaining a thrust associated with a rotor while the autonomous aircraft is flying, as construed under the broadest reasonably interpretation.
Since the systems of Gentry, Bitra, and Canoy are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a payload-inclusive weight of an aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of determining the payload-inclusive weight of Gentry and Bitra to include 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, in light of Canoy, with the predictable result of applying a known method for determining the weight of an aircraft (¶0024 of Canoy) using actuators and sensors that can be operated during flight (¶0042 of Canoy).
Claims are 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry in view of Bitra, and in further view of Priest (US 2017/0358215 A1), hereinafter Priest.
Claims 7 and 14
Gentry further discloses that the flight-time variable includes environmental information (see col. 10, line 39-col. 11, line 4, regarding that each docking station comprises a weather station that provides the centra control with a weather picture for the delivery area, such that the central control can identify localized weather events, such as thunderstorms, rainfall, etc.; col. 3, lines 49-57, regarding the networked docking stations 102 are in communication with central control 150 via wireless connection 160, as depicted in Figure 1C). The limitation of “environmental information” is interpreted in light of the Applicant’s disclosure, which describes the environmental information as including weather information in paragraph [0078].
While a location may be reasonably obtained from the UAV of Gentry to determine the local weather events described in col. 10, lines 48-51, Gentry does not explicitly disclose determining the environmental information includes sending, via a wireless channel to a remote server, location information of the aircraft and receiving, via the wireless channel from the remote server, the environmental information in response to the location information. However, the technique of wirelessly providing similar environmental information based on a wirelessly received UAV location is well-known in the art and would be an obvious modification to the system of Gentry, in light of Priest.
Specifically, Priest teaches the known technique of reporting weather to a UAV (similar to determining the environmental information of Gentry) by sending, via a wireless channel to a remote server, location information of the UAV (similar to the aircraft of Gentry) and receiving, via the wireless channel from the remote server, weather reporting in response to the location information (see ¶0052-0053, regarding that first data that includes location is provided from a UAV during flight to an air traffic control system over a wireless network, and the air traffic control system provides weather and obstacle reporting to the UAV; ¶0039, regarding server 200 is used for air traffic control of the UAV).
Since the systems of Gentry and Priest are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling a UAV by a remote server, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the step of determining the environmental information of Gentry to include sending, via a wireless channel to a remote server, location information of the aircraft and receiving, via the wireless channel from the remote server, the environmental information in response to the location information, in the same manner that weather is reported from an air traffic control system in Priest in response to received location of a UAV, with the predictable result of transmitting communications that are relevant to the location of a UAV (¶0044 of Priest) using wireless networks that provide high-bandwidth and low-cost connectivity and broad geographic coverage (¶0027 of Priest).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 10, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 3 and 10, the closest prior art of record, Gentry and Anderson et al. (US 2019/0202463 A1), hereinafter Anderson, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed 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;
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; and
it is determined that the aircraft is not airworthy in response to determining that the flight-time variable exceeds 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; and
the memory is further configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to:
in response to determining that the aircraft is marginally airworthy, configure the aircraft with a set of one or more constrained settings, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, Andersson teaches a similar technique of determining whether the aircraft is airworthy based at least in part on a flight-time variable (see ¶0052, with respect to Figure 9, regarding the detection of impending weather conditions for a geographic region so as to calculate the current risk of damage to the autonomous vehicle, where the autonomous vehicle is a UAV, as described in ¶0023) by comparing the flight-time variable to a second variable threshold (see ¶0032, regarding the comparison of the current risk of damage with a threshold of acceptable risk of damage for the autonomous vehicle), 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 second variable threshold (see ¶0052, regarding that the autonomous vehicle is instructed to take protective action when the current risk of damage exceeds the threshold, where the proactive action is automatic landing, as described in ¶0027), as claimed. While Andersson teaches the “flight-time variable” as pertaining to wind speeds (see ¶0034), Andersson is silent regarding a “payload-inclusive weight” and thus does not disclose the combined comparison of a payload-inclusive weight and a wind speed to the second threshold. Because Andersson lacks any teaching of the foundation of the combined payload-inclusive weight and wind speed as the “flight-time variable,” Andersson fails to teach the further claimed limitations requiring the evaluation of the flight-time variable against an additional threshold for the determination of “marginally airworthy.”
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed features of claims 3 and 10 in light of the overall claim and the issues discussed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
With respect to claims 5 and 12, the closest prior art of record, Gentry and Andersson, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed:
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 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; and
the memory is further configured to provide the processor with instructions which when executed cause the processor to: in response to determining that the aircraft is marginally airworthy, configure the aircraft with a set of one or more constrained settings, wherein it is time variable exceeds the first variable threshold and does not exceed the second variable, in light of the overall claim.
Reasons for allowable subject matter similar to those discussed with respect to claims 3 and 10 above apply to the limitations of claims 5 and 12. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed features of claims 5 and 12 in light of the overall claim and the issues discussed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, 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).
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