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
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 04/27/2026 amendment filing with the USPTO. In the amendment claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 19 were amended. Claim 2 was canceled. No claims are withdrawn or newly added.
This Action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, “the claimed invention does not recite a method of organizing human activity. The claim does not concern economic principles, commercial interactions, or management of personal behavior. Rather, the claimed invention is directed to a computer-implemented method in which agents equipped with sensing hardware are deployed to tasks through processor-based optimization”, filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, with respect to abstract category of organizing human activity have been fully considered and are persuasive. The category of organizing human activity has been withdrawn from the updated rejection below.
Applicant's OTHER arguments filed with respect to the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“the claim recites "computing" costs using cost functions, this mathematical element is inextricably tied to the physical sensing of agent position data and the dispatch of agents to tasks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (noting that a claim is not directed to an abstract idea if the judicial exception is not recited at a high level of generality). Here, the cost function computation is not a generic mathematical formula; it is specifically tied to sensed physical data (relative position or position change over time) and produces a concrete output that directly governs agent deployment.”
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position and notes that the claims were not found abstract under the abstract category of mathematical concepts in the previous Office action or the instant one. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
“The optimization does not produce an abstract output; it produces an assignment that directly and immediately governs the deployment of agents in the real world.”
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The Office maintains that the claims are made to a high level of generality. The claims do not provide specifics on for example – how the sensing is done, how the total cost is determined, how the trimmed subset is limited. For example the limitation of “generating a trimmed subset from the plurality of possible agent-task pairs, by a processor, based on the total costs of the first assignment thereby obtaining, a second assignment of agents to tasks” It is not clear what is the “total costs”” threshold for determining which pair belong first assignment and which to the second. If a pair is not included in the first assignment is it then a part of the second assignment or is there a “total costs”” threshold for the second assignment? The claimed “total cost” without a qualifier is generalized.
As amended the claim also requires “from a second cost function comprising at least a variation of costs, for one of the tasks, among agent-task pairs assigned thereto, generating, by the processor, a third assignment of agents to tasks that is at least as optimal of the second assignment”; but the second assignment is not defined as optimal. The assignment of task one and two are not optimized; they are simply assigned based on cost generically.
For these reasons, the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
“The independent claims recite a structured sequence that begins with sensing physical relative-position / relative-motion data, proceeds through computing costs using a primary cost function that comprises at least that sensed data point, and culminates in dispatching physical agents in accordance with an optimized assignment (including optimization using a secondary cost function that accounts for variation of costs among agent-task pairs assigned to a task). These claim elements are not merely "post- solution activity"; they define a control scheme that uses real-world sensor inputs to generate control outputs that govern agent deployment, thereby improving the technical field of multi- agent task allocation and dispatch. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c).”
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. As amended the claim 1 recite, “sensing, by a sensing unit . . . at least one data point related to at least one of relative position or relative position change” and “dispatching the plurality of agents to the plurality of task”. Both limitations are found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. The “sensing” limitation is found to be a step of data gathering. Where MPEP 2106.05(g) provides, “ pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) provides “the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 . . . recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” The agent pairs are simply dispatched to the task – the claim is silent on the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result.
For these reasons, the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
“The ordered combination produces a technically superior dispatch outcome that addresses the scale limitations of prior methods. The specific sequence-defining a first assignment, computing total costs, generating a trimmed subset to obtain a second assignment, then applying a secondary cost function to generate a third assignment-is not a conventional optimization technique. The combination of sensing, dual-phase cost optimization, and dispatch represents a specific technological solution to a technological problem.”
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. Basing a task assignments on cost is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Any improvement to the field of art comes from the capabilities of the computer rather than the claimed invention. For these reasons, the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections 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.
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 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1 and 3-17 are to a method (process), claim 18 is to a medium (manufacture), and claim 19 is to a device (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and a mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A computer-implemented method for dispatching a plurality of agents to a plurality of tasks, each of the plurality of task having a minimal number of more than one agent from the plurality of agents that are necessary for completion thereof, the method comprising:
- sensing, by a sensing unit of at least one agent from the plurality of agents, at least one data point related to at least one of relative position or relative position change over time for the plurality of agents;
- defining a first assignment of the plurality of tasks, wherein each of the plurality of tasks is assigned to the minimal number of agents from the plurality of agents;
- from a primary cost function comprising at least the data point, computing a total cost for executing a specific task considering a plurality of possible agent-task pairs for the first assignment;
- generating a trimmed subset from the plurality of possible agent-task pairs, by a processor, based on the total costs of the first assignment thereby obtaining, a second assignment of agents to tasks;
- from a second cost function comprising at least a variation of costs, for one of the tasks, among agent-task pairs assigned thereto, generating, by the processor, a third assignment of agents to tasks that is at least as optimal of the second assignment; and
- dispatching the plurality of agents to the plurality of tasks based on the third assignment of agents to tasks.
The specification does not express define bounds of what an agent is. It only provides examples, see “at least one of the plurality of agents is a drone” (Spec. [22]) and “agents may take the form of vehicles, quadrotors, mobile robots, drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs), Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGVs), Central Processing Unit (CPUs), electrical power units, machines”. (Spec. [40]). The claims seek to determine which agents should be paired based on cost of executing tasks, which found to be a type of commercial interaction. The claim is found to be directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims are also found to be directed towards an abstract idea of a mental processes – where the claims are to matching agents with task based on known information and the human minds ability to reason, but for the nominal recitation of the processor. Where given the know information about the agents (position) and task (cost), a person could create agent-task pairs using his ability to make observations. The person could also filter (trim) agent-task pairs based on cost using his mind’s ability to evaluate information. Finally the person, could further filter (trim) the pairs based on cost thereby optimizing cost with respect to the matched pairs. Th person using his ability to make a judgment call to dispatch the agents.
Finally, it is noted that the dispatching of the agents is simply the application of the abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The sensing and dispatching elements are determined to be insignificant extra-solution activity – data-gathering sensing position of agents and outputting the results of the abstract analysis (generating/assignment), respectively.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The claim uses generic components, see for example specification “processor unit 1230 may represent a single processor with one or more processor cores or an array of processors, each comprising one or more processor cores.” (Spec. [139]).
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 3 and 14, which further define the primary cost function or simply defines the information used in the analysis these elements do not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 4, which further defines the trimming or filtering process “cost less optimal than or equal to the primary cost function of the first assignment” adds to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to claim 5, which further defines the generating of second assignment adds to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to claim 6, further defines the first replacement agent adds to the identified abstract idea – finding the optimal solution – agent and task pairing.
With respect to claim 7, adds a graph claims these elements are viewed as steps of outputting/insignificant extra solution activity that does not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 8, further defines the second optimization adds to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to claims 9 and 11, which further defines the generating of third assignment adds to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to claim 10, which further defines task associated with the sub-optimal secondary cost function or simply defines the information used in the analysis these elements do not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 12, which further defines the dispatch step which adds to outputting/insignificant extra solution activity that does not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
With respect to claim 13, further defines the agent task paring adds to the identified abstract idea.
With respect to claim 15, further defines the agent which adds to the identified.
With respect to claim 16, further defines the task which adds to the identified.
With respect to claim 17, further defines the generic computer components which does not add a practical application or significantly more to the abstract idea.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ali et al (US 2022/0351628 A1).
Claims 1, 18, and 19
Ali teaches a computer-implemented method for dispatching a plurality of agents to a plurality of tasks (Ali abstract “computing device determines, based on the identified constraints, a set of pairs of UAVs and flight paths. Each pair includes a flight path and a UAV that is available and capable to perform the flight path in accordance with the mission parameters.”, where the mission is the equivalent of the claimed task), each of the plurality of tasks having a minimal number of more than one agent from the plurality of agents that are necessary for completion thereof, (Ali [35] “a number of UAVs needed to complete a coordinated aerial disinfection of a disinfection area within a time limit; and partitioning, by the server, the disinfection area into a plurality of partitions, wherein the number of partitions is equal to the number of UAVs” and [70] “Readers of skill in the art will realize that the set of pairs of UAVs and flight paths may include any number of combinations of UAVs and flight paths.” Where a pair means at least a minimum of two (2).) the method comprising:
sensing, by a sensing unit of at least one agent from the plurality of agents, at least one data point related to at least one of relative position or relative position change over time for the plurality of agents (Ali [25] “positioning circuitry 114 is configured to determine a position of the UAV 102 before, during, and/or after flight. For example, the positioning circuitry 114 may include a global positioning system (GPS) interface or sensor that determines GPS coordinates of the UAV 102. The positioning circuitry 114 may also include gyroscope(s), accelerometer(s), pressure sensor(s), other sensors, or a combination thereof, that may be used to determine the position of the UAV 102.”);
defining a first assignment of the plurality of tasks, wherein each of the plurality of tasks is assigned to the minimal number of agents from the plurality of agents (Ali [66] “Receiving 402 from a user, mission parameters for planning a mission . . . Mission parameters may be any form of data, value, condition, or rule that can be used to explain, limit, or define some aspect of a mission” and [70] “Readers of skill in the art will realize that the set of pairs of UAVs and flight paths may include any number of combinations of UAVs and flight paths.”);
from a primary cost function comprising at least the data point, computing a total cost for executing a specific task considering a plurality of possible agent-task pairs for the first assignment (Ali [35] “determine a cost for each flight path based on the total cost of the set of geographic cells traversed, and select, in dependence upon the total cost of each flight path, an optimal flight path from the plurality of flight paths . . . calculate a cost for each geographic cell traversed by at least one alternative flight path from the first location to the second location, determine that at least one alternative flight path has a total cost that is less than the total cost of the current flight path, and select a new optimal flight path from the at least one alternative flight paths . . . wherein the number of partitions is equal to the number of UAVs.”);
generating a trimmed subset from the plurality of possible agent-task pairs, by a processor, based on the total costs of the first assignment thereby obtaining a second assignment of agents to tasks (Ali [113] “computer program product of statement 15, wherein selecting from the set of potential pairs to assign to the mission, by the computing device, a pair of a particular UAV and a particular flight path includes: selecting, based on one or more priorities, the pair of the particular UAV and the particular flight path” and [114] “wherein the priorities include at least one of mission cost, total time of mission, estimated departure time, estimated arrival time, UAV rating, and pilot rating.”)
from a secondary cost function comprising at least a variation of costs, for one of the tasks, among agent-task pairs assigned thereto, generating, by the processor, a third assignment of agents to tasks that is at least as optimal the second assignment (Ali [70] “a particular flight path that the UAV can utilize to perform the mission according to the mission parameters and the constraints. For example, a set of pairs of UAVs and flight paths may include a first pair that includes a first UAV and a first flight path; a second pair that includes the first UAV and a second flight path; a third pair that includes a second UAV and a first flight path”); and
dispatching the plurality of agents to the plurality of tasks based on the third assignment of agents to tasks (Ali [72] “a third pair consisting of a third UAV and a third flight path will complete the mission in 15 minutes. In this example, the computing device may select the third pair because it is estimated to have the smallest mission time”).
Claim 4
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the trimmed subset is generated by removing agent-task pairs from the plurality of possible agent-task pairs associated with a cost less optimal than or equal to the cost computed from the primary cost function of the first assignment (Ali [35] and [75]).
Claim 8
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the second assignment optimizes the primary cost function (Ali [35]).
Claim 12
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein each agent is dispatched to no more than one task at a time in the third assignment (Ali [70]).
Claim 13
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of tasks is dispatched with no more than the minimal number of agents (Ali [74]).
Claim 14
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the primary cost function represents a temporal duration of processing of a task by an agent (Ali [71]).
Claim 15
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of agents is a drone (Ali [21]).
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) 3, 5-7, 9, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al (US 2022/0351628 A1) as applied above an in further view of Li (US 2023/0306334 A1).
Claim 3
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Ali contemplates what is or is not optimal, see Ali at [35], but Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitation of wherein the cost from the primary cost function of the first assignment corresponds to a least-optimal agent-task pair in the first assignment.
Li in the analogous art of task assignment in autonomous mobile devices teaches the claimed limitation of wherein the cost from the primary cost function of the first assignment corresponds to a least-optimal agent-task pair in the first assignment (Li [15] and [19] see “not necessarily the optimal solution” and “suboptimal” as the equivalent of the claimed least-optimal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the cost from the primary cost function of the first assignment corresponds to a least-optimal agent-task pair in the first assignment as taught by Li since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 5
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein generating the second assignment is performed by:
identifying, from the trimmed, a first replacement agent-task pair associated with a more optimal cost compared to the cost computed from the primary cost function of the first assignment of the first assignment Ali [113-114];
generating a graph representation of the plurality of possible agent-task pairs (Ali [66] and [72]);
Ali contemplates backup pilots/paths/UVA, see Ali [83] but does not expressly teach the following claimed limitation; however, Li in the analogous art of task assignment in autonomous mobile devices teaches the claimed limitations of:
performing a depth-first search of the graph to find an augmenting path connecting said first replacement agent-task pair (Li fig. 3, [19], and [21] see traversing trees or graphs); and
if said augmenting path is found, generating the second assignment based on the augmenting path (Li [37]);
otherwise, using the first assignment as the second assignment (Li [37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali performing a depth-first search of the graph to find an augmenting path connecting said first replacement agent-task pair; and if said augmenting path is found, generating the second assignment based on the augmenting path; otherwise, using the first assignment as the second assignment as taught by Li since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 5, wherein the first replacement agent-task pair is an agent-task pair associated with a most optimal cost for the same task (Ali [83-84] see backup is the equivalent of the claimed replacement).
Claim 7
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitations; however Li in the analogous art of task assignment in autonomous mobile devices teaches wherein the plurality of possible agent-task pairs is represented by a graph, wherein the graph comprises a first plurality of vertices each corresponding to one of the plurality of agents, a second plurality of vertices each corresponding to one of the plurality of tasks, and a plurality of edges each connecting a vertex from the first plurality of vertices to a vertex in the second plurality of vertices, wherein each edge represents a possible agent-task pair, and wherein a weight of each edge represents a cost of said agent-task pair (Li [16], [18], and [21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the plurality of possible agent-task pairs is represented by a graph, wherein the graph comprises a first plurality of vertices each corresponding to one of the plurality of agents, a second plurality of vertices each corresponding to one of the plurality of tasks, and a plurality of edges each connecting a vertex from the first plurality of vertices to a vertex in the second plurality of vertices, wherein each edge represents a possible agent-task pair, and wherein a weight of each edge represents a cost of said agent-task pair as taught by Li since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein generating the third assignment is performed by:
identifying from the second assignment a task associated with a sub-optimal secondary cost function (Ali [70] and [72]);
identifying, from the trimmed subset, one or more replacement agents that when replacing the identified one or more agents, the secondary cost function becomes more optimal (Ali [70], [72], and [74]);
generating a graph representation of the plurality of possible agent-task pairs (Ali [58]);
Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitations; however, Li, in the analogous art of task assignment in autonomous mobile devices, teaches performing a depth-first search of the graph to find an augmenting path connecting one of the one or more replacement agents to said task (Li [21] see traversing trees or graphs); and
if said augmenting path is found, generating the third assignment based on the augmenting path (Li [37]);
otherwise, using the second assignment as the third assignment (Li [37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the performing a depth-first search of the graph to find an augmenting path connecting one of the one or more replacement agents to said task; and if said augmenting path is found, generating the third assignment based on the augmenting path; otherwise, using the second assignment as the third assignment as taught by Li since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 9, Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitations; however, Li, in the analogous art of task assignment in autonomous mobile devices, teaches wherein said task associated with the sub-optimal secondary cost function corresponds to a task associated with a least optimal secondary cost function of the second assignment (Li [31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the task associated with the sub-optimal secondary cost function corresponds to a task associated with a least optimal secondary cost function of the second assignment as taught by Li since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 17
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitations; however, Li, in the analogous art of task assignment in autonomous mobile devices, teaches wherein the processor comprises a plurality of processors of the plurality of agents, and wherein the method is implemented in a distributed manner (Li [16] and [21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the processor comprises a plurality of processors of the plurality of agents, and wherein the method is implemented in a distributed manner as taught by Li since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al (US 2022/0351628 A1) as applied above an in further view of Tuysuzoglu et al (US 2022/0019952 A1).
Claim 11
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitations wherein the third assignment is Pareto optimal.
Tuysuzoglu teaches, in an analogous art, the claimed limitation of wherein the third assignment is Pareto optimal. (Tuysuzoglu [50]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the third assignment is Pareto optimal as taught by Tuysuzoglu since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al (US 2022/0351628 A1) as applied above an in further view of Wankewycz (US 2022/0041299 A1).
Claim 16
Ali teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Ali does not expressly teach the claimed limitations wherein at least one of the plurality of tasks is to neutralize a drone.
Wankewycz teaches, in an analogous art, the claimed limitation of wherein at least one of the plurality of tasks is to neutralize a drone. (Wankewycz [662], where mission is the equivalent of the claimed tasks)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Ali the least one of the plurality of tasks is to neutralize a drone as taught by Wankewycz since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tofte et al (US 10,909,628 B1) teaches Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may facilitate insurance-related tasks. UAVs may actively survey an area or be dispatched to the scene of a vehicle collision or crash, such as with an insured's permission, and collect data related to the vehicle collision or crash, such as vehicle data, insurer data, images, video, audio, weather conditions, etc., and transmit this data to a computing device.
Opperman et al (US 12,449,241 B1) teaches there may be a large mass of UAV and munitions available and swarming over the enemy, making it vastly difficult for the enemy to engage and disable an effective number of UAVs to avoid or neutralize the threat—where such mass also means that the loss of any one element or asset is not crippling or significantly damaging to the warfighters' effort. This further allows for the attention of the enemy to be confused and/or diverted from high-value targets and directed to the numerous UAVs, which preserves and maintains the safety of the warfighters' higher value assets.
Kaudri et al (US 2017/0131727 A1) teaches a mechanism for dynamically allocating tasks among multiple UAVs operating autonomously during a mission is discussed. Task assignment is adjusted by each UAV dynamically during the mission based on criteria related to the individual UAV's operational status and/or mission parameters. Task allocation is determined independently without group communication between the UAVs actively taking part in the mission and without direct communication to a ground-based controller. A communication UAV provides a shared memory space that may be utilized by each UAV in determining its own task allocation.
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 replying 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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights