DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on 10/7/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 14, filed 10/7/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (applicant’s remarks; pp. 16-17) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument that no new matter was added by these amendments (applicant’s remarks; p. 13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Although paragraph 82 discloses changing the flight speed of the UAV is preferred over changing the flight path, the disclosure does not appear to limit changing the flight path to cases where flight speed adjustment cannot successfully reschedule the monitoring time window. See rejection below.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on 10/7/2025.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 82, line 1, it is unclear how the word impossible is intended to relate to the sentence that contains it. It appears that it refers to a case when it is impossible to include the monitoring required timing of the UAVm in the time zone in which the monitoring task can be performed is exemplary of a case when it is difficult to include the monitoring required timing of the UAVm in the time zone in which the monitoring task can be performed. The examiner suggests “when it is difficult (impossible)” should read “when it is difficult or impossible”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 18 should each be limited to a single colon because using multiple colons in a sentence to form nested lists is grammatically incorrect and makes it confusing to determine the relationships between relationships.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18-19, lines 20-23, 20-22 and 13-16, respectively, the limitation “the flight path is only adjusted when including the monitoring required timing in the time zone … would be impossible through flight speed adjustment alone” appears to be new matter because the disclosure does not appear to limit adjusting the flight path to cases where flight speed adjustment cannot successfully reschedule the monitoring time window. Paragraph 82 discloses the flight path of the UAV may be changed when it is impossible to include the monitoring required timing in the time zone in which the monitoring task can be performed, however, paragraph 82 does not appear to disclose that the flight path update may only be performed when it is impossible, by changing the flight speed, to include the monitoring required timing in the time zone in which the monitoring task can be performed. Paragraph 80, lines 12-15, paragraph 81, lines 4-7, and figure 12, step S8, all disclose the flight speed or flight path may be changed without additional constraints.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18-19, lines 20-23, 20-22 and 13-16, respectively, the limitation “the flight path is only adjusted when including the monitoring required timing in the time zone … would be impossible through flight speed adjustment alone” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how flight path adjustments are limited to cases where flight speed adjustment cannot successfully reschedule the monitoring time window when flight path adjustment can be used in combination with or as an alternative to flight speed adjustment. Paragraph 80, lines 12-15, paragraph 81, lines 4-7, and figure 12, step S8, all disclose the flight speed or flight path may be changed without additional constraints. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to a non-exclusive case of adjusting the flight path when it is impossible to adjust, by changing the flight speed, the monitoring required timing into the time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 4-10, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al. (US 2021/0041894) in view of Wessler et al. (US 2017/0050747) and Kume et al. (US 2024/0361132), hereinafter Urano, Wessler and Kume, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 18-19, as best understood, Urano discloses an unmanned vehicle monitoring system comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code (Urano; fig. 3: storage unit 10b); and at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (Urano; fig. 3: processor 10a), the program code including: first acquisition code configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire a monitoring schedule of an operator who performs a monitoring task for monitoring an unmanned vehicle the monitoring schedule including a time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task (Urano; para. 157: The monitoring schedule is a schedule of time at which the remote commander R monitors any of the autonomous vehicles 2. The monitoring time allocation unit 46 sets the monitoring schedules of the remote commanders R such that the monitoring times (a time period from the monitoring start time to the monitoring end time) do not overlap.); second acquisition code configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire a monitoring required timing at which the unmanned vehicle needs to be monitored (Urano; para. 134: predicts the monitoring start time and the monitoring end time for each autonomous vehicle), the monitoring required timing changing according to a change in at least one of a speed of the unmanned vehicle and a path thereof; and setting code configured to cause the at least one processor to set at least one of the speed of the unmanned vehicle and the path thereof so as to cause the monitoring required timing to be included in the time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task in the monitoring schedule of the operator (Urano; para. 260: When it is determined that the number of overlapping times is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold between the time T7 and the time T8, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 performs an instruction for changing the vehicle speed of the autonomous vehicle 2A as the target vehicle.; para. 267: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may change the target route instead of the vehicle speed plan.).
Urano does not explicitly disclose the unmanned vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle used for delivering an article; and the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, in a case where the monitoring required timing is adjusted, change the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle, such that the flight path is only adjusted when including the monitoring required timing in the time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task in the monitoring schedule of the operator would be impossible through flight speed adjustment alone.
Wessler, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle navigation), discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle used for delivering an article (Wessler; para. 19: delivery drone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the monitoring tasks assigned by the remote instruction server of Urano to monitor delivery drones, as disclosed by Wessler, with the motivation of allowing a safe and reliable approach of the vehicle to any location where a recipient is located (Wessler, para. 9) thereby increasing convenience.
Urano, as modified, discloses the vehicle speed plans are repeatedly changed until all of the overlapping times are removed (Urano; para. 266) and that the target route may be changed instead of the vehicle speed plan (Urano; para. 267), however, Urano, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, in a case where the monitoring required timing is adjusted, change the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle, such that the flight path is only adjusted when including the monitoring required timing in the time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task in the monitoring schedule of the operator would be impossible through flight speed adjustment alone.
Kume, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle controls), discloses changing the speed of an unmanned vehicle and the path of the unmanned vehicle, such that the path is adjusted when adjusting the arrival time to occur when the vehicle operator is available would be impossible through speed adjustment alone (Kume; para. 154: the processor 31 first adopts the reducing of the vehicle speed, and if the reducing of the vehicle speed is insufficient for time adjustment, adopts temporary stopping at a service area or the like. Since it is necessary to avoid disrupting the flow of traffic, there may be a lower limit on the vehicle speed when there is no traffic congestion. The route change can be set as an option when it is difficult to adjust the arrival time by reducing the vehicle speed or to stop temporarily at a service area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the elimination of overlapping remote operating windows, by changing the delivery drone’s speed and path, performed by the monitoring time allocation unit of Urano, as modified, to change the time when the vehicle’s operator is needed to a time when they are available, by adjusting the vehicle’s path when speed adjustment alone cannot be successful, with the motivation of ensuring the vehicle’s speed stays above a lower limit for safe operation (Kume; para. 154).
Regarding claims 4-5, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, in a case where the monitoring required timing is delayed to be included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable, change the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle so as to reduce the flight speed (Urano; para. 266: When it is determined that the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 may request the autonomous vehicle 2, of which the monitoring time overlaps the time range in which the number of overlapping times is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold, to change the vehicle speed plan (for example, decrease or increase in the vehicle speed or acceleration in such a time range) such that the monitoring times do not overlap anymore.) and change the flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle so as to lengthen the flight path (Urano; para. 268: the monitoring time allocation unit 71 may change the target route Rc of the autonomous vehicle 2C to a new target route Rcn (bypass target route) … Accordingly, the monitoring start time T7 of the monitoring time C2 corresponding to the autonomous vehicle 2C making a right turn at the intersection is changed to a time later; para. 269: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may issue the vehicle travel changing instruction to the target vehicle by changing both the vehicle speed plan and the target route.).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the second acquisition code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire a plurality of the monitoring required timings (Urano; para. 134: predicts the monitoring start time and the monitoring end time for each autonomous vehicle), and the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to set at least one of the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path thereof so as to cause the plurality of monitoring required timings to be included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable in the monitoring schedule of the operator (Urano; para. 260: When it is determined that the number of overlapping times is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold between the time T7 and the time T8, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 performs an instruction for changing the vehicle speed of the autonomous vehicle 2A as the target vehicle.; para. 267: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may change the target route instead of the vehicle speed plan … the monitoring time allocation unit 71 adjusts the monitoring schedule by changing the target route).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to set at least one of the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path thereof (Urano; para. 253: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 changes the vehicle speed plan or the target route of the target vehicle by transmitting, to the target vehicle, a vehicle travel changing instruction including changing the vehicle speed plan or the target route of the target vehicle.) so as to enable the unmanned aerial vehicle to deliver the article (Wessler; para. 31-32: The drone reaches the recipient and stops either by command that the recipient has sent from his mobile device or automatically based on a signal from the distance sensors … The recipient unloads the drone and releases it for the return flight.) and to cause the monitoring required timing to be included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable (Urano; para. 251: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 changes, when the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold, the vehicle speed plan or the target route of at least one target vehicle, among a plurality of autonomous vehicles 2, whereby the number of overlapping times is less than the commander number threshold.).
Urano, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a deliverable time selected by a delivery requester.
Wessler further discloses a deliverable time selected by a delivery requester (Wessler; para. 17: the recipient can request the delivery at a time that fits best for him).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the deliveries that have monitoring tasks assigned by the remote instruction server of Urano, as modified, to be scheduled at a time requested by a recipient, as disclosed by Wessler, with the motivation of delivering items in a timely manner at a time and location that best fits the user (Wessler; para. 17) thereby increasing convenience.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to perform, in a case where it is difficult to cause the monitoring required timing of the unmanned aerial vehicle to be included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable by changing the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle, setting so as to cause the monitoring required timing to be included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable by changing the flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; para. 267: When, for example, the vehicle speed plan of the autonomous vehicle 2 is not acquired, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 adjusts the monitoring schedule by changing the target route.).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle is a first unmanned aerial vehicle (Wessler; para. 19: delivery drone), the monitoring schedule includes a time zone having a monitoring task already allocated thereto and configured to monitor a second unmanned aerial vehicle different from the first unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; para. 258: the monitoring time Al of the autonomous vehicle 2A and the monitoring time B1 of the autonomous vehicle 2B overlap), the program code further including change code configured to cause the at least one processor to, in a case where it is difficult to cause the monitoring required timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle to be included in the time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task even if at least one of the flight speed of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path thereof is changed, change the monitoring required timing of the second unmanned aerial vehicle by changing at least one of the flight speed of the second unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path thereof, and change, according to the change in the monitoring required timing, the time zone having the monitoring task already allocated thereto and configured to monitor the second unmanned aerial vehicle in the monitoring schedule (Urano; para. 263: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 changes the vehicle speed plan of the autonomous vehicle 2B as shown, for example, in the graph showing the changed vehicle speed plan of the autonomous vehicle 2B of FIG. 21. In the graph showing the changed vehicle speed plan of the autonomous vehicle 2B of FIG. 21, the vehicle speed plan is changed so that the autonomous vehicle 2B is accelerated more rapidly. Accordingly, the monitoring end time T8 of the monitoring time B1 of the autonomous vehicle 2B is a monitoring end time T8a which is earlier than the monitoring end time T8. The monitoring end time T8a is earlier than the monitoring start time T7 of the monitoring time C2 of the autonomous vehicle 2C. Consequently, as shown in the diagram showing adjusted monitoring times of the autonomous vehicles 2A, 2B, 2C of FIG. 21, the monitoring time B1 of the autonomous vehicle 2B and the monitoring time C2 of the autonomous vehicle 2C do not overlap, and the number of overlapping times is less than the commander number threshold.), and the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to set at least one of the flight speed of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path thereof so as to cause the monitoring required timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle to be included in an idle time zone generated by changing the time zone (Urano; para. 264: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may change the vehicle speed plan of the autonomous vehicle 2C, or may change the vehicle speed plan of at least two vehicles from among the autonomous vehicles 2A to 2C. The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may change the vehicle speed plan of any of the autonomous vehicles 2A to 2C such that the number of overlapping times is less than the commander number threshold.).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the program code further including allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate, to the time zone, the monitoring task to be performed at the monitoring required timing included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable in the monitoring schedule of the operator by setting at least one of the flight speed and the flight path (Urano; para. 157: The monitoring schedule is a schedule of time at which the remote commander R monitors any of the autonomous vehicles 2. The monitoring time allocation unit 46 sets the monitoring schedules of the remote commanders R such that the monitoring times (a time period from the monitoring start time to the monitoring end time) do not overlap.; para. 260: When it is determined that the number of overlapping times is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold between the time T7 and the time T8, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 performs an instruction for changing the vehicle speed of the autonomous vehicle 2A as the target vehicle.; para. 267: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may change the target route instead of the vehicle speed plan.).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the program code further including flight control code configured to cause the at least one processor to control flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle on the basis of at least one of the set flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle and the set flight path thereof (Urano; para. 253: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 changes the vehicle speed plan or the target route of the target vehicle by transmitting, to the target vehicle, a vehicle travel changing instruction including changing the vehicle speed plan or the target route of the target vehicle.).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the program code further including transmission code configured to cause the at least one processor to transmit, to a terminal used by the operator, information for causing the operator to perform the monitoring task to be performed at the monitoring required timing in response to arrival of the monitoring required timing (Urano; para. 163: The monitoring time allocation notification unit 47 notifies each remote commander R of the monitoring schedule set by the monitoring time allocation unit 46.).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the monitoring required timing is at least one of a plurality of timings separated by time in a delivery schedule related to one delivery by the unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; para. 249: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 makes the determination described above, based on the monitoring start time and the monitoring end time for each remote instruction point situation of the autonomous vehicles 2.).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Wessler and Kume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levy et al. (US 2016/0140851), hereinafter Levy.
Regarding claims 2-3, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, in a case where the monitoring required timing is advanced to be included in the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable, change the flight speed of the unmanned aerial vehicle so as to increase the flight speed and change the flight path of the unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; para. 269: The monitoring time allocation unit 71 may issue the vehicle travel changing instruction to the target vehicle by changing both the vehicle speed plan and the target route.; para. 263: the vehicle speed plan is changed so that the autonomous vehicle 2B is accelerated more rapidly;).
Urano, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose shortening the flight path.
Levy, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle navigation), discloses shortening the flight path (Levy; para. 133: when multiple flight plans have been proposed by the drone, and/or multiple flight plans have been generated … The most optimal routes may be selected, for example, based on an optimization of total flight risk and total flight length. For example, shorter flight paths being preferred over long flight paths when risk is similar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, when the monitoring task needs to be advanced, the target route of Urano, as modified, to be shorter, as disclosed by Levy, to yield the predictable result of arriving at the destination earlier.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Wessler and Kume as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of White (US 2022/0253803).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a first unmanned aerial vehicle and a second unmanned aerial vehicle, the monitoring schedule of the operator has a monitoring task allocated thereto and configured to monitor the first unmanned aerial vehicle and a monitoring task allocated thereto and configured to monitor the second unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; fig. 249: A plurality of autonomous vehicles 2 may be, for example, autonomous vehicles 2 for which the monitoring schedule is set.), and the setting code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to reset, in a case where at least a part of the monitoring required timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and at least a part of the monitoring required timing of the second unmanned aerial vehicle overlap with each other, at least one of the flight speed of the second unmanned aerial vehicle and the flight path thereof so as to cause the monitoring required timing of the second unmanned aerial vehicle to be included in the time zone in which the operator can perform the monitoring task in the monitoring schedule of the operator (Urano; para. 266: After acquiring the changed vehicle speed plan from the autonomous vehicle 2, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 determines again whether the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold. When the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 repeatedly issues the instruction to change the vehicle speed plan such that the monitoring times do not overlap anymore. The monitoring time allocation unit 71 ends the adjustment of the monitoring times when the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is less than the commander number threshold.).
Urano, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the program code further including delay control code configured to cause the at least one processor to delay, in a case where a delay occurs in a delivery schedule of the first unmanned aerial vehicle, the monitoring required timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle.
White, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle navigation), discloses program code including delay control code configured to cause at least one processor to delay, in a case where a delay occurs in a delivery schedule of a first unmanned aerial vehicle, the delivery timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle (White; para. 72: a conflict is determined with the target destination delivery plan for the article at 540. The target destination delivery plan for the article is caused to change at 550 in response to the conflict with the target destination delivery plan for the article. The change may include a temporal delay in delivery or may include changing a target destination for the delivery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the monitoring tasks assigned by the remote instruction server of Urano, as modified, to be rescheduled if a delivery is delayed, as disclosed by White, with the motivation of providing a scalable payload transportation service (White, para. 53) thereby increasing utility.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a first unmanned aerial vehicle and a second unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; fig. 249: A plurality of autonomous vehicles 2 may be, for example, autonomous vehicles 2 for which the monitoring schedule is set.), the monitoring schedule of a first operator among a plurality of the operators has a monitoring task allocated thereto and configured to monitor the first unmanned aerial vehicle and a monitoring task allocated thereto and configured to monitor the second unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; para. 157: The monitoring schedule is a schedule of time at which the remote commander R monitors any of the autonomous vehicles 2. The monitoring time allocation unit 46 sets the monitoring schedules of the remote commanders R such that the monitoring times (a time period from the monitoring start time to the monitoring end time) do not overlap.), and the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate, in a case where at least a part of the monitoring required timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and at least a part of the monitoring required timing of the second unmanned aerial vehicle overlap with each other, the monitoring task to be performed at the monitoring required timing of the second unmanned aerial vehicle to the time zone in which the monitoring task is performable in the monitoring schedule of the first operator or the monitoring schedule of a second operator other than the first operator (Urano; para. 266: After acquiring the changed vehicle speed plan from the autonomous vehicle 2, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 determines again whether the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold. When the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is equal to or larger than the commander number threshold, the monitoring time allocation unit 71 repeatedly issues the instruction to change the vehicle speed plan such that the monitoring times do not overlap anymore. The monitoring time allocation unit 71 ends the adjustment of the monitoring times when the number of overlapping times of the remote instruction point situations is less than the commander number threshold.).
Urano, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the program code further including delay control code configured to cause the at least one processor to delay, in a case where a delay occurs in a delivery schedule of the first unmanned aerial vehicle, the monitoring required timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle.
White, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle navigation), discloses program code including delay control code configured to cause at least one processor to delay, in a case where a delay occurs in a delivery schedule of a first unmanned aerial vehicle, the delivery timing of the first unmanned aerial vehicle (White; para. 72: a conflict is determined with the target destination delivery plan for the article at 540. The target destination delivery plan for the article is caused to change at 550 in response to the conflict with the target destination delivery plan for the article. The change may include a temporal delay in delivery or may include changing a target destination for the delivery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the monitoring tasks assigned by the remote instruction server of Urano, as modified, to be rescheduled if a delivery is delayed, as disclosed by White, with the motivation of providing a scalable payload transportation service (White, para. 53) thereby increasing utility.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Wessler and Kume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powell (US 2013/0024232).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Urano does not explicitly disclose the program code further including presentation code configured to cause the at least one processor to present, to a delivery requester of the article, a predetermined number of deliverable time frames of the article by the unmanned aerial vehicle in a selectable manner, wherein the second acquisition code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire the monitoring required timing on the basis of the deliverable time frame selected by the delivery requester among the presented deliverable time frames.
Powell, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (online logistics), discloses program code including presentation code configured to cause at least one processor to present, to a delivery requester of an article, a predetermined number of deliverable time frames of the article by an unmanned aerial vehicle in a selectable manner, wherein second acquisition code is configured to cause the at least one processor to acquire the delivery timing on the basis of the deliverable time frame selected by the delivery requester among the presented deliverable time frames (Fig. 21; para. 65: The list 16 may include: the names of the available couriers 78, delivery prices 17, courier approval ratings 79, and delivery times 81 (See FIG. 21). Lastly, starting at Step 5 of FIG. 18, the buyer 3 is shown the list 16 and, after selecting his/her desired courier 1 and desired delivery times 81, hits the confirm button 72 (See FIG. 21).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the monitoring tasks assigned by the remote instruction server of Urano, as modified, to monitor deliveries scheduled by a user selected from a plurality of delivery times, as disclosed by Powell, to yield the predictable result of scheduling a delivery at a user’s preferred time.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Wessler and Kume as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Briggs et al. (US 2019/0122177), hereinafter Briggs.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Urano, as modified, discloses the monitoring schedule has a monitoring task already allocated thereto and configured to monitor another unmanned aerial vehicle (Urano; para. 157: The monitoring schedule is a schedule of time at which the remote commander R monitors any of the autonomous vehicles 2. The monitoring time allocation unit 46 sets the monitoring schedules of the remote commanders R such that the monitoring times (a time period from the monitoring start time to the monitoring end time) do not overlap.).
Urano, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the other unmanned aerial vehicle is at a base different from a base of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
Briggs, in the same field of endeavor (autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle navigation), discloses another unmanned aerial vehicle deployed in a base different from a base of an unmanned aerial vehicle (Briggs; para. 51: The drone delivery system 10 can include multiple bases 11, such as helipads or roof-top landing pads, warehouses 12 distributed at various locations throughout the area of land for maintaining an inventory of products to be delivered to customers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the monitoring tasks assigned by the remote instruction server of Urano, as modified, to monitor drones deployed at multiple bases, as disclosed by Briggs, with the motivation of allowing for dynamic routing of the drones throughout the area serviced by the delivery system thereby providing for cost-minimization and productivity maximization (Briggs, para. 48).
Supplemental References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshitaka et al., in JP H10-31796, disclose an aircraft traffic congestion control method in which a route change of a flying aircraft is made when a speed adjustment is not effective.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665