DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to Application 19/479,898 filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 and 02/03/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
Step 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
Step 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for modeling traffic management, comprising:
obtaining a dynamic model of a traffic management process [mental process/step];
simulating a scenario based on the traffic management process [mental process/step]; and
measuring a resource usage of the scenario [mental process/step].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 1 recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of obtaining a dynamic model of a traffic management process; simulating a scenario based on the traffic management process; and measuring a resource usage of the scenario. These limitations, as drafted, encompasses obtaining information representative of a traffic management process, mentally considering or modeling how a scenario would proceed based on the traffic management process and determining or evaluating the amount of resources associated with the considered scenario. Nothing in the claim requires a particular machine, sensor, processor, controller or other technological mechanism for performing these steps. For example, a person may obtain or formulate a representation of a traffic management process, consider a hypothetical traffic scenario based on that process, and determine or estimate the resources associated with the hypothetical scenario through observation, judgement or evaluation including using pen and paper. Thus, the recite limitations fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Here, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements beyond the abstract mental processes identified above that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely obtains a model, simulates a scenario, and determines resources usage associated with the scenario. The claim does not require that the resulting resource usage information be used to control a physical device, or later operation of technological system. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Twp, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 does not recite additional elements beyond the mental processes themselves that meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Rather, the claimed method consists of obtaining and evaluating information concerning a traffic management process, simulating a scenario based thereon, and determining resource usage associated with that scenario. Accordingly, the claim does not recite additional elements, individually or as in ordered combination, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim(s) 2-11 and 13-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a method for modeling traffic management (Zhao, pp. 1, 3; disclosing a Multi-agent Air Traffic and Resource Usage Simulation (MATRUS) framework for evaluation of different air traffic management policies and an integrated environment for air traffic simulation, communication resource estimation, data analysis, and traffic animation), comprising:
obtaining a dynamic model of a traffic management process (Zhao, pp.3-4; disclosing that agent-based modeling is used to model sUAS component behavior and related air traffic phenomena as dynamical systems of interacting agents, wherein interactions between the agents determine the spatial and temporal evolution of a scenario, and wherein the air traffic module includes logic to plan, schedule, and manage sUAS air traffic);
simulating a scenario based on the traffic management process (Zhao, pp. 2, 4; disclosing a managed scenario with ground-centralized traffic management, wherein traffic-management algorithms schedule and route air traffic by planning each sUAS trajectory in advance, and further disclosing flight scheduling for each UAV agent in a simulation scenario and trajectory planning for a particular simulation scenario); and
measuring a resource usage of the scenario (Zhao, p. 5; disclosing that the data-processing module generates statistical information of flight and resource usage for scenario or set of scenarios by processing simulator log files, and further disclosing simulation results comparing traffic and resource utilization of sUAS under different environmental settings).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses wherein the scenario comprises a model of an uncrewed aerial system (UAS) (Zhao, pp. 3-4; disclosing agent-based modeling of sUAS component behavior and air-traffic phenomena, wherein sUAS are represented as interacting agents and the simulator performs flight scheduling and trajectory planning for each UAV agent in simulation scenario).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses wherein the scenario comprises a model of low-altitude air operations (Zhao, pp. 1, 3; disclosing UAS traffic management for dense traffic in low-altitude airspace and an air-traffic simulation environment specifically designed to address sUAS traffic in low-level altitude airspace).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao discloses wherein the scenario comprises a plurality of agents (Zhao, pp.3-4; disclosing a multi-agent simulation in which sUAS are modeled as dynamically systems of interacting agents and flight scheduling is performed for each UAV agent in the simulation scenario).
Regarding claim 16, Zhao discloses wherein the plurality of agents comprises a plurality of models of aerial vehicles (Zhao, pp. 3-4; disclosing agent-based modeling of sUAS behavior wherein the simulated agents comprise UAV agents for which flight initiation, trajectories, altitude, speed and mission characteristics are modeled).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Xue et al., US 20220069876A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Xue, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the resource usage comprises a communication resource overhead.
However, Xue teaches wherein the resource usage comprises a communication resource overhead (Xue ¶188 and 189; Aspects in this section regard efficient ways to exchange information among UAVs to decide on a location (relative to other UAVs). The techniques can include optimizing a general problem in a distributed and scalable manner under the assumption that problems can be factorized as functions of positions of a few UAVs in the system. A belief propagation approach is proposed to solve the joint problem along with example use cases in wireless communication. The communication overhead for each UAV is on the order of number of neighbor UAVs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the resource usage comprises a communication resource overhead, as taught by Xue, because such a modification would provide an additional quantitative measure for evaluating the communication resource consequences of the simulated traffic management scenario.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the resource usage comprises a coordination overhead.
However, Xue teaches wherein the resource usage comprises a coordination overhead (Xue ¶219 and 220; This disclosure describes the protocol needed to initiate and update the collaboration between UAVs in decentralized manner, such as to optimize a common problem to be solved by multiple UAVs. It is assumed that the problem can be factorized as functions of positions of a few UAVs in the system as previously discussed. Further, it is assumed that a belief propagation technique can solve the joint problem. The communication overhead is in the order of number of neighboring UAVs of each UAV. The protocols described will not only improve steering of UAVs but also provide a common ground for UAV manufacturers to join the environment without disturbing the performance of existing devices. The protocol can reduce communication overhead required for collaboration of multiple UAVs and it will make collaboration a matter of computation power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the resource usage comprises a coordination overhead, as taught by Xue, because such a modification would provide an additional quantitative measure for evaluating the communication resource consequences of the simulated traffic management scenario.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Li et al., US 20200250993A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Li, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises outputting feedback to a user based on dynamically evaluating alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario.
However, Li teaches wherein the method further comprises outputting feedback to a user based on dynamically evaluating alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario (Li ¶184, 201, 259-265, 370-373; disclosing multiple available mission routes wherein criteria for an optimal route include lowest network resource requirements, transmitting the planned route set to a UAS or UAS operator to receive more than one route and select a preferred route, periodically updating network resource availability as a function of time, providing alternative mission parameters or alternative proposals when requested resources cannot be satisfied, and determining/measuring network resources associated with airspace segments of selected route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the method further comprises outputting feedback to a user based on dynamically evaluating alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario, as taught by Li, to provide an operator with actionable feedback identifying alternative traffic management solutions according to available communication resources.
Regarding claim 13, Zhao fails to disclose evaluating the traffic management process based on the resource usage of the scenario.
However, Li teaches evaluating the traffic management process based on the resource usage of the scenario (Li ¶184, 365-374; disclosing selection of an optimal mission route based on criteria including lowest network resource requirements, identifying and checking network resource availability for a managed airspace, checking time varying network resource availability at each airspace segment, qualifying a 5D mission route based on the network resources granted for the UAS at each airspace segment, measuring the network resources using average data rate, peak data rate, delay constraint, packet loss rate and priority, and checking network capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of evaluating the traffic management process based on the resource usage of the scenario, as taught by Li, to determine whether a proposed traffic management arrangement can satisfy the communication resource requirements of the participating UAS.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Russell Randall, US 20210253238A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Randall, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the scenario comprises a model of short range air mobility.
However, Randall teaches wherein the scenario comprises a model of short range air mobility (Randall ¶206; discloses as a larger aircraft, the disclosed aircraft can be designed for low-altitude, local transportation purposes as either an air taxi, personal flying vehicle or a short haul cargo aerial vehicle, an area of aviation called urban air mobility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the scenario comprises a model of short range air mobility, as taught by Randall, to evaluate traffic and resource requirements associated with short-range air mobility operations.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Cummings et al., US 20100228533A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Cummings, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the scenario comprises a simulated event.
However, Cummings teaches wherein the scenario comprises a simulated event (Cummings ¶9, 34 and 76; simulation of unmanned vehicle systems using discrete events, wherein simulated events may be generated by an unmanned vehicle, an operator/automation component or an environmental source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the scenario comprises a simulated event, as taught by Cummings, to determine a maximum number of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles that can be controlled by a user in an efficient and inexpensive manner, while capturing the effects of wait times due to loss of situational awareness.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises measuring a scenario resource usage of the simulated event in the scenario.
However, Cummings teaches wherein the method further comprises measuring a scenario resource usage of the simulated event in the scenario (Cummings, ¶ 63-65, 78-79; disclosing that each simulated event type is associated with a service process representing the time necessary to deal with the event, wherein service time and wait time due to interaction are determined for respective event types, and further disclosing measurement of discrete event simulation metrics including operator utilization, wherein operator utilization represents the amount of mission time the operator is engaged in directed tasks, including vehicle planning and communication tasks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the method further comprises measuring a scenario resource usage of the simulated event in the scenario, as taught by Cummings, to determine a maximum number of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles that can be controlled by a user in an efficient and inexpensive manner, while capturing the effects of wait times due to loss of situational awareness.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Cummings et al., US 20100228533A1, as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Borgyos et al., US 20220147064A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao, Cummings and Borgyos, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhao and Cummings fail to disclose wherein the simulated event comprises an emergency.
However, Borgyos teaches wherein the simulated event comprises an emergency (Borgyos ¶56; The method of any preceding clause, further comprising determining, by the computing device, an emergency has occurred; determining, by the computing device, an emergency procedure for resolving the emergency, wherein the emergency procedure includes directing the vehicle along the first contingency route and landing the vehicle at the emergency response zone; and landing, by the computing device, the vehicle in the emergency response zone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Cummings and include the feature of wherein the simulated event comprises an emergency, as taught by Borgyos, for determining one or more emergency response zones along a route of an unmanned aerial system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhao and Cummings fail to disclose wherein the simulated event comprises a contingency.
However, Borgyos teaches wherein the simulated event comprises a contingency (Borgyos ¶15; discloses, in UAS traffic management (UTM) supported collaborative operations, in-flight emergencies result in the UTM system providing notifications to affected users, along with a plan to resolve the issue. Embodiments described herein may be utilized when the vehicle experiences an emergency and is not capable of communicating that emergency to its ground control. A determination must be made regarding the mitigating action: return to home, land in place, fly to some new destination, etc. and that determination/mitigation action must be communicated to other peer airspace users and applications for strategic de-confliction. Embodiments described herein perform collaborative contingency planning and execute planned/de-conflicted mitigating actions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Cummings and include the feature of wherein the simulated event comprises a contingency, as taught by Borgyos, for determining one or more emergency response zones along a route of an unmanned aerial system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Fanelli et al., US 20190289613 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Fanelli, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the method further comprises controlling an uncrewed aerial system based on the resource usage of the scenario.
However, Fanelli teaches wherein the method further comprises controlling an uncrewed aerial system based on the resource usage of the scenario (Fanelli ¶11 and 74; teaches receiving network condition information derived from network resource usage data/statistics, determining availability of communication resources along a UAV flight path, and controlling/adjusting the UAV flight path so that the UAV is routed through portions of airspace in which available network resources satisfy required network performance parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the method further comprises controlling an uncrewed aerial system based on the resource usage of the scenario, as taught by Fanelli, for permitting the simulated resource analysis to be used to maintain adequate communication resources while controlling the UAS.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Richard Postrel, US 20160328979A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Postrel, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, Zhao fails to disclose wherein the scenario comprises a re-routing event.
However, Postrel teaches wherein the scenario comprises a re-routing event (Postrel ¶61; teaches automated UAs traffic management in which a preferred flight path is recalculated as a function of traffic management factors and the current UAV location, including recalculation/rerouting in response to changing traffic or weather conditions, and transmission of the recalculated route to the UAV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the scenario comprises a re-routing event, as taught by Postrel, to enable the UAV to access network resources that satisfy the network performance parameters.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Fanelli et al., US 20190289613 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao and Fanelli, respectively.
Regarding claim 17, Zhao discloses a system for traffic management of a plurality of uncrewed aerial systems (Zhao, pp. 1, 3; disclosing the MATRUS framework for evaluating air traffic management policies for a plurality of sUAS and providing an integrated environment for air traffic simulation, communication resource estimation, data analysis, and traffic animation) comprising:
obtain a scenario, wherein the scenario comprises traffic management information for the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems (Zhao, pp.4-6; disclosing environment description and mission specification as simulator inputs and an air traffic module that plans, schedules, and manages sUAS air traffic, including flight scheduling, trajectory planning, routing, launch intervals, mission parameters, and no fly zone information);
obtain a dynamic model of a traffic management process (Zhao, pp.3-4; disclosing that agent-based modeling is used to model sUAS component behavior and related air traffic phenomena as dynamical systems of interacting agents, wherein interactions between the agents determine the spatial and temporal evolution of a scenario, and wherein the air traffic module includes logic to plan, schedule, and manage sUAS air traffic);
simulate the scenario based on the traffic management process (Zhao, pp. 2, 4; disclosing a managed scenario with ground-centralized traffic management, wherein traffic-management algorithms schedule and route air traffic by planning each sUAS trajectory in advance, and further disclosing flight scheduling for each UAV agent in a simulation scenario and trajectory planning for a particular simulation scenario);
measure a resource usage of the scenario (Zhao, p. 5; disclosing that the data-processing module generates statistical information of flight and resource usage for scenario or set of scenarios by processing simulator log files, and further disclosing simulation results comparing traffic and resource utilization of sUAS under different environmental settings).
Zhao fails to disclose a plurality of uncrewed aerial systems; and a controller in operable communication with the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems, wherein the controller comprises a processor and a memory, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: control the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems based on the resource usage of the scenario.
However, Fanelli teaches:
a plurality of uncrewed aerial systems (Fanelli ¶10; The UAV management device can additionally communicate with one or more UAVs (e.g., UAV(s) that are in flight or are preparing for flight); and
a controller in operable communication with the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems, wherein the controller comprises a processor and a memory, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor (Fanelli ¶47; Bus includes a component that permits communication among the components of device. Processor is implemented in hardware, firmware, or a combination of hardware and software. Processor is a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component. In some implementations, processor includes one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform a function. Memory includes a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and/or another type of dynamic or static storage device (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory) that stores information and/or instructions for use by processor), cause the processor to :
control the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems based on the resource usage of the scenario (Fanelli ¶11 and 74; teaches receiving network condition information derived from network resource usage data/statistics, determining availability of communication resources along a UAV flight path, and controlling/adjusting the UAV flight path so that the UAV is routed through portions of airspace in which available network resources satisfy required network performance parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of a plurality of uncrewed aerial systems; and a controller in operable communication with the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems, wherein the controller comprises a processor and a memory, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: control the plurality of uncrewed aerial systems based on the resource usage of the scenario, as taught by Fanelli, for permitting the simulated resource analysis to be used to maintain adequate communication resources while controlling the UAS.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Fanelli et al., US 20190289613 A1, as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Li et al., US 20200250993A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao, Fanelli, and Li, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Zhao and Fanelli fail to disclose dynamically evaluate a plurality of alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario.
However, Li teaches dynamically evaluate a plurality of alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario (Li ¶74, 184, 260, 328; disclosing evaluating multiple candidate UAS routes using time varying network resource requirements and availability information, receiving updated resource availability information, selecting among multiple candidate routes and generating alternative mission parameters or proposals when the requested resources cannot be provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Fanelli and include the feature of dynamically evaluate a plurality of alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario, as taught by Li, to provide an operator with actionable feedback identifying alternative traffic management solutions according to available communication resources.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Zhao and Fanelli fail to disclose wherein the system further comprises a user interface operably coupled to the controller, wherein the user interface is configured to provide feedback to a user based on dynamically evaluating the plurality of alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario.
However, Li teaches wherein the system further comprises a user interface operably coupled to the controller, wherein the user interface is configured to provide feedback to a user based on dynamically evaluating the plurality of alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario (Li ¶184, 201, 259-265, 370-373; disclosing multiple available mission routes wherein criteria for an optimal route include lowest network resource requirements, transmitting the planned route set to a UAS or UAS operator to receive more than one route and select a preferred route, periodically updating network resource availability as a function of time, providing alternative mission parameters or alternative proposals when requested resources cannot be satisfied, and determining/measuring network resources associated with airspace segments of selected route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhao and include the feature of wherein the system further comprises a user interface operably coupled to the controller, wherein the user interface is configured to provide feedback to a user based on dynamically evaluating the plurality of alternative traffic management processes based on the resource usage of the scenario, as taught by Li, to provide an operator with actionable feedback identifying alternative traffic management solutions according to available communication resources.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al., “A simulation Framework for Fast Design Space Exploration of Unmanned Air System Traffic Management Policies,” 2019 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference (ICNS), Herndon, VA, Apr. 9-11, 2019, pp1-10, in view of Fanelli et al., US 20190289613 A1, as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of in view of Cummings et al., US 20100228533A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhao, Fanelli, and Cummings, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zhao and Fanelli fail to disclose estimate a scenario resource usage of the simulated event in the scenario.
However, Cummings teaches estimate a scenario resource usage of the simulated event in the scenario (Cummings ¶9, 34 and 76; simulation of unmanned vehicle systems using discrete events, wherein simulated events may be generated by an unmanned vehicle, an operator/automation component or an environmental source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhao and Fanelli and include the feature of estimate a scenario resource usage of the simulated event in the scenario, as taught by Cummings, to determine a maximum number of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles that can be controlled by a user in an efficient and inexpensive manner, while capturing the effects of wait times due to loss of situational awareness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights