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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/080,227, filed on 12/17/2025.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are now pending and have been examined.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clise, Patent No. 11,790,313 B1 in view of Chen, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0267343 A1 and in further view of Sepe, Jr., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0022717 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14, Clise teaches:
An information processing device comprising:
acquire delivery information related to delivery of an article (see at least Column 4, lines 25-35, Column 7, line 56-Column 8, line 13, and Column 12, lines 20-31)
acquire battery information of each of a plurality of an unmanned aerial vehicles deployed, respectively, in a plurality of take-off/landing facilities each of the plurality of takeoff/landing facilities including a charge unit capable of charging an unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30)
determine, based on the delivery information and the battery information of each of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, an action to be implemented for each of the plurality of take-off/landing facilities, each action comprising one of, charging of the unmanned aerial vehicle, discharging of the unmanned aerial vehicle, operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle for delivery of the article, and standby of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30 in which the UAV’s at specific takeoff/landing areas are used for operation for delivery or for standby for other purposes)
wherein the program code is configured to cause take-off landing facility of the plurality of take-off/landing facilities to implement the action (see such as Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 32)
wherein, in a case where the schedule for delivery of an article by an unmanned aerial vehicle for which the operation to deliver the article has been determined is canceled, the determining code causes the at least one processor to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle for delivery of another article in preference to discharging of the unmanned aerial vehicle, as an action to be implemented in the respective take-off/landing facility within a first predetermined time (see such as Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 32 in which UAV’s can be re-assigned to a second item if delivery is unavailable or if that UAV can no longer complete delivery of first item)
Clise, however, does not appear to specify:
acquire delivery schedule information related to a schedule for delivery of an article
determine, based on the delivery schedule information… an action to be implemented
Chen teaches:
acquire delivery schedule information related to a schedule for delivery of an article and determine, based on the delivery schedule information… an action to be implemented (see at least [0067]-[0068] in which UAV’s of the fleet are assigned to an item delivery based at least partially on the necessary delivery schedule parameters)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Chen with Clise because Clise already teaches determination of which UAV to assign a delivery to based on delivery information and battery charge of the UAV, and also discusses shipping information such as in Column 7, line 56-Column 8, line 25, and using delivery schedule as part of a decision making process would ensure that the best UAV for timely delivery is used, especially when there is the expectation of timely delivery from customers.
Clise and Chen, however, does not appear to specify:
a charge/discharge unit capable of discharging
Sepe Jr. teaches:
a charge/discharge unit capable of discharging (see [0021] in which the landing pad can both charge and discharge a delivery drone)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Sepe Jr. with Clise and Chen because Clise already teaches using UAV’s to assign a delivery to based on delivery information and battery charge of the UAV and discusses recharging of UAV batteries at facilities as needed, and it is known in the art that charging facilities can also discharge, and being able to also discharge would allow for the best range of possibilities in managing the UAV’s and their charge/power by being able to both add and subtract from their current power levels as needed.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Clise further teaches:
change an action to be implemented in any of the take-off/landing facilities according to addition to, or change of, the delivery schedule information (see at least such as Column 4, lines 17-44, Column 10, lines 26-41, Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 32 in which actions are adjusted based to weather and other factors)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Clise further teaches:
wherein in a case where the schedule for delivery of another article is not obtained, determine to discharge the unmanned aerial vehicle, as an action to be implemented in the respective take-off/landing facility (see Column 4, lines 17-44, Column 10, lines 26-41, Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 32 in which UAV’s can be re-assigned or put on stand-by for another delivery at the takeoff/landing facility when they are not currently needed)
Chen further teaches:
retrieve a schedule for delivery of another article requiring operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle within the first predetermined time (see at least [0067]-[0068] in which UAV’s of the fleet are assigned to an item delivery based at least partially on the necessary delivery schedule parameters)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Chen with Clise because Clise already teaches determination of which UAV to assign a delivery to based on delivery information and battery charge of the UAV, and also discusses shipping information such as in Column 7, line 56-Column 8, line 25, and using delivery schedule as part of a decision making process would ensure that the best UAV for timely delivery is used, especially when there is the expectation of timely delivery from customers.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Clise further teaches:
identify, based on the delivery information and the battery information of each of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, a first take- off/landing facility of the plurality of take-off/landing facilities in which a first unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles is deployed (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30 in which the UAV’s at specific takeoff/landing areas are selected for operation for delivery of items)
determine to operate the first unmanned aerial vehicle for article delivery, as the action to be performed at the first take-off/landing facility (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30 in which the UAV’s at specific takeoff/landing areas are selected for operation for delivery of items)
Chen teaches:
based on delivery schedule information (see at least [0067]-[0068] in which UAV’s of the fleet are assigned to an item delivery based at least partially on the necessary delivery schedule parameters)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Chen with Clise because Clise already teaches determination of which UAV to assign a delivery to based on delivery information and battery charge of the UAV, and also discusses shipping information such as in Column 7, line 56-Column 8, line 25, and using delivery schedule as part of a decision making process would ensure that the best UAV for timely delivery is used, especially when there is the expectation of timely delivery from customers.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 5
Clise further teaches:
wherein the battery information includes a charged state indicating a remaining amount of a battery of each respective unmanned aerial vehicle and identify the first take-off/landing facility on the basis of a comparison of the respective remaining amounts (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 5
Clise further teaches:
wherein the battery information includes an elapsed time after completion of charging of the battery of each respective unmanned aerial vehicle and identify the first take-off/landing facility on the basis of a comparison of the respective elapsed times (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 5
Clise further teaches:
wherein the battery information includes a use history of the battery of each respective unmanned aerial vehicle and identify the first take-off/landing facility on the basis of a comparison of the respective use histories (see Column 10, lines 26-40, Column 12, lines 25-43, Column 13, lines 19-35 and 48-52, and Column 19, line 41-Column 20, line 30; see also Column 13, lines 1-10 which teaches a UAV use threshold)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Clise further teaches:
identify a second take-off/landing facility of the plurality of take-off/landing facilities in which a second unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles is deployed, whose article delivery start is not scheduled for a second predetermined time or more and determine to discharge the second unmanned aerial vehicle, as the action to be implemented in the second take-off/landing facility (see Column 2, lines 20-22, Column 4, lines 25-35, Column 10, lines 26-62, Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 63 in which various UAV’s are deployed for deliveries even to other takeoff/landing facilities for other deliveries based on current conditions)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Clise further teaches:
identify a third take-off/landing facility of the plurality of take-off/landing facilities in which a third unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles is deployed, whose article delivery start is scheduled after a third predetermined time and determine to charge the unmanned aerial vehicle, as an action to be implemented in the third take-off/landing facility (see Column 2, lines 20-22, Column 4, lines 25-35, Column 10, lines 26-62, Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 63 in which various UAV’s are deployed for deliveries even to other takeoff/landing facilities for other deliveries based on current conditions)
Regarding the “third” numerical limitations, as stated in MPEP 2144.04 and supported by the case of In re Harza, "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." Therefore, the numerical portion of these limitations are considered obvious variants and given little patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 1
Clise further teaches:
acquire a weather forecast, wherein in a case where bad weather continuing for a fifth predetermined time or more after a fourth predetermined time is identified from the weather forecast, identify a fourth take-off/landing facility of the plurality of take-off/landing facilities in which a fourth unmanned aerial vehicle of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles is deployed, the fourth unmanned aerial vehicle having a remaining amount of a battery indicated in the battery information equal to or more than a threshold, determine to discharge the fourth unmanned aerial vehicle, as an action to be implemented in the identified take-off/landing facility (see Column 2, lines 20-22, Column 4, lines 25-35, Column 10, lines 26-62, Column 12, lines 20-52, and Column 13, line 10-Column 14, line 63 in which weather conditions and forecast cause different takeoff/landing pads to be used and different UAV’s to be deployed according to various factors like battery charge amount, and they are deployed or put on stand-by for deliveries) Regarding the “fourth,” “fifth,” and other numerical limitations, as stated in MPEP 2144.04 and supported by the case of In re Harza, "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." Therefore, the numerical portion of these limitations are considered obvious variants and given little patentable weight.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clise, Patent No. 11,790,313 B1 in view of Chen, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0267343 A1 and in further view of Sepe Jr., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0022717 A1 and in further view of Iida, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0266719 A1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the information processing device according to claim 5
Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr., however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the battery information includes a degree of deterioration of the battery of each respective unmanned aerial vehicle
identify the first take-off/landing facility on the basis of a comparison of the respective degrees of deterioration
Iida teaches:
wherein the battery information includes a degree of deterioration of the battery of each respective unmanned aerial vehicle and identify the first take-off/landing facility on the basis of a comparison of the respective degrees of deterioration (see [0096] in which the particular one or more delivery vehicles for the current operation are chosen from the fleet of delivery vehicles based on their state of health including the degree of battery deterioration)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Iida with Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. because Clise already teaches multiple takeoff/landing facilities and determination of battery charge and charging of UAV’s at the facilities, and selecting a UAV from a specific facility based on degree of battery deterioration ensures that those that have deterioration issues are repaired or otherwise addressed and that a UAV might have no issues mid-flight.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clise, Patent No. 11,790,313 B1 in view of Chen, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0267343 A1 and in further view of Sepe Jr., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0022717 A1 and in further view of Wang, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0284043 A1.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the delivery system according to claim 14
Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr., however, does not appear to specify:
wherein each of the take-off/landing facilities further includes a first control device configured to control the charge/discharge unit to supply power discharged from the unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in the take-off/landing facility to the unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in any other take-off/landing facility through a power transmission path
Wang teaches:
wherein each of the take-off/landing facilities further includes a first control device configured to control the charge/discharge unit to supply power discharged from the unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in the take-off/landing facility to the unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in any other take-off/landing facility through a power transmission path (see Figures 1 and 19, [0121], and [0175] in which peer-peer charge transfer on a takeoff/landing pad is taught for a group of UAV’s which can include such as drones)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Wang with Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. because Clise already teaches multiple takeoff/landing facilities and determination of battery charge and charging of UAV’s at the facilities, and allowing for charge transfer from one UAV to another allows for strategic use of the UAV’s based on different conditions.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. teaches:
the delivery system according to claim 14
Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr., however, does not appear to specify:
wherein each of the take-off/landing facilities further includes a second control device configured to control the charge/discharge unit to supply power discharged from the unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in the take-off/landing facility to a related device in a base where the one take- off/landing facility is installed through a power transmission path
Wang teaches:
wherein each of the take-off/landing facilities further includes a second control device configured to control the charge/discharge unit to supply power discharged from the unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in the take-off/landing facility to a related device in a base where the one take- off/landing facility is installed through a power transmission path (see Figures 1 and 19, [0121], and [0175] in which peer-peer charge transfer on a takeoff/landing pad is taught for a group of UAV’s which can include such as drones)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing of the application to combine Wang with Clise, Chen, and Sepe Jr. because Clise already teaches multiple takeoff/landing facilities and determination of battery charge and charging of UAV’s at the facilities, and allowing for charge transfer from one UAV to another allows for strategic use of the UAV’s based on different conditions.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant’s arguments in light of the amendments to the claims have overcome the rejection and the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claims but are MOOT in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments. The examiner notes that the applicant made significant amendments to the claims which changed the scope of the invention and the overall interpretation of the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The following prior art reference was not relied upon in this application but is considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Bian, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0130011 A1- teaches a UAV location that facilitates charge and discharge of UAV’s with power transfer from one UAV to another.
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights