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 . Claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 11/3/25.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Drawing Objections filed on 11/3/25, regarding Drawing Objections have been fully considered, however no amended drawings were found in the response. Therefore the Drawing Objections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Claim Objections filed on 11/3/25, regarding Claim Objections are moot in view of claim cancellations filed 11/3/25. Claim Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) filed on 11/3/25, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 11/3/25. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 102. filed on 11/3/25, regarding 35 USC § 102 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 11/3/25.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of further citations to the art of record below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because different features of the drawings appear blurred or grainy in appearance. Element labels and flow chart lines do not appear clearly and appear to be scanned and copied multiple times. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
While the disclosure in the applicant’s specification does disclose identifying overlapping regions, it does not explicitly recite any instance of “specify[ing] the first robot based on a control input for the mobile robot remaining in a region in which a movable region of each of the plurality of other robots other than the first robot overlaps with each other” or any instance of assessing a movable region of a plurality of other mobile robots overlapping with each other. The only discussion of overlapping regions while remaining in a movable region is between a first and second region to determine the movable region between two robots (Specification ¶107 and ¶111 for example).
Without proper specification support it is impossible to determine the actual scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2021/0302621).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Brown discloses a navigation/communication system for autonomous vehicles including a mobile robot/movement control device/method comprising (¶137 – UAV corresponding to the recited mobile robot):
a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (¶468-469):
perform movement control for moving toward a target direction while remaining in a movable region representing a region in which the mobile robot and another mobile robot are communicable with each other and a collision between the mobile robot and the other mobile robot is avoidable (¶146-148, ¶265, and ¶308-309 - the unmanned aerial vehicle moves along its flight path corresponding to the recited perform movement control for moving toward a target direction where movement control is performed within communications range corresponding to the recited communicable region while maintaining a predetermined safe distance between itself and other UAVs corresponding to the recited movable region representing a communicable region without a collision between the mobile robot and another robot where UAVs with autonomous functionality which autonomously send and/or receive information over one or more wireless datalinks including to other UAVs/application modules corresponding to the recited mobile robots communicable with each other and in range. Therefore the area where the UAVs are able to communicate and avoid collisions corresponding to the recited movable region.
While Brown does not explicitly state that UAVs directly communicate with each other, the disclosure of the autonomous UAVs able to communicate over the otherwise discussed wireless datalinks, networks, or communication paths (¶265) as well as potential collision warning message communications transmitted between several UAVs within communications range (¶308-309) would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to directly communicate between multiple autonomous UAVs in a potential collision situation in order to reduce collisions between UAVs and improve safety relating to UAV operating conditions (Brown - ¶309)); and
calculate, from a state of the mobile robot and a state of the other robot, a first region where the mobile robot and the other robot do not collide (¶308-309 – determination if a first UAV is too close to a second UAV (such as within a predetermined distance of the second UAV, or vice versa) corresponding to the recited calculating first region where outside the predetermined safe distance around each UAV corresponding to the recited first region where mobile robots do not collide),
a second region where the mobile robot and the other robot are capable of communicating (¶308-309 - communications range of the communications station corresponding to the recited second region where both robots are capable of communicating), and
a movable region in which the first region and the second region overlap (¶308-309 –the communications range corresponding to the recited second region and the area outside the predetermined safe distance from each UAV corresponding to the recited first region where navigation is allowed within the area where the two overlap. While the prior art does not explicitly label the different regions or label a movable region that is the overlapping area of the two, it does define an area which communications are possible as well as collision/collision-free areas where the UAVs are only allowed to operate in the collision free region which is also within communications range therefore disclosing the element as claimed),
the state of the other robot being a state of the other robot at time of most recent communication between the mobile robot and the other robot; determine, based on the state of the mobile robot and the state of the other robot, whether or not the mobile robot is to communicate with the other robot; and in a case where it is determined that the mobile robot is to communicate with the other robot, perform communication between the mobile robot and the other robot (¶152 and ¶308-309 – determine whether or not a first UAV is too close to a second UAV corresponding to the recited determination of whether or not communication is necessary in order perform communication between the robots based on real-time communicated sensor data including location or position of each of the UAVs corresponding to the recited most state of the other robot at the time recent communication between the robots).
Regarding claim 4, Brown further discloses calculate a control input for moving toward the target, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to compare a first control input in a case where a movement of the movable robot is not restricted in the movable region and a second control input in a case where the moveable robot remains in the movable region, and determine, based on a comparison result, whether or not the mobile robot is to communicate with the other robot (¶309 – navigational adjustments corresponding to the recited first control input for moving toward the target based on the two UAVs being within the predetermined distance corresponding to the recited in a case of a constraint of movement not being restricted in the movable region where no navigational adjustment corresponding to the recited second control input in a case of remaining in the planned path of the movable region. The first control input is interpreted utilizing BRI as being an adjustment to the planned path based on the UAV being too close to another UAV and therefore leaving the movable region and the second control input is interpreted utilizing BRI as no adjustments made because predetermined distances were maintained therefore the UAV remains within the movable region. Based on the UAV utilizing the first control input, warning message is transmitted to both UAVs corresponding to the recited determining whether or not the mobile robot is to communicate with the other robot and no communication necessary for the second control input).
Regarding claim 6, Brown further discloses specify another robot that is most restricting the movable region of the mobile robot when it is determined that the mobile robot is to perform communication, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform communication with the specified other robot (¶309 – specifying a second UAV is within a predetermined distance to the first UAV corresponding to the recited specify another robot that is most restricting the movable region of the mobile robot when a warning message is sent to the second UAV corresponding to the recited when it is determined to perform communication with the specified other robot).
Regarding claim 7, Brown further discloses calculate a control input for moving toward the target, wherein the other robot includes a plurality of other robots including a first robot, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to specify the first robot based on a control input for the mobile robot remaining in a region in which a movable region of each of the plurality of other robots other than the first robot overlaps with each other (¶308-309 – specifying a second UAV is within a predetermined distance to the first UAV corresponding to the recited specify the other robot as one of several UAVs corresponding to the recited first robot of a plurality of other robots in order to transmit navigational adjustments corresponding to the recited control input when the paths of multiple UAVs are within a predetermined distance of each other corresponding to the recited movable regions of each of the plurality of robots overlap).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dooley et al. (US 2004/0236470) discloses a position and communications system for robots to detect each other and communicate only when necessary (¶23).
Sislak et al. (US 8,538,673) discloses a planning method for collision free trajectories including utilizing different zones and their overlaps between vehicles where the zones include communications zone, alert zone, and a safety zone (Fig. 8 and Abstract).
Kulkarni et al. (US 11,052,909) discloses an object zone identification system for vehicle navigation including utilizing multiple layered zones extending out from the vehicle to determine overlap with other vehicles (Fig. 3 and Col 8:60-9:19).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665