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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 6/7/23, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 7-8 over come the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 12, 17 as written recite “determining required resources consumed by an electronic device at the target location to provide a service to the target location; determining whether available resources at the target location comprise the required resources; determining additional resources needed to provide the required resources to the electronic device in response to determining that the available resources at the target location are less than the required resources; determining at least one autonomous vehicle available to dispatch to the target location to make the additional resources available to the electronic device to consume to provide the service to the target location.” are the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “by a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (e.g., including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). For example, but for the “a processor” language, the context of the limitations recites above encompasses that a person can mentally determine or recognize what resources (e.g. medical equipment, or tool or effector) is needed to do the medical procedure at the target location (e.g. operation room). The person can also check to determine whether the resources are available or not at the target location. If the person checks and determines the lack of resources, then the person can report to the upper-level management to request the resource to be delivered to the site by the autonomous vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under the 2A prong 1 analysist.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to the 2A prong 2 analysist. In particular, the claim using a processor to perform the abstract idea. This step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Further, “sending commands to the at least one autonomous vehicle to control the at least one autonomous vehicle to travel to the target location to provide the additional resources to the electronic device to consume” are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely data outputting the data. The Examiner notice that the feature “to control” is merely an intended use of the sending step and it is not a positively recited step. In the other words, the claim does not recite a particular structure that control the autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to the 2B analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform all of the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or other machinery .
In addition, “sending commands to the at least one autonomous vehicle to control the at least one autonomous vehicle to travel to the target location to provide the additional resources to the electronic device to consume” are not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely data outputting the data. The Examiner notice that the feature “to control” is merely an intended use of the sending step and it is not a positively recited step. In the other words, the claim does not recite a particular structure that control the autonomous vehicle. Therefore, the additional element is not considered as significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely outputting the data which are considered as well understood routine conventional as it has been held by the court. Particularly in receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Noting that claim to a system and a computer program product are held ineligible for the same reason, e.g., the generically-recited computers add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Therefore, the independents 1, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, 18-20 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 11 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ROH ET AL (US 11,464,589). Herein after ROH.
As for claim 1, ROH discloses a computer program product for providing resources (e.g. latency network/bandwidth) to a target location (operation room/surgical site for telesurgery) {see at least abstract, figures 1, 2, 6, col. 4, lines 15-42}, wherein the computer program product comprises a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith that when executed cause operations, the operations comprising:
determining required resources consumed by an electronic device at the target location to provide a service to the target location {see at least figures 6, 8A (step 804), figure 9, (step 910), figure 15 (step 1506), col. 36, lines 32-38; col. 44, lines 38-45 e.g. resources may refer to the operation type, number and type of doctors needed, the hardware requirements, mobile relay points, allocating bandwidth, locations for mobile relay points, bandwidth needed, and expected latency during the telesurgery procedure};
determining whether available resources at the target location comprise the required resources {see at least figures 6, 8A (step 804), figure 9, (step 910), figure 15 (steps 1506-1508), col. 36, lines 32-38; col. 44, lines 38-54; col. 53, lines 25-37 e.g. determining that one or more equipment is available for use at the surgical site for the telesurgery at the scheduled time. Operation 1508 includes sending a first instruction that triggers measurement of a latency of the wireless network. Operation 1510 includes determining, during the telesurgery, whether the latency of the wireless network is acceptable};
determining additional resources needed to provide the required resources to the electronic device in response to determining that the available resources at the target location are less than the required resources; determining at least one autonomous vehicle available to dispatch to the target location to make the additional resources available to the electronic device to consume to provide the service to the target location
{see at least col.3, lines 7-22; col. 49, lines 37-56 and figures 13, 15 (steps 1510-1518 e.g. if the Wi-Fi network module 646 determines that the latency is higher (e.g., if the latency is determined to be greater than a threshold (or maximum allowable latency)), then the Wi-Fi network module 646 may send a message to the computer associated with the central hub 602 to trigger the computer to cause the one or more drones to decrease the distance between the one or more drones, at step 1314, where the message may indicate that the latency is not adequate or acceptable. In yet another case, the Wi-Fi network module 646 may send message to the central hub 602 to trigger the central hub 602 to send and add another drone in the existing mesh network (or existing wireless network), at step 1316. Network, where the message may indicate that the latency is not adequate or acceptable. For example, when the latency is 150 milliseconds, then in addition to the drones placed between Anchorage and Fairbanks, the Wi-Fi network module 646 can send signal to add another drone over the Gulf of Alaska so that the addition of another drone can help reduce the latency to 70 milliseconds; see also col. 50, lines 34-41 e.g. the Wi-Fi network module 646 can send instructions to deploy an additional drone to further reduce latency in a scenario where a certain number of drones (e.g., 4 drones) can allow for latency to be below the maximum allowable latency if the Wi-Fi network module 646 determines that an additional drone is available; Also see figures 15, steps 1510-1518 and col.53, lines 13-50 }; and
sending commands to the at least one autonomous vehicle to control the at least one autonomous vehicle to travel to the target location to provide the additional resources to the electronic device to consume {see at least figures 15, 15, steps 1518, col. 49, lines 65-67 to col. 50, lines 1-14; and col. 53, lines 39-50}.
As for claim 3, ROH discloses wherein the required resources comprise required network bandwidth, wherein the available resources comprise available network bandwidth at the target location provides to the electronic device, and the additional resources comprise additional network bandwidth needed to provide the required network bandwidth to the target location, wherein the at least one autonomous vehicle provides the additional network bandwidth via wireless transmission with the electronic device at the target location to provide the service {see at least figures 6, 8A (step 804), figure 9, (step 910), figure 15 (steps 1506-1508), col. 2, lines 52-67; col. 3, lines 7-22; col. 36, lines 32-38; col. 44, lines 38-54; col. 49, lines 37-56; col. 53, lines 25-37}.
As for claim 4, ROH discloses wherein the determining the at least one available autonomous vehicle comprises determining autonomous vehicles that can be positioned in a formation along a route from the target location to a cell area having the required network bandwidth to connect the target location to the cell area, wherein the sending the commands comprises sending the commands to the determined autonomous vehicles to control the autonomous vehicles to be arranged in the formation to provide the required network bandwidth between the electronic device at the target location, through the autonomous vehicles, to the cell area {see at least col. 43, lines 1-50; col. 46, lines 37-65; col. 49, lines 37-56; col. 53, lines 25-37}.
As for claim 5, ROH discloses wherein the determining the at least one autonomous vehicle comprises determining autonomous vehicles to dispatch to the target location, wherein least one of the autonomous vehicles at the target location provide the additional network bandwidth between the electronic device and a first network transmission station and wherein at least one of the determined autonomous vehicles at the target location provides the additional network bandwidth between the electronic device and a second network transmission station {see at least col. 43, lines 1-50; col. 49, lines 37-56; col. 50, lines 34-41; col. 53, lines 25-37}.
As for claim 6, ROH discloses wherein the target location comprises a target vehicle (mobile surgical room) including the electronic device in transit to a destination location, wherein the determining the at least one autonomous vehicle comprises determining autonomous vehicles to dispatch to the target vehicle while in transit to provide the required network bandwidth, and wherein the sending the commands comprises sending the commands to the determined autonomous vehicles to provide the required network bandwidth to the electronic device in the target vehicle while in transit to the destination location {see at least figure 1, col. 4, lines 28-39; col. 43, lines 1-50; col. 46, lines 37-65; col. 49, lines 37-56; col. 53, lines 25-37}.
As for claim 9, ROH discloses wherein the operations further comprise: receiving target location information to provide the service to the target location {see at least figure 15,step 1502}; determining from the target location information the service to provide, a service duration of the service, and the required resources for the electronic device to provide the service for the service duration {see at least figure 15, steps 1504-1508} and determining, from the service, the service duration, the electronic device, and the required resources, the at least one autonomous vehicle to travel to the target location to provide the required resources to implement the service {see at least figure 15, steps 1508-0518 and the related text}.
As for claim 10, ROH discloses wherein the target location comprises an emergency vehicle and the electronic device in the emergency vehicle comprises a medical treatment device that uses the required network bandwidth to provide emergency care to a patient in the emergency vehicle {see at least col. 4, lines 28-39; col. 43, lines 1-50}, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving measured medical findings of a patient in the emergency vehicle; and using a medical diagnosis engine to determine a medical diagnosis and emergency care to provide to the patient using the medical treatment device, wherein the determining the required network bandwidth comprises determining network bandwidth the medical treatment device requires to communicate with a health care provider at a remote location to deliver the emergency care to the patient { col. 49, lines 37-56; col. 50, lines 34-41; col. 53, lines 25-37}.
As for claim 11, ROH discloses wherein the at least one autonomous vehicle comprises at least one of an aerial drone, a motor vehicle, a boat, a submarine, a helicopter, and an airplane {see at least abstract}.
As for claims 12-20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejected above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROH as applied to claims above and in view of KREINER ET AL (US 2023/0108953). Herein after KREINER.
As for claim 2, ROH discloses claimed invention as indicated above except for wherein the required resources comprise required power, the available resources comprise available power, and the additional resources comprise additional power, wherein the additional power comprises the required power less the available power at the target location, wherein the at least one autonomous vehicle travels to the target location to provide the additional power via wireless transmission to the electronic device to provide the service at the target location. However, KREINER suggest the teaching of identifying at least one autonomous vehicle that is capable of providing the resource (e.g. electric power) to a location that has power outage, transmit an instruction to the autonomous vehicle to deploy to the location to provide the service {see at least abstract, figures 1-2, pars. 0010-0011, 0013, figure 33, pars. 0050- 0057}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of KREINER into the system of ROH for deploying the autonomous vehicle to the surgical cite to allocate the resource (e.g. power) in the event that the surgical cite need more electric power for surgery procedure more efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tofighbakhsh et al (US 2020/0314622): Fig. 4, par. 0058 discloses allocating resources to the mobile device 102, the RIC 200 can facilitate the assistance of another resource (e.g., drone camera 402) by deploying/dispatching the drone camera 402 to the location of the emergency and providing wireless resources (e.g., bandwidth, QoS, etc.) to the drone camera 402 to facilitate documentation or mitigation of the emergency.
Araujo et al (US 2024/0241520): Aspects of drone-assisted offroad vehicle emergency systems are addressed. In one aspect, a system includes an offroad vehicle having integrated therein a processing system coupled to a user interface. The processing system is configured to respond to a potential emergency situation including a stranded or lost person or a hazardous condition in a path of the vehicle.
Perumalla et al (US 2023/0311688): A system for electrically charging a first autonomous vehicle (that is, the charged vehicle) by a second autonomous vehicle (that is, charging vehicle) through a wired connection while the vehicles are travelling over a roadway (for example, an interstate highway).
Tran et al (US 2023/0309072): a drone service retrieving network state information describing a network state of at least a portion of a communication network, determining an impact of the network state on operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), selecting a carrier frequency to be used for communication by the UAV, and providing the data describing the carrier frequency to the UAV and/or to communication network nodes. Other embodiments are disclosed.
Boys (US 2023/0402850): A method of forming an emergency response and continuity of operations (COOP) area-wide grid of microgrids is provided. The method can include: upon an power outage occurring to an Utility power Distribution grid network, identifying one or more nodes having an electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights