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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-14 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues the present claims addressing the technological problem providing technical benefit that recited RCN graph efficiently models conflicts between missions and other technical benefits are being provided and therefore overcome the 101 rejection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The claimed invention address technological problem or advantages in solving the technological problem do not overcome the 101 rejection because it merely provide the method that is an abstract idea without significantly more. In this case, because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) It does not improve “the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field, integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception” as recited by the Applicant. All the steps in the claims given its BRI can be mental processes without significantly more. Therefore, are not eligible under 101.
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, 3-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having logic stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for managing resources of a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the actions comprising:
creating, by the computing system, a mission record and one or more candidate records, wherein each candidate record of the one or more candidate records represents one or more resources for accomplishing a mission represented by the mission record;
adding, by the computing system, a mission node representing the mission record to a resource competition network graph (RCN graph);
adding, by the computing system, one or more candidate nodes representing the one or more candidate records to the RCN graph;
determining, by the computing system, an optimized allocation of candidate records to mission records using at least a subgraph of the RCN graph;
determining a candidate record to commit to a mission record; and
updating, by the computing system, the RCN graph to commit the candidate record to the mission record;
wherein the RCN graph includes:
a mission layer;
a candidate layer;
one or more candidate layer edges that connect candidate nodes in the candidate layer to indicate that the connected candidate nodes conflict with each other;
one or more cross-layer edges that connect candidate nodes in the candidate layer and mission nodes in the mission layer; and
one or more mission layer edges that connect mission nodes in the mission layer to indicate that the mission nodes are connected to conflicting candidate nodes.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of creating, by the computing system, a mission record and one or more candidate records, wherein each candidate record of the one or more candidate records represents one or more resources for accomplishing a mission represented by the mission record; adding, by the computing system, a mission node representing the mission record to a resource competition network graph (RCN graph); adding, by the computing system, one or more candidate nodes representing the one or more candidate records to the RCN graph; determining, by the computing system, an optimized allocation of candidate records to mission records using at least a subgraph of the RCN graph; determining a candidate record to commit to a mission record; and updating, by the computing system, the RCN graph to commit the candidate record to the mission record; wherein the RCN graph includes: a mission layer; a candidate layer; one or more candidate layer edges that connect candidate nodes in the candidate layer to indicate that the connected candidate nodes conflict with each other; one or more cross-layer edges that connect candidate nodes in the candidate layer and mission nodes in the mission layer; and one or more mission layer edges that connect mission nodes in the mission layer to indicate that the mission nodes are connected to conflicting candidate nodes This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the computing system”. That is, other than reciting “by the computing system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper - MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, but for the “by the computing system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data obtained, formulating, analyzing the data and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a computing system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having logic stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for managing resources of a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The perform actions for managing resources of a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering UAVs related data for use in the creating, adding, determining and updating steps), and amount to mere data manipulating, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor” and “computing system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing system environment, i.e. a computer. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the creating, adding, determining and updating steps. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments using a generic or general-purpose data storage medium, i.e. a computer readable data storage device.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the perform actions for managing resources of a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the managing resources using autonomous vehicles are conventional systems using control systems, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a system. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere manipulating or receipt of data over for a system is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere transmitting of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim 11, having the “creating”, “adding”, “determining” and “updating” steps similar as claim 1 are directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more with the same analysis discussed above.
Dependent claim(s) 3-9 and 13-20 for claims 1 and 11 respectively do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The further “removing” and “conducting” the parameters in the dependent claims direct to the same abstract idea without significantly more than the same limitations discussed above for claims 1 and 11. Therefore, dependent claims 3-9 and 13-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(Multi-Robot Coordination and Cooperation with Task Precedence Relationships, 23 May 2023, arXiv:2209.14417v2, pp. 1-7) Gosrich et al. discloses a multi-robot coordination control system for cooperative task completion.
(Priority-based assignment and routing of a fleet of unmanned combat aerial vehicles, 1 November 2006, Elsevier, ScienceDirect, Computers & Operations Research 35 (2008) pp. 1813-1828) Shetty et al. discloses control system managing a fleet of UAVs.
(Cooperative Control: Models, Applications and Algorithms, 2003, Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V. pp. 1-365) Butenko et al. discloses cooperative control models and algorithms for UAVs.
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 Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657