Sentera, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021004374 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/858,232 12/29/2017 Eric Taipale 20912.0005US01 8177 52835 7590 03/01/2022 HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C. 45 South Seventh Street Suite 2700 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1683 EXAMINER UNDERWOOD, BAKARI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PTOMail@hsml.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC TAIPALE Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sentera, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to planning missions for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 9-10. Of the pending claims, claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method comprising: determining a location of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); at a location separate from the UAV, generating a set of two or more mission plans based on the location of the UAV, the mission plans are obtained from a plurality of stored possible mission plans, each stored possible mission plan including respective mission plan parameters, the mission plan parameters including flight plan data used by the UAV for navigation; receiving a user selection of a mission plan from the set of two or more mission plans; obtaining the mission plan parameters including the flight plan data for the selected mission plan; and transmitting the obtained mission plan parameters including the flight plan data from a location separate from the UAV to the UAV to configure the UAV according to the obtained mission plan parameters including the flight plan data. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Srivastava US 2016/0216711 A1 July 28, 2016 Chen US 2017/0337824 A1 Nov. 23, 2017 REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Srivastava. Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 3 Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava and Chen. OPINION Anticipation In contesting the anticipation rejection, Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6-8) and an argument for claim 7 (Appeal Br. 8-9). Appellant does not present arguments specifically directed to the remaining claims (claims 2-4, 6, 8-13, and 15-20). Thus, these remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). We address claim 7 separately. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, and 15-20 The Examiner finds that Srivastava discloses the method of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3-6. Appellant argues that Srivastava does not disclose “generating a set of two or more mission plans based on the location of the UAV,” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.)). Appeal Br. 7. More specifically, Appellant submits that claim 1 requires “two or more mission plans based on a single location of the UAV,” and “[t]his feature is not disclosed in Srivastava.” Id. Appellant bases this argument on Srivastava’s reference to “particular mission plans associated with the origination locations” in paragraph 63. Id. According to Appellant, this language “would encompass, and could be referring to, a single mission plan at each origination location” and, thus, “does not necessarily require or indicate that there are two or more mission plans at one origination location.” Id. Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 4 Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Although Srivastava may contemplate the possibility of more than one origination location, Srivastava discloses an example implementation in which there is one origination location (location A)-user A wants to fly multiple UAVs from a pool or group of UAVs from an origination location (location A) to a destination location (location B) to perform one or more mission operations at location B. Srivastava ¶¶ 9-10. Moreover, Srivastava discloses that, “[i]n some implementations, the UAVs in the pool may be located at the origination location.” Id. ¶ 11. Srivastava’s UAV platform may identify multiple UAVs from the pool based on the capabilities and constraints required for the mission. Id. The mission plans for a particular origination location and destination location may include different flight paths, for example. Id. ¶ 55; see also id. ¶¶ 56-61 (discussing different considerations for determining the most efficient mission plan for the origination location and destination location). Appellant argues that Srivastava does not disclose obtaining the mission plans, based on a single UAV location, from a plurality of stored mission plans. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant concedes that Srivastava discloses selecting a prior mission plan from a plurality of stored mission plans. Id. (citing Srivastava ¶ 62). However, Appellant submits that Srivastava does not disclose that the prior mission plans discussed in paragraph 62 are “related to the ‘mission plans associated with origination locations’” discussed in paragraph 63. Id. Appellant argues that Srivastava does not disclose that the prior mission plans (the stored plans) in paragraph 62 are user selectable. Id. at 7-8. Appellant notes that “Srivastava discloses allowing the user to select one of the ‘potential mission plans’” in paragraph Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 5 63, but contends that “[t]he term ‘potential mission plans’ appears to refer to the potential mission plans” that the UAV may generate, and not to the “prior mission plans” (the stored mission plans) discussed in paragraph 62. Id. at 8. Appellant’s argument reflects an unreasonably piecemeal and segmented reading of Srivastava’s disclosure and, thus, is not persuasive. Srivastava discloses multiple ways of generating potential mission plans, one of which is to identify prior mission plans from historical information (i.e., from a plurality of stored mission plans, as conceded by Appellant (Appeal Br. 7)). Srivastava ¶ 62. Thus, when Srivastava, in paragraph 63, refers to “generat[ing] multiple potential mission plans,” and presenting those potential mission plans and associated costs to a user so that the user may select one of the potential mission plans, the reader would reasonably understand that the “multiple potential mission plans” language refers to mission plans, regardless how those mission plans were generated. In this regard, Srivastava’s usage of “generate” is consistent with the manner in which Appellant’s Specification uses the term “generating” in the context of generating mission plans. See Spec. ¶ 41 (stating that “a set of mission plans may be generated based on the location of the UAV” and that “[g]enerating may include accessing a data store of possible mission plans”). For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Srivastava anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-4, 6, 8-13, and 15-20, which fall with claim 1, as being anticipated by Srivastava. Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 6 Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that “generating the set of two or more mission plans includes retrieving stored possible mission plans of missions previously performed at the location.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that “Srivastava does not disclose retrieving stored possible mission plans of missions previously performed at the location.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Srivastava discloses “identify[ing] prior mission plans from the historical information.” Srivastava ¶ 62. We find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Srivastava’s disclosure would understand “prior mission plans from the historical information” (id.) to mean mission plans that have been previously performed, thus giving rise to “the historical information.” Moreover, and more significantly, claim 7 does not recite a step of performing mission plans at the location and storing those performed mission plans; nor does claim 7 recite that the act of retrieving includes filtering stored possible mission plans to select mission plans previously performed at the location. Compare claim 7 (Appeal Br. 12, Claims App.), with claims 3-5 (id.). Rather, claim 7 merely recites retrieving data (i.e., stored possible mission plans). In other words, the act of “retrieving” recited in claim 7 is the same regardless of whether the data retrieved is associated with mission plans that have been performed previously or with possible mission plans that have not been performed previously. Thus, the additional limitation in claim 7 does not distinguish over Srivastava’s disclosure of generating a set of mission plans by identifying prior mission plans from storage (Srivastava ¶ 62), regardless of whether Srivastava’s use of “prior Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 7 mission plans” is considered to refer to mission plans that have been performed previously or simply to possible mission plans that have not been performed previously. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Srivastava anticipates the subject matter of claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 as being anticipated by Srivastava. Obviousness-Srivastava and Chen The Examiner finds that Srivastava does not disclose “wherein filtering the stored possible mission plans based on the location includes using a threshold distance from the location of the UAV and a respective starting point of a mission plan as a filter” as called for in claims 5 and 14. Final Act. 12-13. Relying on teachings in Chen, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify Srivastava’s method to incorporate such a filtering technique “in order to convey a flight angle that increases (e.g., maximizes) the length of one or more flight legs.” Id. at 13 (citing Chen ¶¶ 97, 224, 283). Appellant argues, and we agree, that the passages of Chen that the Examiner cites do not teach filtering stored mission plans using a threshold distance from the location of the UAV. See Appeal Br. 9. As Appellant points out, Chen teaches “allowing a user to generate a mission plan by providing user inputs to identify a mission boundary.” Id. at 10 (citing Chen ¶ 224). Further, Chen teaches selecting a flight angle to minimize the amount of flight time by, for example, reducing the number of flight legs or connections required between flight legs. Chen ¶ 97. Chen’s teaching of having the mission generation system select and add a starting point, an Appeal 2021-004374 Application 15/858,232 8 ending point, and waypoints (Chen ¶ 283), likewise, is not directed to filtering stored mission plans using a threshold distance from the location of the UAV. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 as being unpatentable over Srivastava and Chen. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 is REVERSED. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6-13, 15-20 102(a)(2) Srivastava 1-4, 6-13, 15-20 5, 14 103 Srivastava, Chen 5, 14 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-13, 15-20 5, 14 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART