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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The examiner received amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification on 15 July 2025 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 15 April 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the outstanding specification objections and corresponding amendments to the specification, the examiner notes that the description continues to remain unclear and confusing. Put simply, two large problems are present. First, a cylindrical coordinate system is described to be used when the obstacle is human, and a "spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle" disagrees with the former case. The examiner is unsure if "spherical coordinate system in a case when an obstacle that is not human is present" is intended. Second, "the relative coordinate system is …a spherical coordinate system in a case of neighboring robots" is still unclear; as this is a swarm, there should be neighboring robots. The examiner is unsure if this second option is supposed to say "or a spherical coordinate system in a case where no obstacles are present and only other neighboring robots are present", for example. See corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding the outstanding drawing objections, the examiner notes that replacement figures 2A-2C and 7A-7G are much clearer and easier to read. The examiner appreciates the efforts of the applicant. While figures 4A-4C and 6A-6C still appear to be lower resolution than the remainder of the figures, the larger size makes it possible to read the corresponding equations. As such, all drawing objections are withdrawn.
Regarding claim interpretation, the examiner notes that claim interpretation continues to apply from the prior office action (and thus will not be repeated in this office action). The examiner makes explicit note that argument against the genus/species notes of dependent claims was not presented by the applicant; thus, the examiner will continue to examine 2-4, 14-16, and 20-22 as obvious variants as previously indicated rather than issue restriction at this time.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 3, 15, and 21, the examiner notes that the amendments do not appear to correct the noted issues. Further information is found below in the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) section. However, the outstanding rejections to claims 6, 12, and 24 are withdrawn as the removal of "limited" from the claim language remedies the defect.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 10 and 18, the examiner notes that the noted issue has been corrected. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner reviewed the applicant's arguments and noted that applicant argues that prior art (Kim et al., "Realization of Swarm Formation Flying and Optimal Trajectory Generation for Multi-Drone Performance Show", NPL, hereinafter Kim) does not anticipate every limitation of the independent claims as previously indicated by the examiner. Regarding the assertion that Kim does not disclose transformation of global coordinates into relative coordinates that are based on a type of desired formation and any neighboring robots or obstacles, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner is interpreting the transformation to merely recite a determination made receiving global data and expressed as a relative relationship from the perspective of an own robot (local coordinate system) to determine a single robot's own trajectory based upon the received global state (as the relative movement of a single robot with respect to the swarm/other robots/environment may reasonably read upon the claims) with respect to its surroundings, as a transformation of coordinate systems reasonably includes the meaning of changing a frame of reference from one origin to another (as in, relative to a center point/global data to being relative to an ego robot). Section II.B of Kim, for example, discusses "Note that this equation is only based on the relative distances between agents. By combining (1) and (2), the control input ui of the individual agent i can be finally represented as follows [11]:" and proceeds to model the behavior of a single robot based upon the received global state information. Further, at the start of the same section, Kim states "Agents in the swarm model should aggregate in a single group and move to the common target" (thus, indicating that the movement is "based on a type of desired formation"). Finally, "equation is only based on the relative distances between agents" indicates that the movement is "based on …. any neighboring robots". While the word "transformation" is not used, Kim clearly describes determining relative coordinates and states based on received global information (mere continued use of global information as asserted by applicant does not mean that the transformation did not occur), which reasonably constitutes a transformation to a relative coordinate system. All of the aforementioned sections were encompassed in the prior office action; new grounds of prior art rejection are not issued as these were previously presented but merely restated.
New grounds of rejection (necessitated by amendment for claims 3, 15, and 21) are presented below in addition to restated arguments of record for claims that were not amended.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 15 July 2025. Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent claims. Claims 1-25 are rejected for the reasons presented below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0097] states "Example 3. The robot of one or more of examples 1-2, wherein the type of desired formation is a three-dimensional cylindrical-based formation, and the relative coordinate system is a cylindrical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle being a human, or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the neighboring robots or of the obstacle." The examiner is unsure regarding the intent and meaning of the statement "or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the neighboring robots or of the obstacle." At first, the examiner interpreted this paragraph to explain that cylindrical coordinates were used when the obstacle was human and spherical coordinates when the obstacle was another robot, but the phrase "…in a case of the neighboring robots or the spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle." is generally unclear and confusing. The examiner is unsure if this means that spherical coordinates are used with any obstacle since "or of the obstacle" is stated, leading to the truncated sentence with this option to read as "…or a spherical coordinate system in a case of … the obstacle." This leads to two issues, as further noted in the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. First, a cylindrical coordinate system is described to be used when the obstacle is human, and a "spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle" disagrees with the former case. The examiner is unsure if "spherical coordinate system in a case when an obstacle that is not human is present" is intended. Second, "the relative coordinate system is …a spherical coordinate system in a case of neighboring robots" is still unclear; as this is a swarm, there should be neighboring robots. The examiner is unsure if this second option is supposed to say "or a spherical coordinate system in a case where no obstacles are present and only other neighboring robots are present", for example. Appropriate attention is required, as this statement also corresponds to claimed subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The examiner notes that the final limitation of claims 3, 15, and 21 is generally unclear and confusing. The examiner searched the specification for additional clarifying information but only found the teachings of paragraph [0097]. Paragraph [0097] states "Example 3. The robot of one or more of examples 1-2, wherein the type of desired formation is a three-dimensional cylindrical-based formation, and the relative coordinate system is a cylindrical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle being a human, or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the neighboring robots or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle." Therefore, the specification contains this same unclear statement and does not provide additional guidance. The examiner is unsure regarding the intent and meaning of the statement "or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the neighboring robots or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle." At first, the examiner interpreted this paragraph to explain that cylindrical coordinates were used when the obstacle was human and spherical coordinates when the obstacle was another robot, but the phrase "…in a case of the neighboring robots or a spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle." is generally unclear and confusing. The most recent amendments made by the applicant have made the recited claim matter more confusing. To summarize/reword claim 3 (as an example) in order to emphasize the examiner’s point:
wherein the type of desired formation is a 3D cylindrical based formulation, and
The relative coordinate system is a cylindrical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle being a human
OR
The relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system in a case of the neighboring robots
OR
The relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle.
The examiner believes that the applicant is attempting to state that the type of relative coordinate system is based on the type of desired formation being 3D cylindrical and one of three “neighboring robots or obstacles around a point” (per independent claims):
Obstacle, the obstacle is human
Neighboring robots
Obstacle
The third option (spherical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle) disagrees with the first option (cylindrical coordinate system in a case of the obstacle being a human). Since a human is outlined as a type of obstacle, how is the choice between cylindrical and spherical made in the case of any obstacle?
The above-noted final limitation of dependent claims 3 and 15 still does not clearly describe what, specifically, is claimed. For example, the examiner is unsure if the second option of “the relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system in a case of the neighboring robots” is meant to state that the relative coordinate system is spherical in the event that no obstacles are present and only the other neighboring robots are present (since the robot operates in a swarm or “multi-robot system”, the presence of “neighboring robots” is a given) and if the third option is meant to state that “the relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system in a case of obstacles other than humans being present”. Currently, the examiner is more unsure as to what is intended after the claim amendments made. Thus, the claims are still indefinite.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, 9-12, 19, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (NPL – “Realization of swarm formation flying and optimal trajectory generation for multi-drone performance show”, provided with this office action as a PDF, published 09 February 2017; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding independent claims 1 (apparatus – robot) and 19 (apparatus – robot):
Kim discloses A robot configured to be operable within a multi-robot system, comprising: (per claims 1 and 19) (Section [I., III.A., III.D.], Kim discloses a robot configured to operate within a swarm/multi-robot system) / A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors associated with a robot, cause the robot to be operable within a multi-robot system by: (per claim 13) (Section [I., III.A., III.C.-D.] and Figure [3], Kim discloses a robot configured to operate within a swarm/multi-robot system containing a Pixhawk flight “processor”. The examiner notes that Kim refers to the Pixhawk as a flight “processor”, however it is a flight controller containing memory per the Quick Start Guide of Pixhawk, provided with this office action. The controller contains memory (2MB of flash memory and 256 KB of RAM, per section “SPECIFICATIONS”) to incorporate user created algorithms. Therefore, the examiner holds that the disclosure of Kim includes non-transitory computer-readable medium communicable with a processor to execute program instructions using the supplement of teaching reference Pixhawk, which shows and explicitly discloses the use of a Pixhawk, the oldest model being the Pixhawk 1 being shown in the disclosure of Kim. As Kim discloses use of a Pixhawk and the Pixhawk contains memory, the use of the Quick Start Guide is merely in a teaching reference manner to show implicit features. “Rationale” to combine is simply to further disclose additional details regarding the flight controller explicitly used by Kim)
an input configured to receive global coordinate state information of the robot and of any neighboring robots or obstacles; and (per claim 1) / receiving global coordinate state information of the robot and of any neighboring robots or obstacles; (per claim 13) / an input means for receiving global coordinate state information of the robot and of any neighboring robots or obstacles; and (per claim 19) (Section [III.C.-D.], Kim discloses receiving GPS data and range finder proximity data, as examples. Both of these are considered “global coordinate state information” as they represent data regarding the global state of the environment that the robot operates in. Further, the robot receives the GPS data from the other robots (“GPS data can be exchanged between 3 quadrotors to construct distance information which is used for the swarm controller”) and the range finder measures altitude of the quadrotor that emits radiation to an object)
processing circuitry configured to: (per claim 1) / processing means for: (per claim 19) (Section [III.C.] and Figure [3], Kim discloses use of a Pixhawk flight processor)
transform the global coordinate state information into a relative coordinate system that is with respect to the robot and is based on a type of desired formation of the robot and any neighboring robots or obstacles around a point; (per claim 1) / transforming the global coordinate state information into a relative coordinate system that is with respect to the robot and is based on a type of desired formation of the robot and any neighboring robots or obstacles around a point; (per claim 13) / transforming the global coordinate state information into a relative coordinate system that is with respect to the robot and is based on a type of desired formation of the robot and any neighboring robots or obstacles around a point; (per claim 19) (Section [II.A.-B., III.A., III.E.] and Figure [6], Kim discloses that the flight control for each individual quadrotor includes an equation of motion that determines the relative position of the individual quadrotor in relation to the other quadrotors. Thus, a local/relative trajectory is created based on the global state of other quadrotors in the system. The goal of the equation of motion is to perform a formation flight of the swarm of quadrotors along a common reference trajectory. Finally, a coordinate system is established in section II.A. for the individual quadrotor. Thus, the individual control of each quadcopter includes a mathematical model taking in global information (other quadcopter position) to perform relative position calculations (transforming the global information into relative position calculations) based on a common reference trajectory of the swarm (based on a desired formation, using the neighboring robot information previously noted))
generate a reference formation algorithm which is based on the desired formation; and (per claim 1) / generating a reference formation algorithm which is based on the desired formation; and (per claims 13 and 19) (Section [III.A], Kim discloses a reference trajectory for the swarm member to track based on the common reference trajectory for the swarm members to follow)
control, based on the reference formation algorithm and tracking errors between the desired formation and a current state of the robot, a trajectory of the robot to converge towards the desired formation while avoiding collisions with any neighboring robots or obstacles. (per claim 1) / controlling, based on the reference formation algorithm and tracking errors between the desired formation and a current state of the robot, a trajectory of the robot to converge towards the desired formation while avoiding collisions with any neighboring robots or obstacles. (per claims 13 and 19) (Section [III.A.-B., III.D., IV.A.-B.], Kim discloses control of each individual quadcopter to follow the reference trajectory for the swarm member to track while avoiding collision and including positioning error (error between the position of the quadcopter xi and the position of the constant target position for the quadrotor to follow xd))
Regarding claims 5 and 23:
Kim further discloses wherein the input comprises sensors configured to sense the global coordinate state information of the robot or any neighboring robots or obstacles. (per claim 5) / wherein the input means comprises sensing means for sensing the global coordinate state information of the robot or any neighboring robots or obstacles. (per claim 23) (The examiner notes that recitation of “or” indicates that only one is necessary. Section [III.C.-D.], Kim discloses receiving GPS data and range finder proximity data, as examples. Both of these are considered “global coordinate state information” as they represent data regarding the global state of the environment that the robot operates in. Further, the robot receives the GPS data from the other robots (“GPS data can be exchanged between 3 quadrotors to construct distance information which is used for the swarm controller”) and the range finder measures altitude of the quadrotor that emits radiation to an object. Both may be considered “sensors” configured to sense global state information or any neighboring robots or obstacles)
Regarding claims 6 and 24:
Kim further discloses wherein the input comprises communication circuitry configured to receive from the neighboring robots the global coordinate state information of any neighboring robots within a communication range. (per claim 6) / wherein the input means comprises communication means for receiving from the neighboring robots the global coordinate state information of any neighboring robots within a communication range. (per claim 24) (Section [III.C.-D.], Kim discloses receiving GPS data from other quadcopters. This is considered “global coordinate state information” as GPS data represents data regarding the global state of the environment that the robot operates in through identifying positioning of the other robots. The robot receives the GPS data from the other robots (“GPS data can be exchanged between 3 quadrotors to construct distance information which is used for the swarm controller”))
Regarding claim 9:
Kim further discloses wherein the tracking errors are selected from a group of tracking errors consisting of: radial distance error, angular velocity error, angular separation error, safe distance error, altitude error, and altitude angle error. (The examiner notes that guidance for Markush groupings is given in MPEP 2117, 2173.05(h) and guidance regarding “consisting of” is given in MPEP 2111.03.II. Tracking errors are described in paragraphs [0059-0070] of the instant application specification as being dependent upon the type of formation and “may be from a group of” certain errors. Given the aforementioned guidance and the facts of the case, the examiner is interpreting the types of errors as alternatives, necessitating only one for prior art purposes. Section [III.B., IV.A.], Kim discloses position error calculation, which reasonably reads upon the distance errors, at least “safe distance error” as Kim discloses “Even one trajectory that doesn’t satisfy with the constraints leads to the accumulation of position error and it may cause collisions between quadrotors”)
Regarding claim 10:
Kim further discloses wherein the point is representative of a human, a neighboring robot, or a virtual agent controlled by the human. (Section [III.B.], Kim discloses a target point set by the operator. The specification does not provide explicit definition for the term “agent” and may reasonably constitute a point set by a human operator)
Regarding claims 11 and 25:
Kim further discloses A multi-robot system, comprising: a plurality of the robots of claim 1, (per claim 11) / A multi-robot system, comprising: a plurality of the robots of claim 19, (per claim 25) (Section [III.] and Figures [2-5], Kim discloses a plurality of robots in a multi-robot system (swarm))
wherein each of the processing circuitries of the plurality of robots is configured to control the trajectory of the respective robot in an asynchronous manner. (per claim 11) / wherein each of the processing means of the plurality of robots is for controlling the trajectory of the respective robot in an asynchronous manner. (per claim 25) (The examiner notes that “asynchronous” is described in the specification in paragraph [0034] of the instant application, wherein “The multi-robot system is decentralized in that each robot controls its trajectory asynchronously using the information available from other neighboring robots within a limited communication range.” The examiner, then, is interpreting this to mean that each robot has its own trajectory, rather than a shared/rigid movement pattern. Section [II.B., III.A.-III.B.], Kim discloses that each robot has an individual equation of motion that depends upon the position of the individual robot)
Regarding claim 12:
Kim further discloses wherein the input for the respective robot comprises communication circuitry configured to receive from the neighboring robots the global coordinate state information of any neighboring robots within a communication range. (Section [III.C.-D.], Kim discloses receiving GPS data from other quadcopters. This is considered “global coordinate state information” as GPS data represents data regarding the global state of the environment that the robot operates in through identifying positioning of the other robots. The robot receives the GPS data from the other robots (“GPS data can be exchanged between 3 quadrotors to construct distance information which is used for the swarm controller”))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ottenheimer (US 2020/0183429 A1; hereinafter Ottenheimer).
Regarding claims 2-4, and 20-22:
First, the examiner notes (as stated on record in prior office action and held as noted above) that claims 2-4 (and corresponding claims 14-16 and 20-22 are analogous dependent claims) pertain to three different species that are merely obvious variants based upon design choice regarding the shape of the desired formation and the type of coordinate system used. The disclosure of Kim is silent regarding alternative shapes or coordinate types. The examiner has located prior art Ottenheimer, which teaches a plurality of drone swarm shapes as discussed in claims 2-4, 14-16, and 20-22 and use of spherical coordinates discussed in claims 4, 16, and 22. Claims 2-3, 14-15, and 20-21 are considered obvious variants of claims 4, 16, and 22 because they merely describe analogous inventions with a design choice to utilize different shapes for the formation and different coordinate systems to quantify the movement of the drones within the formations.
Ottenheimer teaches wherein the type of desired formation is a three-dimensional spherical-based formation, and the relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system. (per claim 4) / wherein the type of desired formation is a three-dimensional spherical-based formation, and the relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system. (per claim 22) (Paragraph [0022, 0027, 0033, 0117, 0122] and Figure [11], Ottenheimer teaches drones that move in a spherical pattern/formation and that spherical coordinates are utilized)
Kim and Ottenheimer are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Kim to utilize a certain formation and coordinate system as taught by Ottenheimer as these are matters of design choice. Ottenheimer teaches that generally any shapes may be used (geometric patterns such as circles or 3D shapes such as spheres, Ottenheimer Paragraph [0022]) and that spherical coordinates may be used (Ottenheimer, Paragraph [0122]). While Ottenheimer makes these choices in order to search and locate remote objects with a robot swarm (rationale to combine, Ottenheimer, Paragraph [0022]), the examiner insists that mere modulation of the swarm pattern/shape and type of coordinate system used is that of a design choice, and that other shapes and coordinate systems are merely obvious variants thereof. Therefore, claims 2-3, 14-15, and 20-21 are obvious variants of Kim in view of Ottenheimer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chakravarthy (US 2022/0380042 A1; hereinafter Chakravarthy).
Regarding claim 7:
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the formation is static.
However, Chakravarthy, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control, teaches wherein the desired formation is static. (Paragraph [0084, 0094, 0097, 0105], Chakravarthy teaches that the formation of the UAV swarm is rigid (unchanging shape) and therefore static in the sense that it does not continue to shift for a certain phase of the method)
Kim and Chakravarthy are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the disclosure of Kim with a static swarm formation as taught by Chakravarthy as this is merely a matter of design choice. One may be motivated to have a static formation if the purpose of the UAV swarm is to intercept another UAV swarm with a net, as taught by Chakravarthy (Paragraph [0192-0193] and Fig [15A], for instance) such that the net remains open to capture the intruding swarm. However, the choice to make the formation static or dynamic depends upon user preference and specific use cases.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Fesland et al. (US 5,728,965; hereinafter Fesland).
Regarding claim 8:
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the formation is dynamic.
However, Fesland, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control, teaches wherein the desired formation is dynamic. (Column [3] Line [65] through Column [4] Line [10], Figure [1, 4a-4c], Fesland teaches that a swarm of drones is deployed around a ship and that the drones continue to circle around the ship to detect incoming threats)
Kim and Fesland are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the disclosure of Kim with a dynamic swarm formation as taught by Fesland as this is merely a matter of design choice. One may be motivated to have a dynamic formation if the purpose of the UAV swarm is to detect incoming threats while maintaining safe operating distance from other swarm UAVs, as taught by Fesland (Column [2] Lines [30-63], for instance) such that sufficient spacing may be maintained while covering a larger patrol area. However, the choice to make the formation static or dynamic depends upon user preference and specific use cases.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of teaching reference Pixhawk (NPL – “Pixhawk AutoPilot Quick Start Guide”, provided with this office action as a PDF, dated August 2016 per Wayback Machine date, hereinafter Pixhawk).
Regarding independent claim 13 (non-transitory memory containing instructions):
Kim discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors associated with a robot, cause the robot to be operable within a multi-robot system by: (Section [I., III.A., III.C.-D.] and Figure [3], Kim discloses a robot configured to operate within a swarm/multi-robot system containing a Pixhawk flight “processor”. The examiner notes that Kim refers to the Pixhawk as a flight “processor”, however it is a flight controller containing memory per the Quick Start Guide of Pixhawk, provided with this office action. The controller contains memory (2MB of flash memory and 256 KB of RAM, per section “SPECIFICATIONS”) to incorporate user created algorithms. Therefore, the examiner holds that the disclosure of Kim includes non-transitory computer-readable medium communicable with a processor to execute program instructions using the supplement of teaching reference Pixhawk, which shows and explicitly teaches the use of a Pixhawk, the oldest model being the Pixhawk 1 being shown in the disclosure of Kim. As Kim discloses use of a Pixhawk and the Pixhawk contains memory, the use of the Quick Start Guide is merely in a teaching reference manner to show implicit features. “Rationale” to combine is simply to further disclose additional details regarding the flight controller explicitly used by Kim, detailed below)
receiving global coordinate state information of the robot and of any neighboring robots or obstacles; (Section [III.C.-D.], Kim discloses receiving GPS data and range finder proximity data, as examples. Both of these are considered “global coordinate state information” as they represent data regarding the global state of the environment that the robot operates in. Further, the robot receives the GPS data from the other robots (“GPS data can be exchanged between 3 quadrotors to construct distance information which is used for the swarm controller”) and the range finder measures altitude of the quadrotor that emits radiation to an object)
transforming the global coordinate state information into a relative coordinate system that is with respect to the robot and is based on a type of desired formation of the robot and any neighboring robots or obstacles around a point; (Section [II.A.-B., III.A., III.E.] and Figure [6], Kim discloses that the flight control for each individual quadrotor includes an equation of motion that determines the relative position of the individual quadrotor in relation to the other quadrotors. Thus, a local/relative trajectory is created based on the global state of other quadrotors in the system. The goal of the equation of motion is to perform a formation flight of the swarm of quadrotors along a common reference trajectory. Finally, a coordinate system is established in section II.A. for the individual quadrotor. Thus, the individual control of each quadcopter includes a mathematical model taking in global information (other quadcopter position) to perform relative position calculations (transforming the global information into relative position calculations) based on a common reference trajectory of the swarm (based on a desired formation, using the neighboring robot information previously noted))
generating a reference formation algorithm which is based on the desired formation; and (Section [III.A], Kim discloses a reference trajectory for the swarm member to track based on the common reference trajectory for the swarm members to follow)
controlling, based on the reference formation algorithm and tracking errors between the desired formation and a current state of the robot, a trajectory of the robot to converge towards the desired formation while avoiding collisions with any neighboring robots or obstacles. (Section [III.A.-B., III.D., IV.A.-B.], Kim discloses control of each individual quadcopter to follow the reference trajectory for the swarm member to track while avoiding collision and including positioning error (error between the position of the quadcopter xi and the position of the constant target position for the quadrotor to follow xd))
As noted above, the addition of “non-transitory memory” is considered an obvious variant of the disclosure of Kim, as Kim directly discloses the use of a Pixhawk “processor”. However, the manufacturer of the taught “processor” teaches that the “processor” is actually a controller that contains memory, as noted in the “Specifications” section of Pixhawk. Therefore, the examiner insists that Kim continues to disclose the independent claim, but presents the teachings of Pixhawk to more explicitly show that memory is also used in the invention disclosed by Kim. The “rationale” to combine is merely to show that the device explicitly used in Kim also contains memory.
Regarding claim 18:
Kim further discloses wherein the point is representative of a human, a neighboring robot, or a virtual agent controlled by the human. (Section [III.B.], Kim discloses a target point set by the operator. The specification does not provide explicit definition for the term “agent” and may reasonably constitute a point set by a human operator)
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of teaching reference Pixhawk in view of Ottenheimer.
Regarding claims 14-16:
First, the examiner notes (as stated on record in prior office action and held as noted above) that claims 2-4 (and corresponding claims 14-16 and 20-22 are analogous dependent claims) pertain to three different species that are merely obvious variants based upon design choice regarding the shape of the desired formation and the type of coordinate system used. The disclosure of Kim is silent regarding alternative shapes or coordinate types. The examiner has located prior art Ottenheimer, which teaches a plurality of drone swarm shapes as discussed in claims 2-4, 14-16, and 20-22 and use of spherical coordinates discussed in claims 4, 16, and 22. Claims 2-3, 14-15, and 20-21 are considered obvious variants of claims 4, 16, and 22 because they merely describe analogous inventions with a design choice to utilize different shapes for the formation and different coordinate systems to quantify the movement of the drones within the formations.
Ottenheimer teaches wherein the type of desired formation is a three-dimensional spherical-based formation, and the relative coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system. (per claim 16) (Paragraph [0022, 0027, 0033, 0117, 0122] and Figure [11], Ottenheimer teaches drones that move in a spherical pattern/formation and that spherical coordinates are utilized)
Kim and Ottenheimer are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Kim to utilize a certain formation and coordinate system as taught by Ottenheimer as these are matters of design choice. Ottenheimer teaches that generally any shapes may be used (geometric patterns such as circles or 3D shapes such as spheres, Ottenheimer Paragraph [0022]) and that spherical coordinates may be used (Ottenheimer, Paragraph [0122]). While Ottenheimer makes these choices in order to search and locate remote objects with a robot swarm (rationale to combine, Ottenheimer, Paragraph [0022]), the examiner insists that mere modulation of the swarm pattern/shape and type of coordinate system used is that of a design choice, and that other shapes and coordinate systems are merely obvious variants thereof. Therefore, claims 2-3, 14-15, and 20-21 are obvious variants of Kim in view of Ottenheimer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of teaching reference Pixhawk in view of Fesland.
Regarding claim 17:
Kim does not explicitly disclose that the formation is dynamic.
However, Fesland, in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control, teaches wherein the desired formation is dynamic. (Column [3] Line [65] through Column [4] Line [10], Figure [1, 4a-4c], Fesland teaches that a swarm of drones is deployed around a ship and that the drones continue to circle around the ship to detect incoming threats)
Kim and Fesland are in a similar field of endeavor of UAV control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the disclosure of Kim with a dynamic swarm formation as taught by Fesland as this is merely a matter of design choice. One may be motivated to have a dynamic formation if the purpose of the UAV swarm is to detect incoming threats while maintaining safe operating distance from other swarm UAVs, as taught by Fesland (Column [2] Lines [30-63], for instance) such that sufficient spacing may be maintained while covering a larger patrol area. However, the choice to make the formation static or dynamic depends upon user preference and specific use cases.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights