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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 are currently pending.
3. Claims 2, 5, and 10 are canceled.
4. Claims 1 and 6 are currently amended.
5. The previous 112(b) rejections to Claims 1 and 3-9 have been overcome.
6. The 101 rejections to Claims 1 and 8 have been overcome.
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.
7. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-4 and 6-9, have been included based on its dependency.
8. The limitation in Claim 1 with new matter recites: “deploying UAVs to complete material delivery mission according to the optimal UAV mission.” There does not appear to be a written description of this claim limitation in the application filed. The amendment narrows the deployment of the UAVs according to the optimal UAV missions. The specification explains that UAV are deployed quickly in post-disaster rescue scenarios. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the UAVs are not actually deployed according the optimal UAV missions. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the invention had possession of deploying the UAVs to complete material delivery mission according to the optimal UAV mission.”
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.
9. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-4 and 6-9, have been included based on its dependency.
10. Regarding Claim 1, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood how the K initial mission sequence divided into H groups are used in the spectral clustering algorithm. More specifically, it is unclear if the K initial mission sequences are the same as the plurality of initial mission sequences and if the H groups are the same as the plurality of groups. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the K initial mission sequences are interpreted as the same as the plurality of initial mission sequences and the H groups are interpreted as the same as the plurality of groups.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 11-14, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter as the closest prior art references do not teach or render an obvious combination for the following limitations: “constructing a similarity matrix W and a degree matrix D from the input samples; wherein elements of the similarity matrix W are calculated by following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
62
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where ||bm -bn||2 represents a distance between the center of gravity in the m-th mission sequence and a center of gravity in a n-th mission sequence, σ is an adjustable parameter, and e is a natural constant; wherein the degree matrix D = diag(d₁, d₂,… dm,… dg), where dm =
PNG
media_image2.png
24
134
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is matrix operation function; computing a Laplace matrix according to the similarity matrix W and the degree matrix D; forming a feature matrix according to the Laplace matrix; clustering the feature matrix by spectral clustering algorithm. and dividing the K initial mission sequences into H groups {g1, g2,… gH}.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights