Skydio, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 15, 2021

2021002206 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

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. 15/042,798 02/12/2016 Eric David Johnson NSTR-118-B 3522 176016 7590 09/15/2021 Skydio, Inc. at Young Basile 3001 West Big Beaver Road Ste. 624 Troy, MI 48084 EXAMINER MAHNE, KEVIN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/15/2021 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): audit@youngbasile.com docketing@youngbasile.com uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC DAVID JOHNSON, ALAN JAY POOLE, DONALD CURRY WEIGEL, MARK PATRICK BAUER, VOLKAN GUREL, JESSE DANIEL KALLMAN, and ADAM SAX Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, 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 1–8 and 10–32. See generally Appeal Br. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Unmanned Innovation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application is titled “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Flight Planning System.” Spec. 1 (capitalization and bold emphasis omitted). Claims 1, 11, 19, and 27 are independent. Appeal Br. 20–30 (Claims App.). We reproduce claim 1, below, with emphases added to particular language addressed in this Decision: 1. A flight planning system comprising one or more processors comprising hardware, the one or more processors configured to at least: receive, via a user interface, a location for an aerial survey to be conducted by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); display, via the user interface, one or more images depicting a view of the location; determine, based at least in part on information associated with the location, a geofence boundary, wherein the geofence boundary represents a geospatial boundary which limits allowable locations of the UAV to within the geospatial boundary, and wherein a representation of the geofence boundary is displayed, via the user interface, over the one or more images; determine a survey area representing a real-world geographic area in which the aerial survey is to be performed, the survey area being positionable, in response to interactions with the user interface, within the geofence boundary, wherein a representation of the survey area is displayed, via the user interface, over the one or more location images, and wherein the representation is set within the representation of the geofence boundary; determine a flight plan based, at least in part, on the survey area, the flight plan having information associated with a flight pattern for the UAV to follow, wherein a generated flight pattern is set within the geofence boundary; generate a flight data package for transmission to a ground control station, the flight data package comprising at least the flight plan and the geofence boundary; and Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 3 provide the flight data package to the ground control station, wherein the ground control station is configured to transmit at least a portion of the flight data package to the UAV, such that, while the UAV navigates, the geofence boundary is enforced and locations of the UAV are limited to locations within the geofence boundary, and wherein the UAV is configured to navigate according to the portion and perform the aerial survey. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.) (emphases added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Goossen ’482 US 2012/0143482 A1 June 7, 2012 Goossen ’976 US 2014/0018976 A1 Jan. 16, 2014 Wong US 2014/0374535 A1 Dec. 25, 2014 Hyde US 2015/0239365 A1 Aug. 27, 2015 Srivastava US 2016/0111006 A1 Apr. 21, 2016 Golden US 2016/0282861 A1 Sept. 29, 2016 Teng US 9,508,263 B1 Nov. 29, 2016 Gong US 2017/0169713 A1 June 15, 2017 Yu US 2017/0301242 A1 Oct. 19, 2017 See Final Act. 6–51. Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 4 REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–4, 10–14, 19–22, 27, 31 103 Teng, Golden 5, 15, 23, 28 103 Teng, Golden, Srivastava 6, 16, 24 103 Teng, Golden, Srivastava, Hyde 7 103 Teng, Golden, Goossen ’976 8, 17, 18, 25, 26, 29, 30 103 Teng, Golden, Goossen ’482 32 103 Teng, Golden, Wong or Gong See Final Act. 6–51. OPINION 1. Priority to Provisional Application Appellant submits that the application before us claims priority to a provisional application (US Prov. App. 62/116,282, “the Provisional Application”) and that this Provisional Application “provides sufficient support for the priority claim.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant points out that Teng (the primary reference relied upon by the Examiner) “has a priority date of October 15, 2015—later than Appellant’s priority date of February 13, 2015,” which is the filing date of the Provisional Application. See id. at 12. The Examiner finds that the Provisional Application does not provide support for the following limitation: “provide the flight data package to the ground control station, wherein the ground control station is configured to transmit at least a portion of the flight data package to the UAV, such that, while the UAV navigates, the geofence boundary is enforced.” See Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted) (quoting claim 1); see also Appeal Br. 23, 26, 28 Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 5 (Claims App., reciting similar limitations in each of independent claims 11, 19, and 27). In its Appeal Brief, Appellant cites to Figure 5 and paragraphs 13, 21, 25, 93, and 94 of the non-provisional application for support of the claimed limitation. See Appeal Br. 6. The test for entitlement to priority of a provisional application requires comparison of the claims of the patent to the disclosure in the provisional application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” (citation omitted)). Here, we take Appellant’s position to be true, and that paragraphs 13, 21, 25, 93, and 94 and Figure 5 of the non-provisional application provide subject matter support for the claimed limitation. See Appeal Br. 6. Nevertheless, we find that the Examiner is correct in that the Provisional Application does not provide similar support for the claimed limitation. See Ans. 7. First, and as correctly explained by the Examiner, “the provisional specification is 16 pages in length whereas the non-provisional application is 39 pages in length . . . [,] none of the drawings are similar . . . [, and none of] the claims in the [non-provisional application] can be linked to the claims in the” Provisional Application. Ans. 6. Second, the Provisional Application does not include the same Figure 5 as in the non-provisional application, which Appellant cites to for subject matter support for the claimed limitation. See Appeal Br. 6. Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 6 Third, the Provisional Application does not include paragraphs 13, 21, 25, 93, and 94 of the non-provisional application, which Appellant also cites to for subject matter support of the claimed limitation. See Appeal Br. 6. Fourth, the Examiner determines that Claim 1 includes the limitation provide the flight data package to the ground control station, wherein the ground control station is configured to transmit at least a portion of the flight data package to the UAV, such that, while the UAV navigates, the geofence boundary is enforced . . . . None of the sections of ’292 Prov. or provisional application 61/991,806 cited by the Appellant provide support for this limitation. Ans. 7. We agree. Appellant does not explain how the Examiner’s findings above are incorrect. Furthermore, we find nothing in the language cited by Appellant on pages 10–11 of its Appeal Brief (where portions of the Provisional Application are replicated) that supports the noted claim limitation. Rather, upon reviewing the entirety of the Provisional Application, we find no mention of the term “flight data package” or how such data is to be deployed, as claimed. This further supports our finding and the Examiner’s finding that the Provisional Application lacks subject matter support for claimed limitations; “provide the flight data package . . .” (independent claim 1), “transmitting the flight data package . . .” (independent claims 11, 19), and “generate a flight data package . . .” (independent claim 27). Accordingly, the claims before us for review are not entitled to the priority date of the Provisional Application, filed on February 13, 2015. Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 7 2. Obvious Rejection Over Teng and Golden The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 10–14, 19–22, 27, and 31 as unpatentable as obvious over Teng and Golden. Final Act. 7. Appellant presents arguments to independent claims 1 and 27, but otherwise argues these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 12–18. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 2–4, 10–14, 19–22, and 31 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We also address independent claim 27, separately. a. Claims 1–4, 10–14, 19–22, and 31 In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Teng discloses the majority of the claimed structure. See Final Act. 6–10. As it pertains to this Appeal, the Examiner finds that Teng discloses a processor configured to “determine, based at least in part on information associated with the location, a geofence boundary” and “determine a survey area representing a real-world geographic area in which the aerial survey is to be performed, the surface being positionable, in response to interactions with the user interface, within the geofence boundary.” See id. at 7 (emphasis omitted) (citations omitted). The Examiner construed the claimed “geofence boundary . . . to be a perimeter and the survey area . . . to be an area inside the perimeter.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). In applying these constructions to Teng, the Examiner found that Teng’s teaching of a “mission boundary” that “represent[s] a border defining a permissible area in which a UAV is permitted to fly” satisfies the claimed geofence boundary (see id. at 7 (citations omitted)) and Teng’s teaching of “flight legs to build a Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 8 flight path within a mission boundary” satisfies the claimed survey area (see id. at 7–8 (citations omitted)). The Examiner relies on Golden for teaching the use of a “drone’s on board computer and GPS location data to control a drone such that it does not cross into unauthorized airspace.” Final Act. 10. In combining Teng with the teachings of Golden, the Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have “modif[ied] Teng to include using controller and GPS location data taught by Golden to ensure that the UAV in Teng does not inadvertently cross into restricted airspace due to operator inattentiveness or wind.” Id. (citing Golden ¶¶ 6, 8). In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the terms “‘geofence boundary’ and ‘survey area’ recited in claim 1 are not properly construed in the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant submits that “Teng fails to suggest or disclose, ‘the survey area being positionable . . . within the geofence boundary,’ as recited in claim 1” (id. at 14 (emphasis omitted)) explaining that “[t]he flight legs of Teng are designed to ‘fill the UAV flight area,’ which is an ‘area encompassed by the mission boundary’” (id. at 15). Appellant explains, “if the mission boundary of Teng were adjusted, then the flight area would similarly, and automatically, be adjusted to fill the ‘area encompassed by the mission boundary’ . . . [and that it] is unclear how an ‘area inside [a] perimeter’ could be ‘positionable’ within the perimeter.” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive, as they are not commensurate in scope with the claimed limitations. See Ans. 14 (confirming the same in explaining that Appellant’s “argument[] misrepresents the interpretation of the terms ‘geofence boundary’ and ‘survey area’ as well as the rejection of record.”). We are not persuaded that Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 9 the claimed “survey area being positionable” precludes the geofence boundary from moving. As to Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner’s interpretation of “geofence boundary” and “survey area” are wrong (Appeal Br. 12), Appellant’s argument fails to explain why, exactly, the Examiner’s interpretation is incorrect. See Ans. 13 (confirming the same in explaining that “although the Appellant submits that the Examiner did not properly interpret the terms ‘geofence boundary’ and ‘survey area,’ the Appellant does not offer an alternative claim interpretation that is supported by the specification.”). As to the claimed “geofence boundary,” claim 1 recites that the “geofence boundary represents a geospatial boundary which limits allowable locations of the UAV to within the geospatial boundary.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Teng’s disclosure of a “mission boundary” satisfies the claimed limitation. In particular, Teng discloses that “the term ‘mission boundary’ refers to a border of a flight area with regard to a target site,” that “mission boundary can be user-provided and/or generated based on user input and other data,” and that “the term mission boundary may represent a border defining a permissible area in which a UAV is permitted to fly.” Teng, 7:27–32 (emphases added); see also id. at 22:27–29 (“mission boundary 304 created by the mission generation system 100 that defines a UAV flight area 308.”). Because Teng’s “mission boundary” is a border defining a permissible area in which a UAV may fly, it satisfies the claimed “geofence boundary . . . which limits allowable locations of the UAV to within the geospatial boundary.” Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 10 As to the claimed “survey area,” claim 1 recites that the “survey area represent[s] a real-world geographic area in which the aerial survey is to be performed, the survey area being positionable, in response to interactions with the user interface, within the geofence boundary.” Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). Teng’s disclosure of a “flight path” satisfies the claimed “survey area.” In particular, Teng discloses that its “UAV selection element 706 . . . enables a user to provide user input of a UAV for utilization by the mission generation system 100” (Teng, 30:60–62) and that “the mission generation system can generate flight legs, combine flight legs to build a flight path within a mission boundary, and utilize a flight path to generate a mission plan” (id. at 32:49–52 (emphasis added)). Because Teng’s “flight path” is built by combining flight legs generated by a user vis-à-vis the mission generation system, and the flight path is within the mission boundary, Teng’s flight path satisfies the claimed “survey area being positionable, in response to interactions with the user interface, within the geofence boundary” (which is Teng’s “mission boundary”). Based on these and other disclosures, we find that Teng’s user interface enables a user to provide mission boundaries to the mission generation system and the mission generation system uses user input to build a flight path, and that this disclosure satisfies the claimed “survey area being positionable, in response to interactions with the user interface within the geofence boundary.” See Ans. 10 (emphasis omitted) (finding the same). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2–4, 10–14, 19–22, and 31, which fall Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 11 therewith (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), as unpatentable over Teng and Golden. b. Claim 27 Independent claim 27 is similar to independent claim 1 but further recites, “wherein the user interface is configured to present layers associated with the flight plan over the one or more images, wherein the layers include a representation of the survey area or a representation of the geofence boundary.” Appeal Br. 28 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In addition to those arguments presented with respect to claim 1, Appellant further argues that “Teng fails to describe . . . a user interface ‘configured to present layers . . . includ[ing] a representation of the survey area or a representation of the geofence boundary’ as recited in claim 27.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner finds in-part that Teng’s Figures 7A–7C disclose the claimed structure. See Final Act. 23; see also Ans. 22. The Examiner explains that Teng’s “Figures 7A-7C show three different levels of display” (Ans. 22). The Examiner finds that Teng’s Figure 7A “displays the target site [and] is interpreted as displaying the first layer,” Teng’s Figure 7B “shows the imputed mission boundary over the target area [and] is interpreted as a second layer,” and Teng’s Figure 7C “is interpreted as displaying [flight plan, or] a third layer over both the first layer and the second layer.” See id.; see also Final Act 23 (finding that Teng’s Figure 7C depicts a flight plan). Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 12 Appellant’s argument does not explain why Teng’s “target site,” “mission boundary,” and “flight plan” shown in Figures 7A–7C, respectively, do not satisfy the claimed “layers.” For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27, and we affirm the rejection of this claim. 3. Rejections of Claims 5–8, 15–18, 23–26, 28–30, and 32 Claims 5–8, 15–18, 23–26, 28–30, and 32 depend from one of independent claims 1, 11, 19, and 27. See Appeal Br. 20–30 (Claims App.). Appellant does not present separate arguments contesting the rejections of these claims. See id. at 18. Accordingly, Appellant does not identify error in the rejections of these claims. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 5–8, 15–18, 23–26, 28–30, and 32. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections of claims 1–8 and 10–32 as unpatentable. Appeal 2021-002206 Application 15/042,798 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 10–14, 19–22, 27, 31 103 Teng, Golden 1–4, 10–14, 19– 22, 27, 31 5, 15, 23, 28 103 Teng, Golden, Srivastava 5, 15, 23, 28 6, 16, 24 103 Teng, Golden, Srivastava, Hyde 6, 16, 24 7 103 Teng, Golden, Goossen ’976 7 8, 17, 18, 25, 26, 29, 30 103 Teng, Golden, Goossen ’482 8, 17, 18, 25, 26, 29, 30 32 103 Teng, Golden, Wong or Gong 32 Overall Outcome 1–8, 10–32 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). AFFIRMED