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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “controller flying roaming edge device” in claims 1-20, “worker land roaming edge device” in claims 1-20, “asset management system” in claims 4-8, 12, and 16-20, and “communication fabric” in claims 9-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “controller flying roaming edge device” in claims 1-20, “worker land roaming edge device” in claims 1-20, “asset management system” in claims 4-8, 12, and 16-20, and “communication fabric” in claims 9-12 all use a generic placeholder “device”, “system”, or “fabric” coupled with functional language
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic
placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Controller flying roaming edge device: [0012] - Computer 101 is located in controller edge device 107. Controller edge device 107 may take any form of flying roaming edge device that can, for example, fly, hover, or the like in the air above the ground at any altitude over a defined area. Controller edge device 107 manages task performance of worker edge device set 103, which operates in the defined area, using worker edge device management code 200. Worker edge device set 103 represents one or more worker land roaming edge devices under operational control by controller edge device 107.
Worker land roaming edge device: [0023] - Worker edge device set 103 may take any form of worker land roaming edge devices that can, for example, wheel, tread, roll, crawl, squirm, slither, hop, or the like over terrain to a specified location (e.g., a way point) along a defined navigation path to perform a set of assigned tasks, functions, actions, jobs, duties, or the like. Worker edge device set 103 receives relevant data from the operations of computer 101. For example, computer 101 is designed to provide navigation path adjustments to worker edge device set 103 when worker edge device management code 200 detects unexpected obstructions or obstacles in the navigation paths of worker edge device set 103. Computer 101 utilizes network module 115 to communicate the navigation path adjustments to worker edge device set 103 via WAN 102.
Asset management system: [0062] - Asset management system 208 may be, for example, remote server 104 in Figure 1.
Communication fabric: [0017] - Communication fabric 111 is the signal conduction path that allows the various components of computer 101 to communicate with each other. Typically, this fabric is made of switches and electrically conductive paths, such as the switches and electrically conductive paths that make up busses, bridges, physical input / output ports, and the like. Other types of signal communication paths may be used, such as fiber optic communication paths and/or wireless communication paths.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, and 14-20 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.
Claim 2 (and similarly claims 10 and 14) recites “detecting, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the set of worker land roaming edge devices operating in the defined area using a set of analytical models” and it is unclear if the set of analytical models are used for the detecting or for the operating. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the set of analytical models are used for the detecting, the operating, or both.
Claim 4 (and similarly claims 12 and 16) recites “responsive to the controller flying roaming edge device determining that the selected worker land roaming edge device cannot perform the assigned task corresponding to that particular way point based on the assessment of the ability of the selected worker land roaming edge device, determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the set of task performance alternatives to perform the assigned task” and it is unclear to the examiner what is being conveyed by this limitation. The set of task performance alternatives as introduced in claim 1 (and similarly introduced in claims 9 and 13) appear to adjust the navigation path in response to determining that the device cannot reach the asset, however in claim 4 (and similarly in claims 12 and 16) appears to be referring to the set of task performance alternatives when the device cannot perform the task. These are different situations/scenarios and therefore it is unclear if the claims are referring to the same set of task performance alternatives or different ones. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that claim 4 (and similarly claims 12 and 16) are referring to different task performance alternatives.
Claims 3-8, 11-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 2, 10, and 14 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 13-20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims are drawn to a “computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium” which is software per se and does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Edlerman (‘Autonomous Multi-Robot System for use in Vineyards and Orchard’) in view of Gaschler (US 2021/0200219 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 13, Edlerman discloses a computer-implemented method for adjusting a navigation path of a worker land roaming edge device, a controller flying roaming edge device for adjusting a navigation path of a worker land roaming edge device, and a computer program product for adjusting a navigation path of a worker land roaming edge device, the computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, comprising: a communication fabric; a storage device connected to the communication fabric, wherein the storage device stores program instructions; and a processor connected to the communication fabric, wherein the processor executes the program instructions (see at least page 274 - The proposed configuration includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) observing the orchard/vineyard from above, providing useful information based on its GPS, IMU and onboard camera. The overhead UAV benefits from a strong GPS signal and a clear view of the orchard/vineyard, so that it can feed a formation of UGVs with information about their positions and obstacles. The goal being to create a simple, reliable and affordable system, the ”master and slaves” configuration seems most appropriate. In this configuration one sophisticated robot can control a fleet of affordable robots. In this study, the UAV acts as the master and includes a much more capable computer while the UGV controller is very simple and does not need to handle complex tasks such as image processing algorithms. Accordingly, in this study all the computations were done on the UAV side.) to: identifying, by a controller flying roaming edge device, the worker land roaming edge device moving along a navigation path to an asset to perform a task (see at least pages 274-275 - The proposed configuration includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) observing the orchard/vineyard from above, providing useful information based on its GPS, IMU and onboard camera. The overhead UAV benefits from a strong GPS signal and a clear view of the orchard/vineyard, so that it can feed a formation of UGVs with information about their positions and obstacles… In this study, the UAV acts as the master and includes a much more capable computer while the UGV controller is very simple and does not need to handle complex tasks such as image processing algorithms. Accordingly, in this study all the computations were done on the UAV side… Since the UAV constantly overviews the whole UGV fleet it can easily adjust in real-time the mission of each UGV if needed (for instance if one of the UGVs fails or new obstacles appear).); determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, that the worker land roaming edge device cannot reach the asset to perform the task due to an environment change along the navigation path (see at least pages 274-275 - Since the UAV constantly overviews the whole UGV fleet it can easily adjust in real-time the mission of each UGV if needed (for instance if one of the UGVs fails or new obstacles appear).); generating, by the controller flying roaming edge device, a task performance alternative in response to determining that the worker land roaming edge device cannot reach the asset to perform the task (see at least pages 274-275 - Accordingly, in this study all the computations were done on the UAV side… Since the UAV constantly overviews the whole UGV fleet it can easily adjust in real-time the mission of each UGV if needed (for instance if one of the UGVs fails or new obstacles appear).); adjusting, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the navigation path of the worker land roaming edge device in accordance with the task performance alternative to form an adjusted navigation path (see at least pages 274-275 - Accordingly, in this study all the computations were done on the UAV side… Since the UAV constantly overviews the whole UGV fleet it can easily adjust in real-time the mission of each UGV if needed (for instance if one of the UGVs fails or new obstacles appear).); and sending, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the adjusted navigation path to the worker land roaming edge device to dynamically adjust operation of the worker land roaming edge device (see at least pages 274-275 and 278 - Accordingly, in this study all the computations were done on the UAV side… Since the UAV constantly overviews the whole UGV fleet it can easily adjust in real-time the mission of each UGV if needed (for instance if one of the UGVs fails or new obstacles appear)… the UAV sends the waypoints to the UGV).
Edlerman does not appear to explicitly disclose generating a set of task performance alternatives; selecting, by the controller flying roaming edge device, a task performance alternative of the set of task performance alternatives based on a set of criteria to form a selected task performance alternative.
Gaschler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: generating a set of task performance alternatives; selecting, by the controller flying roaming edge device, a task performance alternative of the set of task performance alternatives based on a set of criteria to form a selected task performance alternative (see at least [0034-0037] – an unexpected obstacle is interfering with the planned path of the robot… analyze multiple alternative motion plans… select one of the alternative motion plans that can move the robot to the end point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Gaschler into the invention of Edlerman with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of efficiently adapting to changes such as obstacles by analyzing multiple alternative motion plans and selecting one that may be more efficient than the initial plan (Gaschler – [0004, 0035-0036]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 14, Edlerman discloses further comprising: performing, by the controller flying roaming edge device, monitoring of a defined area where a set of worker land roaming edge devices is operating (see at least page 274 - The proposed configuration includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) observing the orchard/vineyard from above, providing useful information based on its GPS, IMU and onboard camera. The overhead UAV benefits from a strong GPS signal and a clear view of the orchard/vineyard, so that it can feed a formation of UGVs with information about their positions and obstacles.); and detecting, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the set of worker land roaming edge devices operating in the defined area using a set of analytical models (see at least page 277 – extracting robot positions using computer vision algorithms).
Claims 3, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Edlerman in view of Gaschler and Zhao (US 11,254,003 B1).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 15, Edlerman does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: selecting, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the worker land roaming edge device from the set of worker land roaming edge devices operating in the defined area to form a selected worker land roaming edge device; obtaining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, an identifier and a navigation path status from the selected worker land roaming edge device; and retrieving, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the navigation path corresponding to the selected worker land roaming edge device from a navigation path repository using the identifier of the selected worker land roaming edge device, the navigation path including a set way points, each way point of the set of way points corresponding to an assigned task of a set of assigned tasks of the selected worker land roaming edge device.
Gaschler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: selecting, by the controller roaming edge device, the worker land roaming edge device from the set of worker land roaming edge devices operating in the defined area to form a selected worker land roaming edge device (see at least [0023, 0039-0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Gaschler into the invention of Edlerman with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of generating and scheduling tasks to be performed by robots (Gaschler – [0023]). This facilitates coordinating the tasks performed by the robots, and this modification be implemented to yield predictable results.
Zhao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: obtaining, by the controller roaming edge device, an identifier and a navigation path status from the selected worker land roaming edge device (see at least column 6, lines 44-59 – In some implementations, the robot 110 sends sensor data and/or map data to the server system 104, allowing the server system 104 to determine the locations and sizes of the obstacles 118, 120. The robot 110 can provide other information to the server system 104 such as data indicating the current location of the robot 110, data indicating the destination for the robot, an identifier for the robot, a task or instruction the robot 110 is attempting to carry out, and so on.); and retrieving, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the navigation path corresponding to the selected worker land roaming edge device from a navigation path repository using the identifier of the selected worker land roaming edge device, the navigation path including a set way points, each way point of the set of way points corresponding to an assigned task of a set of assigned tasks of the selected worker land roaming edge device (see at least column 6, lines 44-59 and column 11, lines 6-26 - In some implementations, the robot 110 sends sensor data and/or map data to the server system 104, allowing the server system 104 to determine the locations and sizes of the obstacles 118, 120. The robot 110 can provide other information to the server system 104 such as data indicating the current location of the robot 110, data indicating the destination for the robot, an identifier for the robot, a task or instruction the robot 110 is attempting to carry out, and so on… During stage (E), the server system 104 transmits the enhanced path data 136 representing the results of the path planning algorithm to the robot 110 over the network 106. The enhanced path data 136 can include the coordinates specifying points along the enhanced path. For the illustrated example, the enhanced path data 136 may indicate coordinates for vertices L, V0, V1, R, and D. These coordinates may be GPS coordinates or may be expressed in another coordinate frame, for example, with respect to a mapping data used by the robot 110. In some implementations, the server system 104 can store the enhanced path data 136 in the database 108 and provide to the robot 110 an address, index, or other data enabling the robot 110 to retrieve the enhanced path data 136 from the database 108.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhao into the invention of Edlerman with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the planned path by optimizing the path while taking into account potential obstacles (Zhao – column 1, lines 16-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 12, and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 16, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious the following limitations in their entirety:
“determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, whether the selected worker land roaming edge device is currently en route to a way point of the set of way points in the navigation path; responsive to the controller flying roaming edge device determining that the selected worker land roaming edge device is not currently en route to a way point of the set of way points in the navigation path, determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, that the selected worker land roaming edge device has reached the way point and is ready to perform an assigned task corresponding to that particular way point; retrieving, by the controller flying roaming edge device, details corresponding to an asset associated with the assigned task that corresponds to that particular way point from an asset management system; performing, by the controller flying roaming edge device, an assessment of an ability of the selected worker land roaming edge device to perform the assigned task corresponding to that particular way point based on the details corresponding to the asset associated with the assigned task; determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, whether the selected worker land roaming edge device can perform the assigned task corresponding to that particular way point based on the assessment of the ability of the selected worker land roaming edge device; and responsive to the controller flying roaming edge device determining that the selected worker land roaming edge device cannot perform the assigned task corresponding to that particular way point based on the assessment of the ability of the selected worker land roaming edge device, determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, the set of task performance alternatives to perform the assigned task.”
Edlerman, the closest prior art of record, teaches the following limitations: determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, whether the selected worker land roaming edge device is currently en route to a way point of the set of way points in the navigation path (see at least pages 274-275 and 278); determining, by the controller flying roaming edge device, that the selected worker land roaming edge device has reached the way point (see at least page 278).
Zhao teaches the following limitations: determining, by the controller roaming edge device, whether the selected worker land roaming edge device is currently en route to a way point of the set of way points in the navigation path (see at least column 6, lines 44-59 and column 11, lines 6-26); determining, by the controller roaming edge device, that the selected worker land roaming edge device has reached the way point and is ready to perform an assigned task corresponding to that particular way point (see at least column 6, lines 44-59 and column 11, lines 6-26).
Baroudi (US 2018/0326583 A1) teaches the following limitations: retrieving details corresponding to an asset associated with the assigned task from an asset management system (see at least [0066]); performing an assessment of an ability of the selected worker roaming edge device to perform the assigned task based on the details corresponding to the asset associated with the assigned task (see at least [0048, 0050, 0065-0066]); determining whether the selected worker roaming edge device can perform the assigned task based on the assessment of the ability of the selected worker roaming edge device (see at least [0048, 0050, 0065-0066]).
Nonetheless, it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Edlerman, Zhao, and Baroudi in a meaningful way to arrive at the claimed invention without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claims 5-8 and 17-20 depend from claims 4 and 16, and therefore would be allowable for the same reasons as claims 4 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Klinger (US 2017/0229025 A1) is directed to an unmanned vehicle. The unmanned vehicle can include a memory unit that is configured to store a planned path of the unmanned vehicle. The unmanned vehicle can also include a position unit that is configured to determine a current position of the unmanned vehicle, the position unit further configured to determine a planned position of the unmanned vehicle based on the planned path data stored in the memory unit. The unmanned vehicle can further include a control unit disposed in communication with the position unit, the control unit configured to determine a deviation based on the planned position and the current position of the unmanned vehicle, and control a movement of the unmanned vehicle such that the unmanned vehicle moves along the planned path if the deviation is less than a predetermined threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669