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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 14, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 15 are to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 14, has a believed erroneous “(36)”
Claim 15, line 5, “boundaries)” should read “boundaries”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Invoked despite absence of “means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit” in claims 10-12 and 14-15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It should be noted based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above corresponding 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections were considered. However, upon reviewing the specification it was determined no 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a) rejections were needed as structure and algorithm as needed were disclosed.
Unit
Element
Structure/Algorithm
Control Unit
Element 6 – see paragraph 0074
Structure: paragraph 0040, “The control unit may be a personal device such as a smartphone, a tablet, a Smartwatch, a computer, any wearable electronic device”
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because In particular, the claim recites "A non-transitory program comprising instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a computer-implemented surveillance method for surveilling an area of interest using a set of drones, the computer-implemented surveillance method comprising..." (emphasis added). The claim recites a program without also containing at least one structural limitation. The claim amounts to software expressed as a set of instructions detached from any medium and as such does not have a physical embodiment. See MPEP 2106.03(I). The claim recites the ability for the program to be executed by a "computer", but the program is not stored on the computer, nor any other computer-readable storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,651,950 to Jang et al. (hereinafter Jang).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jang discloses A computer-implemented surveillance method for surveilling an area of interest using a set of drones (abstract, “A system and methods for mission re-planning are presented;” column 1, line 7, “Embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to area search by a robotic vehicle. More particularly, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to real-time mission re-planning for coordinated multivehicle operation;” column 2, line 21, “In a further embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises computer-executable instructions for mission re-planning. The method executed by the computer-executable instructions monitors vehicles in real-time and detects at least one incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task. ”), the computer-implemented surveillance method comprising:
monitoring a number of operational drones among the set of drones (abstract, “Vehicles are monitored in real-time, and an incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task is detected;” column 6, line 51, “The status module 206 is configured to monitor the UAVs 232 and 236 in real-time and to detect at least one incapacitated UAV from the UAVs 232 and 236 that performs an incomplete task. A health management logic (not shown) onboard each UAV 232/236 monitors a status of the UAVs 232/236 and sends a data packet corresponding to the status to the communication module 224. ”), and, if a change in the number of operational drones is detected (abstract, “Vehicles are monitored in real-time, and an incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task is detected;” column 6, line 51, “The status module 206 is configured to monitor the UAVs 232 and 236 in real-time and to detect at least one incapacitated UAV from the UAVs 232 and 236 that performs an incomplete task. A health management logic (not shown) onboard each UAV 232/236 monitors a status of the UAVs 232/236 and sends a data packet corresponding to the status to the communication module 224. ”), performing
a segmentation step for segmenting the area of interest into N sub-areas, N being a current number of operational drones (Figure 4, element 414; column 13, line 10, “Process 400 may continue by the sufficiency capability calculation module 214 determining a remaining coverage set (k.leftArea) comprising a remaining coverage area for each of the vehicles (task 414).”); and
an affectation step for affecting each operational drone of the number of operational drones to a respective sub-area for surveilling said respective sub-area (column 8, line 64, “The sufficiency list database module 216 comprises the sufficiency list which comprises available active UAVs to complete the incomplete task of the incapacitated UAV. The selector module 218 is configured to select at least one of the available active UAVs from the UAVs 110-122 from the sufficiency list to complete the incomplete task based on various constraints.”).
The broadest reasonable interpretation for the independent 1 is “monitoring a number of operational drones amount the set of drones", because everything after the word "if" is a contingent limitation that does not have to be met.
Examiner note to applicant: To avoid such an interpretation, it is recommended the “if” statement be changed to a “when” statement in independent claims 1 and 9, which makes the claims no longer a contingent limitation. This would read that the detection of a change in the number of operational drones has to occur.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Jang further discloses wherein the N sub-areas cover a whole area of interest without overlapping (column 5, line 56, “Where an area of the part Pi is Area(Pi) whereby total area of all the parts Pi should equal the area of the given polygon 102;” for a sum of parts to equal total area there needs to be no overlap).
Regarding dependent claims 3-8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Jang discloses each limitation of 3-8 in that each limitation of claims 3-8 is read as being a part of the contingent limitation within independent claim 1 stating, “if a change in the number of operational drones is detected” performing “a segmentation step” and “an affectation step.”
The MPEP says the following about contingent limitations in a method claim in MPEP 2111.04(II): The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the independent claim 1 and 9 is “monitoring a number of operational drones amount the set of drones", because everything after the word "if" is a contingent limitation that does not have to be met. Claims 3-8, are all drawn towards the contingent limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, since these contingent limitations do not have to be met, Jang also reads on claims 3-8.
Examiner note to applicant: To avoid such an interpretation, it is recommended the “if” statement be changed to a “when” statement in independent claims 1 and 9, which makes the claims no longer a contingent limitation. This would read that the detection of a change in the number of operational drones has to occur.
Regarding independent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 applies directly. Additionally, Jang further discloses A non-transitory program comprising instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a computer-implemented surveillance method for surveilling an area of interest using a set of drones (column 2, line 21, “In a further embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises computer-executable instructions for mission re-planning. The method executed by the computer-executable instructions monitors vehicles in real-time and detects at least one incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task. ”), the computer-implemented surveillance method comprising:
monitoring a number of operational drones among the set of drones (abstract, “Vehicles are monitored in real-time, and an incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task is detected;” column 6, line 51, “The status module 206 is configured to monitor the UAVs 232 and 236 in real-time and to detect at least one incapacitated UAV from the UAVs 232 and 236 that performs an incomplete task. A health management logic (not shown) onboard each UAV 232/236 monitors a status of the UAVs 232/236 and sends a data packet corresponding to the status to the communication module 224. ”), and, if a change in the number of operational drones is detected (abstract, “Vehicles are monitored in real-time, and an incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task is detected;” column 6, line 51, “The status module 206 is configured to monitor the UAVs 232 and 236 in real-time and to detect at least one incapacitated UAV from the UAVs 232 and 236 that performs an incomplete task. A health management logic (not shown) onboard each UAV 232/236 monitors a status of the UAVs 232/236 and sends a data packet corresponding to the status to the communication module 224. ”, performing
a segmentation step for segmenting the area of interest into N sub-areas, N being a current number of operational drones (Figure 4, element 414; column 13, line 10, “Process 400 may continue by the sufficiency capability calculation module 214 determining a remaining coverage set (k.leftArea) comprising a remaining coverage area for each of the vehicles (task 414).”); and
an affectation step for affecting each operational drone of the number of operational drones to a respective sub-area for surveilling said respective sub-area (column 8, line 64, “The sufficiency list database module 216 comprises the sufficiency list which comprises available active UAVs to complete the incomplete task of the incapacitated UAV. The selector module 218 is configured to select at least one of the available active UAVs from the UAVs 110-122 from the sufficiency list to complete the incomplete task based on various constraints.”).
The broadest reasonable interpretation for the independent 9 is “monitoring a number of operational drones amount the set of drones", because everything after the word "if" is a contingent limitation that does not have to be met.
Examiner note to applicant: To avoid such an interpretation, it is recommended the “if” statement be changed to a “when” statement in independent claims 1 and 9, which makes the claims no longer a contingent limitation. This would read that the detection of a change in the number of operational drones has to occur.
Regarding independent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 applies directly. Additionally, Jang further discloses A surveillance system (abstract, “A system and methods for mission re-planning are presented;” column 3, line 45, “Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are flexible and can be useful in surveillance, search and rescue tasks or even used for tracking and combat. ”) comprising:
a control unit (Figure 2, element 220, “processor module”); and
a set of drones that perform surveillance of an area of interest (Figure 2, elements 236, 232; column 6, line 12, “The system 200 may be part of a network architecture that communicates with UAVs 232 and 236 or UAVs 118-122 in FIG. 1”),
wherein the control unit is configured to
monitor a number of operational drones among the set of drones (abstract, “Vehicles are monitored in real-time, and an incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task is detected;” column 6, line 51, “The status module 206 is configured to monitor the UAVs 232 and 236 in real-time and to detect at least one incapacitated UAV from the UAVs 232 and 236 that performs an incomplete task. A health management logic (not shown) onboard each UAV 232/236 monitors a status of the UAVs 232/236 and sends a data packet corresponding to the status to the communication module 224. ”),
if a change in the number of operational drones is detected (abstract, “Vehicles are monitored in real-time, and an incapacitated vehicle from among the vehicles that performs an incomplete task is detected;” column 6, line 51, “The status module 206 is configured to monitor the UAVs 232 and 236 in real-time and to detect at least one incapacitated UAV from the UAVs 232 and 236 that performs an incomplete task. A health management logic (not shown) onboard each UAV 232/236 monitors a status of the UAVs 232/236 and sends a data packet corresponding to the status to the communication module 224. ”, segment the area of interest into N sub-areas, N being a current number of the number of operational drones (Figure 4, element 414; column 13, line 10, “Process 400 may continue by the sufficiency capability calculation module 214 determining a remaining coverage set (k.leftArea) comprising a remaining coverage area for each of the vehicles (task 414).”); and
affect each operational drone of the number of operational drones to a respective sub-area for surveilling said respective sub-area (column 8, line 64, “The sufficiency list database module 216 comprises the sufficiency list which comprises available active UAVs to complete the incomplete task of the incapacitated UAV. The selector module 218 is configured to select at least one of the available active UAVs from the UAVs 110-122 from the sufficiency list to complete the incomplete task based on various constraints.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and correcting objections as noted above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior arts of record teach methods of route correction for aerial imaging based on a UAV becoming inoperable. However, none of them alone or in any combination teaches segmenting areas of interest from UAV regions and putting a set of virtual points in a georeferenced area, clustering the points based on position in the region associated with a point of interest, and for each cluster determining boundaries of an area based on the position of the points of interest.
The closest prior art being Jang discloses methods of re-planning paths for UAVs (abstract). Further, as seen in figure 1, Jang allows for mapping regions of interest, however these are not based on clustered points of a georeferenced region.
Another close prior art U.S. Publication No. 2019/0011920 to Heinonen et al. discloses, “A method for generating a flight plan of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes defining a list with at least one asset to be inspected (abstract).” At paragraph 0057, Heinonen discloses, “The method comprises defining a list comprising at least one asset to be inspected. The list may include information about one or multiple assets to be inspected by the unmanned aerial vehicle. In an example, the list may be an ordered list of assets that are arranged based in a decreasing (or increasing) order of importance of the assets to be inspected first. In another example, the list may be an unordered (or random) list of assets to be inspected. In another example, the list may be divided to multiple unmanned aerial vehicles in accordance with some criteria, for example geographical proximity of assets (abstract).” However, Heinonen does not disclose determining boundaries of an area corresponding to the clusters, and using a set of virtual georeferenced points.
Thus, Jang and Heinonen fail to disclose segmenting areas of interest from UAV regions and putting a set of virtual points in a georeferenced area, clustering the points based on position in the region associated with a point of interest, and for each cluster determining boundaries of an area based on the position of the points of interest.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO2021087750A1 discloses, “A route planning method and device for an unmanned aerial vehicle, the method comprising: according to preset route planning information, generating a plurality of route reference lines in a target area (S101); acquiring position information of a no-fly zone in the target area (S102); according to the position information of the no-fly zone, segmenting the target area into a plurality of sub-areas, so that the sub-areas do not overlap with the no-fly zone (S103) (abstract)”
U.S. Publication No. 2019/0205644 to Birchbauer et al. discloses, “A method for controlling an unmanned flying object (UAV) that is used to detect and measure objects in a specified region (abstract)”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Courtney J. Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-3956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661