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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 25 February 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim(s) 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 6-7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 6-7 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn. However, with regard to claims 1-7 and 9-10, Applicant argues:
“Amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner’s Response:
See MPEP 2106.04(d). After determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Applicant states amended claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to the steps of “selecting a target dock apparatus that has at least one idle UAV and the dispatching instruction case the dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among the idle UAVs”, see remarks at pages 16, as limitations that enforce availability at the point of selection and prevents assignment of a task to a UAV that is already in operation. Additionally, Applicant states these limitations are integral to controlling dispatch of physical UAVs and are not merely data gathering or extra-solution activity. Firstly, the Examiner has not identified these limitations as mere data gathering. These limitations of selecting a target dock apparatus that has at least one idle UAV and selecting the target UAV from among the idle UAVs are mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Additionally, these steps of selecting a target dock apparatus that has at least one idle UAV and selecting the target UAV from among the idle UAVs occur but there is never actual integration into a practical application because there is no dispatch of the UAV in response to the selecting that is occurring or control of the UAV that is occurring. Therefore, the abstract idea is not being implemented. Independent claim 16 recites “send a dispatching instruction to the target dock apparatus to instruct the target dock apparatus to select, from the one or more UAVs, a target UAV to perform the target task, and control the target UAV to perform the target task, the dispatching instruction causing the target dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among the at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status”. In other words, claim 16 includes the target dock apparatus selecting, from the one or more UAVs, a target UAV to perform the target task and then also controls the target UAV to perform the target task, which integrates the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. See rejection below.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 17-20, filed 25 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Peeters et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Peeters et al. (US 20160244163 A1) in view of Gil et al. (US 20190122172 A1) in further view of Kerzner et al. (US 20210255636 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are directed towards a server, i.e., machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1-7 and 9-10 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claim 1, the server (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) determine a target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the task description information and the status information, including selecting, as the target dock apparatus, a dock apparatus that has at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status; and (b) the dispatching instruction causing the target dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among UAVs having the status identification information indicating the idle status. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can mentally determine a target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the task description information and the status information, select a dock apparatus that has at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status; and select the target UAV from among UAVs having the status identification information indicating the idle status, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the determining is being performed by a processor or apparatus (i.e., computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “at least one processor”, “and at least one memory including computer program code, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server to…” and “the one or more UAVs being carried by and communicatively connected to the target dock apparatus”. The one or more UAVs being carried by and communicatively connected to the target dock apparatus does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Data gathering is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Obtain task description information of a target task and status information of one or more dock apparatuses communicatively connected to the server, the status information of each dock apparatus being generated based on status information of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) communicatively connected to the dock apparatus and including, for each UAV, status identification information indicating whether the UAV is in an idle status or an operation status, is mere data gathering. Therefore, obtain task description information of a target task and status information of one or more dock apparatuses communicatively connected to the server, the status information of each dock apparatus being generated based on status information of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) communicatively connected to the dock apparatus and including, for each UAV, status identification information indicating whether the UAV is in an idle status or an operation status is insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, receiving and transmitting data over a network is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Send a dispatching instruction to the target dock apparatus to instruct the target dock apparatus to select, according to the dispatching instruction, a target UAV from one or more UAVs to perform the target task, as claimed, is transmitting data. Therefore, send a dispatching instruction to the target dock apparatus to instruct the target dock apparatus to select, according to the dispatching instruction, a target UAV from one or more UAVs to perform the target task is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Send a dispatching instruction to the target dock apparatus to instruct the target dock apparatus to select, according to the dispatching instruction, a target UAV from one or more UAVs to perform the target task is transmitting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “send a dispatching instruction to the target dock apparatus to instruct the target dock apparatus to select, according to the dispatching instruction, a target UAV from one or more UAVs to perform the target task” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2-7 and 9-10 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters et al. (US 20160244163 A1) in view of Gil et al. (US 20190122172 A1) in further view of Kerzner et al. (US 20210255636 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Peeters teaches a server comprising: at least one processor (see ¶[0008] “processor”); and at least one memory including computer program code (see ¶[0008] “non-transitory computer readable medium”), where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server to at least: obtain task description information of a target task (see ¶[0008] “remote medical situation” and “target location”) and status information of one or more dock apparatuses communicatively connected to the server (see ¶[0054] “may keep track of which UAVs 404 are located at which local dispatch systems 410”); determine a target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the task description information and the status information (see ¶[0056] “central dispatch system 408 may select an available UAV that is within a certain distance from the person's home (which may or may not be the closest), and which is configured to provide medical support when cardiac arrest has occurred”); and send a dispatching instruction to the target dock apparatus to instruct the target dock apparatus to select, according to the dispatching instruction, a target UAV from one or more UAVs to perform the target task (see ¶[0057] “central dispatch system 408 may forward a request for medical support to a local dispatch system”).
Peeters does not explicitly teach the status information of each dock apparatus being generated based on status information of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) communicatively connected to the dock apparatus and including, for each UAV, status identification information indicating whether the UAV is in an idle status or an operation status; selecting, as the target dock apparatus, a dock apparatus that has at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status; the dispatching instruction causing the target dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among UAVs having the status identification information indicating the idle status, the one or more UAVs being carried by and communicatively connected to the target dock apparatus. However, Gil discloses unmanned aerial vehicle pick-up and delivery systems and teaches the one or more UAVs being carried by and communicatively connected to the target dock apparatus (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0208] “UAV support mechanism” “communication connection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the one or more UAVs being carried by and communicatively connected to the target dock apparatus, as taught by Gil, to provide allowing messages to be sent and received from the UAV to a vehicle computing entity. (Gil at ¶[0208])
The combination of Peeters and Gil does not explicitly teach the status information of each dock apparatus being generated based on status information of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) communicatively connected to the dock apparatus and including, for each UAV, status identification information indicating whether the UAV is in an idle status or an operation status; selecting, as the target dock apparatus, a dock apparatus that has at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status; the dispatching instruction causing the target dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among UAVs having the status identification information indicating the idle status. However, Kerzner discloses a mobile docking station and teaches the status information of each dock apparatus being generated based on status information of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) communicatively connected to the dock apparatus (see ¶[0083] “current status information of the overall system” and ¶[0087] “devices are selected based on a comparison of how many capabilities of the required capabilities they can provide in addition to other factors such as… current operational status”, it is inherent that if an UAV is not operational and is connected to a mobile docking station, that mobile docking station status will be affected as well) and including, for each UAV, status identification information indicating whether the UAV is in an idle status or an operation status (¶[0087] “devices are selected based on a comparison of how many capabilities of the required capabilities they can provide in addition to other factors such as… current operational status”); selecting, as the target dock apparatus, a dock apparatus that has at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status ((see ¶[0083] “current status information of the overall system”; ¶[0090] “mobile docking station 106 also carries the devices 108 and 109” and ¶[0087] “devices are selected based on a comparison of how many capabilities of the required capabilities they can provide in addition to other factors such as… current operational status”); the dispatching instruction causing the target dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among UAVs having the status identification information indicating the idle status (¶[0090] “mobile docking station 106 also carries the devices 108 and 109” and ¶[0087] “devices are selected based on a comparison of how many capabilities of the required capabilities they can provide in addition to other factors such as… current operational status”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the status information of each dock apparatus being generated based on status information of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) communicatively connected to the dock apparatus and including, for each UAV, status identification information indicating whether the UAV is in an idle status or an operation status; selecting, as the target dock apparatus, a dock apparatus that has at least one UAV having the status identification information indicating the idle status; the dispatching instruction causing the target dock apparatus to select the target UAV from among UAVs having the status identification information indicating the idle status, as taught by Kerzner, to provide selecting devices to send to a location based on a comparison of, for example, current operational status. (Kerzner at ¶[0087])
Regarding claim 2, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine one or more candidate dock apparatuses from the one or more dock apparatuses and determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more candidate dock apparatuses (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “central dispatch system 408 may select an available UAV that is within a certain distance from the person's home (which may or may not be the closest), and which is configured to provide medical support when cardiac arrest has occurred” and “central dispatch system 408 may forward a request for medical support to a local dispatch system”); and/or determine one or more candidate UAVs from the one or more UAVs and determine the target UAV from the one or more candidate UAVs (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “selection of a particular UAV 404”).
Regarding claim 3, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein: the task description information includes a first position of a task execution area of the target task (see ¶[0008] “remote medical situation” and “target location”), and the status information includes a second position of each dock apparatus of the one or more dock apparatuses (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location” “select the closest available”); and the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position of each dock apparatus; or determine one or more candidate dock apparatuses from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position of each dock apparatus and determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more candidate dock apparatuses (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location” “select the closest available” (i.e., determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position of each dock apparatus)).
Regarding claim 4, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 3, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: for each dock apparatus, determine, according to the first position and the second position of the dock apparatus, a distance between and/or a length corresponding to a flight path between the task execution area and the dock apparatus (see ¶[0054]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location”, “select the closest available” and “central dispatch system 408 may be configured to coordinate the dispatch of UAVs 404 from a number of different local dispatch systems 410”, (i.e., the central dispatch system )); and determine the target dock apparatus according to the distance and/or the length corresponding to the flight path of each dock apparatus (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location” “select the closest available”).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein: the task description information includes a first payload type of a payload for the target task (see ¶[0119] “a medical-support system identifying a remote medical situation” “select a UAV from a plurality of UAVs, where the selection of the UAV is based at least in part on a determination that the selected UAV is configured for the identified medical situation”; also, see ¶[0105] “transport items to the scene of a medical situation”), and the status information includes a second payload type of a payload of a UAV of the one or more UAVs (see ¶[0119] “select a UAV from a plurality of UAVs, where the selection of the UAV is based at least in part on a determination that the selected UAV is configured for the identified medical situation”; also, see ¶[0105] “transport items to the scene of a medical situation”); and the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: match the first payload type with the second payload type to obtain a payload matching result (see ¶[0119] “select a UAV from a plurality of UAVs, where the selection of the UAV is based at least in part on a determination that the selected UAV is configured for the identified medical situation”); and determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the payload matching result (see ¶[0054]-[0057] “central dispatch system 408 may select an available UAV that is within a certain distance from the person's home (which may or may not be the closest), and which is configured to provide medical support when cardiac arrest has occurred” and “central dispatch system 408 may be configured to coordinate the dispatch of UAVs 404 from a number of different local dispatch systems 410”).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 5, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine a dock apparatus corresponding to the payload matching result indicating that the second payload type matches the first payload type as the target dock apparatus; or determine one or more candidate dock apparatuses each corresponding to the payload matching result indicating that the second payload type matches the first payload type and determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more candidate dock apparatuses (see ¶[0054]-[0057] “central dispatch system 408 may select an available UAV that is within a certain distance from the person's home (which may or may not be the closest), and which is configured to provide medical support when cardiac arrest has occurred” and “central dispatch system 408 may be configured to coordinate the dispatch of UAVs 404 from a number of different local dispatch systems 410”).
Regarding claim 7, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 6, wherein: the task description information further includes a first position of a task execution area of the target task (see ¶[0008] “remote medical situation” and “target location”), the status information further includes a second position of each dock apparatus of the one or more dock apparatuses (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location” “select the closest available”), and the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more candidate dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location” “select the closest available” (i.e., determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position of each dock apparatus)); or the status information further includes meteorological information of an area where the dock apparatus is located, and the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: filter the one or more candidate dock apparatuses according to the meteorological information to determine at least one filtered candidate dock apparatus, the meteorological information of the at least one filtered candidate dock apparatus satisfying a predetermined meteorological condition; and determine the target dock apparatus from the at least one filtered candidate dock apparatus (see ¶[0056]-[0057] “local dispatch system 410 near the location” “select the closest available” (i.e., determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position of each dock apparatus); the Examiner notes the claim recites the status information further includes a second position of each dock apparatus of the one or more dock apparatuses, and the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine the target dock apparatus from the one or more candidate dock apparatuses according to the first position and the second position; OR the status information further includes meteorological information of an area where the dock apparatus is located…).
Regarding claim 19, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 16, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain information of a target object around the target dock apparatus (see ¶[0079] “one or more sensors that allow the UAV to sense objects in the environment”); and determine a flight path of the target UAV according to the information of the target object (see ¶[0023] “autonomously controls more fine-grained navigation decisions, such as the specific route to take between the two locations, specific flight controls to achieve the route and avoid obstacles while navigating the route”); wherein: when the target object includes an obstacle, the target UAV avoids the obstacle during a process of performing the target task along the flight path; and/or when the target object includes a task object, the target UAV performs the target task at a position indicated by the task object along the flight path (see ¶[0023] “autonomously controls more fine-grained navigation decisions, such as the specific route to take between the two locations, specific flight controls to achieve the route and avoid obstacles while navigating the route”).
Regarding claim 20, Peeters teaches the server according to claim 19, wherein: the information of the target object around the target dock apparatus is obtained based on a detection device of the target dock apparatus (see ¶[0079] “one or more sensors that allow the UAV to sense objects in the environment”); and the target dock apparatus is in a moving status or a static status (see ¶[0057] “local dispatch system”; see ¶[0063] “deployment systems”; the Examiner notes the target dock apparatus will always be either moving or not moving).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters et al. (US 20160244163 A1) in view of Gil et al. (US 20190122172 A1) in view of Kerzner et al. (US 20210255636 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Buchmueller et al. (US 20160257401 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a prepare-to-land request sent by a prepare-to-land UAV; determine a prepare-to-land dock apparatus configured to prepare landing of the prepare-to-land UAV from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the prepare-to-land request; and control the prepare-to-land UAV to fly to the prepare-to-land dock apparatus. However, Buchmueller discloses landing unmanned aerial vehicles on transportation vehicles and teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a prepare-to-land request sent by a prepare-to-land UAV (see ¶[0023] “a message regarding a planned landing may be sent”); determine a prepare-to-land dock apparatus configured to prepare landing of the prepare-to-land UAV from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the prepare-to-land request (see ¶[0023] “a message regarding a planned landing may be sent to a management system and/or driver of a transportation vehicle, to allow the management system and/or driver to confirm that the landing is acceptable”); and control the prepare-to-land UAV to fly to the prepare-to-land dock apparatus (see ¶[0022]-[0023] “landing of the UAV”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, obtain a prepare-to-land request sent by a prepare-to-land UAV; determine a prepare-to-land dock apparatus configured to prepare landing of the prepare-to-land UAV from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the prepare-to-land request; and control the prepare-to-land UAV to fly to the prepare-to-land dock apparatus, as taught by Buchmueller, to provide allowing the management system to confirm the landing is acceptable and to be prepared for the landing. (Buchmueller at ¶[0023])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 8, wherein: the prepare-to-land request includes a current position of the prepare-to-land UAV; the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a position of each of the one or more dock apparatuses; and determine the prepare-to-land dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the position of each of the one or more dock apparatuses and the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV. However, Buchmueller discloses landing unmanned aerial vehicles on transportation vehicles and teaches the server according to claim 8, wherein: the prepare-to-land request includes a current position of the prepare-to-land UAV (see ¶[0034] “current location”); the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a position of each of the one or more dock apparatuses (see ¶[0023]-[0024] “closest transportation vehicle”); and determine the prepare-to-land dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the position of each of the one or more dock apparatuses and the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV (see ¶[0023]-[0024] “closest transportation vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein: the prepare-to-land request includes a current position of the prepare-to-land UAV; the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a position of each of the one or more dock apparatuses; and determine the prepare-to-land dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the position of each of the one or more dock apparatuses and the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV, as taught by Buchmueller, to provide emergency landing at a first available or closest transportation vehicle. (Buchmueller at ¶[0024])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 9, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine a distance between the prepare-to-land UAV and each dock apparatus according to the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV and the position of each dock apparatus and/or a length corresponding to a flight path for the prepare-to-land UAV to fly to each dock apparatus of the one or more dock apparatuses according to the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV and the position of each dock apparatus; and determine the prepare-to-land dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the distance and/or the length corresponding to the flight path. However, Buchmueller discloses landing unmanned aerial vehicles on transportation vehicles and teaches the server according to claim 9, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine a distance between the prepare-to-land UAV and each dock apparatus according to the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV and the position of each dock apparatus and/or a length corresponding to a flight path for the prepare-to-land UAV to fly to each dock apparatus of the one or more dock apparatuses according to the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV and the position of each dock apparatus (see ¶[0023]-[0024] “closest transportation vehicle”, i.e., determining distances to transportation vehicles to determine the closest vehicle); and determine the prepare-to-land dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the distance and/or the length corresponding to the flight path (see ¶[0023]-[0024] “landing” “closest transportation vehicle”, i.e., determining distances to transportation vehicles to determine the closest vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, determine a distance between the prepare-to-land UAV and each dock apparatus according to the current position of the prepare-to-land UAV and the position of the each dock apparatus; and determine the prepare-to-land dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses according to the distance, as taught by Buchmueller, to provide emergency landing at a first available or closest transportation vehicle. (Buchmueller at ¶[0024])
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters et al. (US 20160244163 A1) in view of Gil et al. (US 20190122172 A1) in view of Kerzner et al. (US 20210255636 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fisher et al. (US 9880563 B2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: control the target UAV to fly to a dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus after completing the target task. However, Fisher discloses a survey system for UAVs and teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: control the target UAV to fly to a dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus after completing the target task (see Col. 9, lines 7-39, “after completion of the flight mission” “rather than returning to the original UAV pod, the UAV flies to and is received by a second UAV pod”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: control the target UAV to fly to a dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus after completing the target task, as taught by Fisher, to provide transitioning the UAV into an adjacent geographic survey region for receipt of new missions. (Fisher at Col. 9, lines 14-15)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 11, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a task-ending waypoint of the target UAV, the task-ending waypoint being a waypoint where the target UAV completes the target task; and control the target UAV to fly to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus after completing the target task in response to at least one of: a distance from the task-ending waypoint to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus being smaller than a first predetermined distance; a distance from the task-ending waypoint to the target dock apparatus being greater than a second predetermined distance; or the distance from the task-ending waypoint to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus being smaller than the distance from the task-ending waypoint to the target dock apparatus. However, Fisher discloses a survey system for UAVs and teaches the server according to claim 11, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a task-ending waypoint of the target UAV (see Col. 8, line 37 to Col. 9, line 39, “planned flight missions” “waypoints” “range limitation”), the task-ending waypoint being a waypoint where the target UAV completes the target task (see Col. 9, lines 7-39, “after completion of the flight mission” “rather than returning to the original UAV pod, the UAV flies to and is received by a second UAV pod” “range limitation”); and control the target UAV to fly to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus after completing the target task in response to at least one of: a distance from the task-ending waypoint to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus being smaller than a first predetermined distance; a distance from the task-ending waypoint to the target dock apparatus being greater than a second predetermined distance; or the distance from the task-ending waypoint to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus being smaller than the distance from the task-ending waypoint to the target dock apparatus (see Col. 9, lines 7-39, “after completion of the flight mission” “rather than returning to the original UAV pod, the UAV flies to and is received by a second UAV pod” “range limitation”, i.e., the UAV proceeds to an adjacent geographic survey region due range limitation (e.g., distance greater than second predetermined distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, obtain a task-ending waypoint of the target UAV, the task-ending waypoint being a waypoint where the target UAV completes the target task; and control the target UAV to fly to the dock apparatus other than the target dock apparatus after completing the target task in response to at least one of: a distance from the task-ending waypoint to the target dock apparatus being greater than a second predetermined distance, as taught by Fisher, to provide transitioning the UAV into an adjacent geographic survey region for receipt of new missions. (Fisher at Col. 9, lines 14-15)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a position of a task-ending waypoint of the target UAV, the task-ending waypoint being a waypoint where the target UAV completes the target task; determine a distance between the target dock apparatus and the task-ending waypoint of the target UAV according to the position of the task-ending waypoint and the position of the target dock apparatus; and control the target UAV based at least on the distance, including: controlling the target UAV to fly to the target dock apparatus after completing the target task in response to the distance being smaller than or equal to a predetermined distance; or in response to the distance being greater than the predetermined distance, determining, from the one or more dock apparatuses, a return dock apparatus for the target UAV to return to, and control the target UAV to fly to the return dock apparatus after completing the target task, the return dock apparatus and the target dock apparatus being different dock apparatuses. However, Fisher discloses a survey system for UAVs and teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a position of a task-ending waypoint of the target UAV (see Col. 8, line 37 to Col. 9, line 39, “planned flight missions” “waypoints” “range limitation”), the task-ending waypoint being a waypoint where the target UAV completes the target task (see Col. 9, lines 7-39, “after completion of the flight mission” “rather than returning to the original UAV pod, the UAV flies to and is received by a second UAV pod” “range limitation”); determine a distance between the target dock apparatus and the task-ending waypoint of the target UAV according to the position of the task-ending waypoint and the position of the target dock apparatus (see Col. 9, lines 7-39, “after completion of the flight mission” “rather than returning to the original UAV pod, the UAV flies to and is received by a second UAV pod” “range limitation”); and control the target UAV based at least on the distance, including: controlling the target UAV to fly to the target dock apparatus after completing the target task in response to the distance being smaller than or equal to a predetermined distance; or in response to the distance being greater than the predetermined distance, determining, from the one or more dock apparatuses, a return dock apparatus for the target UAV to return to, and control the target UAV to fly to the return dock apparatus after completing the target task, the return dock apparatus and the target dock apparatus being different dock apparatuses (see Col. 9, lines 7-39, “after completion of the flight mission” “rather than returning to the original UAV pod, the UAV flies to and is received by a second UAV pod” “range limitation”, i.e., the UAV proceeds to an adjacent geographic survey region due range limitation (e.g., distance greater than second predetermined distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, obtain a position of a task-ending waypoint of the target UAV, the task-ending waypoint being a waypoint where the target UAV completes the target task; determine a distance between the target dock apparatus and the task-ending waypoint of the target UAV according to the position of the task-ending waypoint and the position of the target dock apparatus; and control the target UAV based at least on the distance, including: in response to the distance being greater than the predetermined distance, determining, from the one or more dock apparatuses, a return dock apparatus for the target UAV to return to, and control the target UAV to fly to the return dock apparatus after completing the target task, the return dock apparatus and the target dock apparatus being different dock apparatuses, as taught by Fisher, to provide transitioning the UAV into an adjacent geographic survey region for receipt of new missions. (Fisher at Col. 9, lines 14-15)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters et al. (US 20160244163 A1) in view of Gil et al. (US 20190122172 A1) in view of Kerzner et al. (US 20210255636 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wang (US 9139310 B1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a UAV maintenance request including a current position of a to-be-maintained UAV and a position of a maintenance point; obtain power information of the to-be-maintained UAV; determine a target flight path for the to-be-maintained UAV to fly to the maintenance point according to the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV, the position of the maintenance point, and the power information of the to-be-maintained UAV; and control the to-be-maintained UAV to fly along the target flight path to the maintenance point. However, Wang discloses systems and methos for UAV battery exchange and teaches the server according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: obtain a UAV maintenance request including a current position of a to-be-maintained UAV and a position of a maintenance point (see Col. 11, lines 37-55, “energy provision station may inform the UAV as to whether or not it is available to provide the UAV with a charged battery”; see Col. 14, line 54 to Col. 15, line 11, “information from the UAV about the location of the UAV”); obtain power information of the to-be-maintained UAV (see Col. 14, line 54 to Col. 15, line 11, “receive information from the UAV about … the state of the battery on board the UAV”); determine a target flight path for the to-be-maintained UAV to fly to the maintenance point according to the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV, the position of the maintenance point, and the power information of the to-be-maintained UAV (see Col. 12, line 49 to Col. 13, line 3, “based on the information exchange the UAV may determine if it should land on the energy provision station or continue on its flight path”); and control the to-be-maintained UAV to fly along the target flight path to the maintenance point (see Col. 12, line 49 to Col. 13, line 3, “based on the information exchange the UAV may determine if it should land on the energy provision station or continue on its flight path”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, obtain a UAV maintenance request including a current position of a to-be-maintained UAV and a position of a maintenance point; obtain power information of the to-be-maintained UAV; determine a target flight path for the to-be-maintained UAV to fly to the maintenance point according to the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV, the position of the maintenance point, and the power information of the to-be-maintained UAV; and control the to-be-maintained UAV to fly along the target flight path to the maintenance point, as taught by Wang, to provide increasing range of travel for UAV’s. (Wang at Col. 1, lines 26-27)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Peeters, Gil and Kerzner does not explicitly teach the server according to claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine a remaining flight distance of the to-be-maintained UAV according to the power information; determine a first flight path between the to-be-maintained UAV and the maintenance point according to the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV and the position of the maintenance point; and determine the target flight path based at least on the first flight path, including: determining the first flight path as the target flight path in response to a length corresponding to the first flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance; or in response to the length corresponding to the first flight path being greater than the remaining flight distance: determining a power supply dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses; determining a second flight path including the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV, a position of the power supply dock apparatus, and the position of the maintenance point as waypoints, a flight distance between two neighboring waypoints of the second flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance; and determining the second flight path as the target flight path to cause the to-be-maintained UAV to fly to the maintenance point from the current position through the power supply dock apparatus. However, Wang discloses systems and methos for UAV battery exchange and teaches the server according to claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the server further to: determine a remaining flight distance of the to-be-maintained UAV according to the power information (see Col. 11, lines 19-36, “remaining power estimate”); determine a first flight path between the to-be-maintained UAV and the maintenance point according to the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV and the position of the maintenance point (see Col. 12, line 49 to Col. 13, line 3, “based on the information exchange the UAV may determine if it should land on the energy provision station or continue on its flight path”); and determine the target flight path based at least on the first flight path, including: determining the first flight path as the target flight path in response to a length corresponding to the first flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance; or in response to the length corresponding to the first flight path being greater than the remaining flight distance: determining a power supply dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses; determining a second flight path including the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV, a position of the power supply dock apparatus, and the position of the maintenance point as waypoints, a flight distance between two neighboring waypoints of the second flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance; and determining the second flight path as the target flight path to cause the to-be-maintained UAV to fly to the maintenance point from the current position through the power supply dock apparatus (see Col. 14, line 54 to Col. 15, line 11, “communicate to an energy provision station that the battery currently on board the UAV has a remaining charge percentage of 18%, the processor at the energy provision station may determine the distance to the next battery exchange station in the UAV's flight path to determine if the UAV should stop for recharging or continue to the next energy provision station”, i.e., determining the first flight path as the target flight path in response to a length corresponding to the first flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance; the Examiner notes the claim recites determining the first flight path as the target flight path in response to a length corresponding to the first flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance; OR in response to the length corresponding to the first flight path being greater than the remaining flight distance: determining a power supply dock apparatus from the one or more dock apparatuses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for providing services using unmanned aerial vehicles of Peeters as modified by Gil as modified by Kerzner to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, determine a remaining flight distance of the to-be-maintained UAV according to the power information; determine a first flight path between the to-be-maintained UAV and the maintenance point according to the current position of the to-be-maintained UAV and the position of the maintenance point; and determine the target flight path based at least on the first flight path, including: determining the first flight path as the target flight path in response to a length corresponding to the first flight path being smaller than or equal to the remaining flight distance, as taught by Wang, to provide increasing range of travel for UAV’s. (Wang at Col. 1, lines 26-27)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Daddi (US 20200377211 A1) is pertinent because it includes a system and method for providing individualized management for a plurality of plants. An exemplary system comprises a plurality of drones including a first drone, a docking station, and a server.
Sudarsan et al. (US 20200166928 A1) is pertinent because it is a method includes receiving, at a mobile hub device, communications including location-specific risk data and a task assignment.
Purwin et al. (US 10007890 B1) is pertinent because it relates to systems and methods which can be used to retrieve and transport items from one location in an inventory system to another.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights