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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 September 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-19 and 23 of US Application No. 16/790,727 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claim 1. Applicant previously canceled claims 8, 17, and 20-22.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1-7, 9-16, 18, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 28 February 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the “present claims also recite particular machine(s) that are integral to the claim.” See REMARKS at page 9. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.06(b). While the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Id. Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. See MPEP 2106.04(d)I. When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant: the particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
When applying the relevant factors, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not recite a particular machine. With respect to the first factor, a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.06(b)(I). The claims are directed to a processing device and memory (claim 1) and non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon and executed by a processing device (claim 23). The asserted particular machine is a processing device and a memory, i.e., a computer. The processor and memory are merely a computer recited at a high level of generality, i.e., a general purpose computer, that applies the judicial exceptions. This factor does not favor finding that the claimed machine is a particular machine that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. With respect to the second factor, all of the functions performed by the processing device may be performed mentally, i.e., without the processing device, as indicated in the § 101 rejection. Since all of the functional limitations can be performed without the processing device, the processing device is not integral to the claims. The processing device is merely an object on which the functions are performed. This factor does not favor finding that the claimed machine is a particular machine that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Finally, with respect to the third factor, the processing device is not used to perform any functions other than the functions that may be performed mentally. Therefore, the processing device merely generally links the claims to a technical field. This factor does not favor finding that the claimed machine is a particular machine that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. None of the factors support Applicant’s assertion that the claims recite particular machines.
Applicant also asserts that the Office “fails to comply with the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” in asserting that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it incorporates “generic” technology. See REMARKS at page 8. In particular, Applicant references part of the guidance relevant to revised Step 2A. The Examiner notes, however, that the step 2A analysis in the Detailed Action dated 14 March 2025 does not characterize any limitation as generic technology or as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Rather, the Examiner merely states that the claimed processing device coupled to the memory (claim 1) and the claimed computer readable medium executed by a processing device (claim 23) each represent a computer. Therefore, Applicant’s assertion is moot.
Based on the above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-7, 9-16, 18, 19, and 23 under § 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 18-19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant generally alleges Liu does not teach “based on the location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV as computed by processing the location update associated with the second UAV to which the at least one or more generated instructions was distributed, initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more instructions as (a) generated based on the one or more received commands with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs and (b) distributed to at least one of the one or more UAVs” because determining a force vector, adding the force vector onto the UAV’s own velocity, and modifying the velocity are not the same as the claimed limitation. The Examiner notes, however, that the claims do not define what “one or more operations” encompass. The specification does not provide any particular definition for “operation”. Given its ordinary meaning, ‘operations’ encompass “an act or instance, process, or manner of functioning or operating”, “a particular process or course”, e.g., mental operations, “a mathematical process, as addition, multiplication, or differentiation”, “any discrete activity or action that is performed by a computer, as reading, writing, processing, sending, or receiving data”. See https://www.dictionary.com/browse/operation. Based on the normal definition of ‘operation’, determining a force vector is an operation (mental operation, or mathematical process, or activity performed by a computer). Performing a calculation is an operation (mathematical process, or activity performed by a computer). Changing a velocity is an operation (an act or instance, process, or manner of functioning or operating). Performing avoidance maneuvers using the changed velocity is an operation (an act or instance, process, or manner of functioning or operating). The limitation requires that the operation is initiated based on the computed location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV. In this regard, Liu discloses that each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18 (¶ [0059]). A force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using the relative distance data (¶ [0059]). In other words, the force vector determination is based on the relative position of the UAVs. The force vector is added/combined onto the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 (¶ [0059]). In other words, adding the force vector onto the UAVs own velocity, modifying the velocity of the UAV and performing maneuvers to avoid other UAVs are all operations that are performed based on the initial relative position determination. These operations are performed as part of a collision avoidance system that operates as the UAVs are flying in their commanded formation (¶ [0057]-[0058]. Therefore, Liu teaches based on the location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV as computed by processing the location update associated with the second UAV to which the at least one or more generated instructions was distributed, initiating one or more operations (i.e., determining a force vector, adding the force vector onto the UAVs own velocity, modifying the velocity of the UAV, and/or performing maneuvers to avoid other UAVs based on the relative position between UAVs) in relation to the one or more instructions as (a) generated based on the one or more received commands with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs (i.e., determining a force vector, adding the force vector onto the UAVs own velocity, modifying the velocity of the UAV, and/or performing maneuvers to avoid other UAVs based on the relative position between UAVs are performed while UAVs are flying their commanded formation) and (b) distributed to at least one of the one or more UAVs (i.e., leader UAV sends the velocities at desired positions, i.e., trajectory instruction, to follower UAVs 21). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 1 under § 102 is maintained.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant argues that Liu does not teach every feature of the claim, namely processing a location update of a third UAV and initiating one or more operations of the third UAV. However, Liu discloses a group of UAVs 18 including a leader UAV 20 and a plurality of follower UAVs 21. See ¶ [0024]. At a minimum, the group of UAVs consists of three UAVs, i.e., one leader and more than one follower. In executing a collision avoidance system, each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18. See ¶ [0059]. This disclosure clearly encompasses calculating the relative positions between the leader and a first follower UAV, i.e., the claimed second UAV, and the leader and a second follower UAV, i.e., the claimed third UAV. Therefore, Liu teaches processing the location update to compute, at the first UAV, a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV and a third UAV (i.e., each UAV of the at least three UAVs calculates its position relative to all other UAVs). Liu further discloses that each UAV is executing the collision avoidance system. See ¶ [0058]. As previously indicated above with respect to claim 1, collision avoidance includes the operation of determining a force vector. The repulsive force is determined based on all UAVs within a particular radius. See ¶ [0059]. Therefore, Liu teaches initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more commands based on the computed location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV and the third UAV (i.e., collision avoidance operations, such as force vector, are performed for each UAV and the force vector calculation is based on all UAVs within a predetermined radius). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 23 under § 102 is maintained.
Applicant does not present any separate arguments regarding claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-19. Therefore, these rejections are also maintained.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites “processing the one or more commands to generate one or more instructions with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs”, “processing the received location update to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV”, and “based on the location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV as computed by processing the location update associated with the second UAV to which the at least one or more generated instructions was distributed, initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more instructions as a) generated based on the one or more commands as received with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs and (b) distributed to at least one of the one or more UAVs”. These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having received command information can mentally process the command information and generate instructions, such as a trajectory for each UAV. Similarly, a person having received location update information can mentally compute a relative location of two UAVs. Computing a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV is also a mathematical concept. Finally, the claim term “one or more operations”, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses any possible operation that may be initiated in relation to the instructions. This includes performing mental operations or performing calculations in preparation for controlling movement of the UAV. Applicant’s specification, for example, discloses that initiated operations can “adjust or override other instructions, such that the referenced collisions or other hazards can be avoided.” See ¶ [0049]. Adjusting instructions, such as a trajectory, to avoid collisions or hazards encompasses determining or calculating a new trajectory for the UAV, which may be performed mentally and/or may include a mathematical calculation. Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas and claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Independent claim 12 recites “processing the location update to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV” and “initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more commands based on the computed location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV”, which were also recited in claim 1. Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 12. These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind, for the same reasons already indicated above with respect to claim 1. Further, computing the location is a mathematical concept. Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 12 and 23 are directed to a judicial exception.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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 following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 12, and 23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “a processing device; and a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations”, “receiving, at a first unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"), one or more commands directed to one or more UAVs”, “distributing at least one of the one or more generated instructions to at least one of the one or more UAVs”, and “receiving, at the first UAV, a location update associated with a second UAV to which at least one of the one or more generated instructions was distributed”. Using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed processing device coupled to the memory is a computer. The processing device and memory are used to perform the above-identified abstract ideas. Therefore, the processing device and memory are merely a computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Receiving commands at a UAV using the processing device and memory is data gathering. Distributing instructions to one or more UAVs using the processing device and memory is data outputting. Receiving a location update at a UAV is also data gathering. Receiving commands, distributing instructions, and receiving a location update are extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites the additional element “receiving, at a first unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"), one or more commands”, and “receiving, at the first UAV, a location update associated with a second UAV, the location update comprising one or more inputs originating from one or more sensors of the second UAV”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Receiving commands at a UAV using the processing device and memory is data gathering. Receiving a location update at a UAV is also data gathering. Receiving commands and receiving a location update are extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 23 recites the additional elements “non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations”, “receiving, at a first unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"), one or more commands”, and “receiving, at the first UAV, a location update associated with a second UAV, the location update comprising one or more inputs originating from one or more sensors of the second UAV”. Using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed computer readable medium executed by a processing device is a computer. The computer readable medium and processing device are used to perform the above-identified abstract ideas. Therefore, the computer readable medium and processing device are merely a computer used as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Receiving commands at a UAV and receiving location update at a UAV using the computer readable medium and processing device is data gathering. Therefore, receiving commands and location updates are extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the above, claims 1, 12, and 23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 12, and 23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, additional claim elements identified above as extra-solution activity are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Generic computer functions include receiving data and receiving data over a network. The processing device and memory of claim 1 and the computer readable medium and processing device of claim 23 are generic computers. Claim 12 does not recite computer elements. However, receiving one or more commands and receiving a location update, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses receiving the commands and location update via a computer. Receiving commands, receiving a location update, a distributing instructions encompasses using a network, e.g., computer to computer communication, to transmit and receive data. Therefore, these additional elements encompass generic computers performing generic computing functions. Therefore, these additional elements, which have been identified as extra-solution activity, are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., receiving a location update. However, even as further defined, receiving a location update is still extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons identified in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 3 recites the additional element “receiving a location update associated with a third UAV”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Receiving a location update associated with a third UAV is data gathering. Further, receiving a location update using the processing device and memory is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving data and/or receiving data over a network. Therefore, claim 3 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites the additional element “receiving one or more location updates from one or more UAVs within communication range of the first UAV”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Receiving a location update from another UAV is data gathering. Further, receiving a location update from another UAV using the processing device and memory is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving data and/or receiving data over a network, e.g., networked UAVs. Therefore, claim 4 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites the additional element “receiving the location update from the second UAV”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Receiving a location update from the UAV is data gathering. Further, receiving a location update using the processing device and memory is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving data and/or receiving data over a network, e.g., networked UAVs. Therefore, claim 5 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “processing one or more location updates received from one or more UAVs to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the one or more UAVs”, which may be performed mentally. In addition, computing a location is a mathematical concept. Claim 6 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1, from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 7 recites “processing the location update to compute, at the first UAV, a real-time map reflecting a location of the first UAV in relation to one or more respective locations of one or more other UAVs”, which may be performed mentally. In addition, computing a map reflecting a location is a mathematical concept. Claim 7 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1, from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 9 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., initiating one or more operations. Even as further defined, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation encompasses mental processes and/or mathematical processes. For example, initiating an operation to prevent a collision with other UAVs encompasses determining or calculating an alternate trajectory for one or both UAVs. Claim 9 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1, from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 10 further defines a previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., initiating one or more operations. Even as further defined, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation encompasses mental processes and/or mathematical processes. For example, initiating a safety operation encompasses determining or calculating an alternate trajectory for one or both UAVs to avoid a collision. Claim 10 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1, from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 11 recites the additional element “wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: providing a location update associated with the first UAV to one or more other UAVs”. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Data gathering and outputting is extra-solution activity. Providing a location update from one UAV to another UAV is data outputting. Further, providing a location update using the processing device and memory is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions, e.g., receiving data and/or transmitting and receiving data over a network, e.g., networked UAVs. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and is rejected under § 101 based on the same analysis as claim 3.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected under § 101 based on the same analysis as claim 4.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and is rejected under § 101 based on the same analysis as claim 5.
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as claims 6 and 7 and is rejected under § 101 based on the same analysis as claims 6 and 7.
Claim 18 recites abstract ideas and additional elements that are also recited in claim 1 and is rejected under § 101 based on the same analysis as claim 1.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claims 9 and 10 and is rejected under § 101 based on the same analysis as claims 9 and 10.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2018/0074520 A1, “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses formation flight path coordination of unmanned aerial vehicles and teaches:
a processing device; and a memory coupled to the processing device and storing instructions that, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations (each UAV includes an onboard computer having a processor 32 and storage 40 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0032]; operating instructions stored in storage 40 – see at least ¶ [0037]) comprising:
receiving, at a first unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"), one or more commands directed to one or more UAVs (ground control station (GCS) 12 transmits formation commands 22 to leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; formation commands are related to each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0025]);
processing the one or more commands to generate one or more instructions with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs (after receiving formation commands, leader UAV 20 calculates individual positions and velocities at positions, i.e., trajectories, for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0041]-[0042]; i.e., claimed instruction = the trajectory determined by calculating individual positions and velocities at the positions);
distributing at least one of the one or more generated instructions to at least one of the one or more UAVs (leader UAV 20 sends the trajectories to follower UAVs 21 – see at least ¶ [0041]);
receiving, at the first UAV, a location update associated with a second UAV to which at least one of the one or more generated instructions was distributed (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; status information 25 includes position – see at least ¶ [0041]; leader UAV 20 is constantly monitoring current flight status information for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0046]);
processing the received location update to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV (each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18– see at least ¶ [0059]); and
based on the location of the first UAV as computed in relation to the second UAV as computed by processing the location update associated with the second UAV, initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more instructions (a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined onto the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]; i.e., determining the force vector is initiating an operation, adding the force vector onto a velocity command is initiating an operation, modifying the velocity of the UAV is initiating an operation, maneuvering to avoid other UAVs is an operation, and all of these operations are related to modifying the trajectories generated by leader UAV 20) as (a) generated based on the one or more received commands with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs (UAV 20 generates the trajectories based on the formation command received by UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0041]-[0042]) and (b) distributed to at least one of the one or more UAVs (leader UAV 20 sends the trajectories to follower UAVs 21 – see at least ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further teaches:
wherein the location update comprises one or more inputs originating from one or more sensors of the second UAV (sensors 44 onboard each of UAVs 18 may include a GPS module for reporting on inter UAV distance – see at least ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further teaches:
wherein receiving the location update associated with the second UAV further comprises receiving a location update associated with a third UAV (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; multiple follower UAVs 21 – see at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Liu further teaches:
wherein receiving the location update comprises receiving one or more location updates from one or more UAVs within communication range of the first UAV (wireless telecommunication module 38 for exchanging status data 25 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0035], [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu further teaches:
wherein receiving the location update associated with a second UAV comprises receiving the location update from the second UAV (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; status information 25 includes position – see at least ¶ [0041]; leader UAV 20 is constantly monitoring current flight status information for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu further teaches:
wherein processing the location update comprises processing one or more location updates received from one or more UAVs to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the one or more UAVs (each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18– see at least ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu further teaches:
wherein processing the location update comprises processing the location update to compute, at the first UAV, a real-time map reflecting a location of the first UAV in relation to one or more respective locations of one or more other UAVs (each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18– see at least ¶ [0059]; relative position data of each UAV to each of the other UAVs is an ‘air map’ as described in Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu further teaches:
wherein initiating one or more operations comprises initiating one or more operations configured to prevent the first UAV from colliding with one or more other UAVs (a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined ono the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu further teaches:
wherein initiating one or more operations comprises initiating one or more safety operations with respect the first UAV in relation to one or more other UAVs (a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined ono the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]; i.e., collision avoidance is a safety operation).
Regarding claim 11, Liu further teaches:
providing a location update associated with the first UAV to one or more other UAVs (each UAV 18 in a group broadcasts its status information 25 to each of the other UAVs in the group – see at least ¶ [0038]; if each UAV 20, 21 updates calculation of waypoint information 23, each of UAVs 20, 21 can constantly monitor current flight status information 25 of each other UAV 20, 21 in the group – see at least ¶ [0047]; status information 25 includes position – see at least ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses formation flight path coordination of unmanned aerial vehicles and teaches:
receiving, at a first unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"), one or more commands (ground control station (GCS) 12 transmits formation commands 22 to leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]);
receiving, at the first UAV, a location update associated with a second UAV (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; status information 25 includes position – see at least ¶ [0041]; leader UAV 20 is constantly monitoring current flight status information for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0046]), the location update comprising one or more inputs originating from one or more sensors of the second UAV (sensors 44 onboard each of UAVs 18 may include a GPS module for reporting on inter UAV distance – see at least ¶ [0036]);
processing the location update to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV (each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18– see at least ¶ [0059]); and
initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more commands based on the computed location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV (a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined ono the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]; i.e., determining the force vector is initiating an operation, adding the force vector onto a velocity command is initiating an operation, modifying the velocity of the UAV is initiating an operation, maneuvering to avoid other UAVs is initiating an operation).
Regarding claim 13, Liu further teaches:
wherein receiving the location update associated with a second UAV further comprises receiving a location update associated with a third UAV (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; multiple follower UAVs 21 – see at least Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Liu further teaches:
wherein receiving the location update comprises receiving one or more location updates from one or more UAVs within communication range of the first UAV (wireless telecommunication module 38 for exchanging status data 25 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0035], [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu further teaches:
wherein receiving the location update associated with a second UAV comprises receiving the location update from the second UAV (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; status information 25 includes position – see at least ¶ [0041]; leader UAV 20 is constantly monitoring current flight status information for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Liu further teaches:
wherein processing the location update comprises at least one of: (a) processing one or more location updates received from one or more UAVs to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the one or more UAVs (each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18– see at least ¶ [0059]), or (b) processing the location update to compute, at the first UAV, a real-time map reflecting a location of the first UAV in relation to one or more respective locations of one or more other UAVs (each UAV 18 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18– see at least ¶ [0059]; relative position data of each UAV to each of the other UAVs is an ‘air map’ as described in Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Liu further teaches:
receiving one or more commands directed to one or more UAVs (ground control station (GCS) 12 transmits formation commands 22 to leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; leader UAV obtains command data 22 as a series of waypoints and distances between UAVs – see at least ¶ [0041]);
processing the one or more commands to generate one or more instructions with respect to at least one of the one or more UAVs (leader UAV 20 may store a group list for reference during implementation of the command information – see at least ¶ [0029]; leader UAV 20 calculates individual positions and velocities for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0041]); and
distributing at least one of the one or more instructions to at least one of the one or more UAVs (leader UAV 20 can contact and inform each follower UAV 21 of their status and role in the group – see at least ¶ [0030]; leader UAV 20 sends velocities and positions to each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Liu further teaches:
wherein initiating one or more operations comprises at least one of: (a) initiating one or more operations configured to prevent the first UAV from colliding with one or more other UAVs (a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined ono the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]), or (b) initiating one or more safety operations with respect the first UAV in relation to one or more other UAVs (a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined ono the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]; i.e., collision avoidance is a safety operation).
Regarding claim 23, Liu discloses formation flight path coordination of unmanned aerial vehicles and teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a first unmanned aerial vehicle ("UAV"), one or more commands (ground control station (GCS) 12 transmits formation commands 22 to leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]);
receiving, at the first UAV, a location update associated with a second UAV (flight status information 25 is periodically received from follower UAVs 21 by leader UAV 20 – see at least ¶ [0025]; status information 25 includes position – see at least ¶ [0041]; leader UAV 20 is constantly monitoring current flight status information for each follower UAV 21 – see at least ¶ [0046]), the location update comprising one or more inputs originating from one or more sensors of the second UAV (sensors 44 onboard each of UAVs 18 may include a GPS module for reporting on inter UAV distance – see at least ¶ [0036]);
processing the location update to compute a location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV and a third UAV (a group 16 of UAVs 18 including a leader UAV 20 and a plurality of follower UAVs 21 – see at least ¶ [0024]; each UAV 18 in group 16 calculates its own relative position obtained from sensor data 44 with respect to all other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]); and
initiating one or more operations in relation to the one or more commands based on the computed location of the first UAV in relation to the second UAV and the third UAV (for each UAV pair, a force vector of a repulsion field between a pair of UAVs 18 is determined using relative distance data – see at least ¶ [0059]; the force vector is added/combined onto the UAV’s 18 own velocity command by the onboard processing system 32, modifying the velocity of the UAV 18 so that UAV 18 maneuvers to avoid other UAVs 18 – see at least ¶ [0059]; i.e., determining the force vector is initiating an operation, adding the force vector onto a velocity command is initiating an operation, modifying the velocity of the UAV is initiating an operation, maneuvering to avoid other UAVs is initiating an operation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666