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/Amendments
The amendment filed December 12th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been considered and are persuasive in part. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C 103.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn
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 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.
Claims 1-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170344000, to Krishnamoorthy et al. (hereinafter Krishnamoorthy), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9527605 , to Gentry et al (hereinafter Gentry).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claims 6, and 11, Krishnamoorthy teaches, A charging facility determination device comprising: at least one memory storing a computer program; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program to: (See at least paragraph [0005][0029] “a control unit 150. The control unit 150 may include a processor 151, one or more transceivers 152 (e.g., Peanut, Bluetooth, Bluetooth LE, ZigBee, Wi-Fi®, radio frequency (RF) radio, etc.), a platform antenna 115, and a power module 153. The processor 151 may include memory 154 and sufficient processing power to conduct various control and computing operations for the charging station 110. The processor 151 may be coupled to and control the docking terminal 120 for charging UAVs docked thereon, such as by being equipped with charging control algorithm and a charge control circuit. The processor 151 may be directly powered from a power source supplying power for charging the UAVs or from the power module 153. The processor 151 may also be coupled to one or more motor or actuation mechanisms for holding or releasing UAVs docked on the docking terminal 120.”).
acquire information capable of grasping a cruisable range of a first unmanned flying object; (See at least paragraph [0025] “periodically or continuously monitor onboard available power levels and determine whether the UAV has enough power to reach its destination in accordance with mission power parameters.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0073] “the mission power parameters may include projected energy expenditures associates with a particular course to a destination. Such projected energy expenditures may be determined based on distance or travel times, and recalculated in real-time. In addition, route parameters may include other factors associated with a course, such as higher or lower than normal power consumption rates. Mission power parameters may identify a minimum power level (or reserve power level) that must be maintained at each stage in a mission in order to provide safe margins for handling unexpected problems, such as weather issues, payload issues, or hardware issues that could require an emergency divert or consume more power than expected. If power reserves on the UAV fall below such minimums, parking without charging at a suitable site may be required if recharging at a charging station is not an option, or other alternative power replacement methods are available (e.g., battery swap, or even refueling for UAVs with a combustion engine).”).
set a first priority with which the first unmanned flying object uses a charging facility according to a use of the first unmanned flying object, (See at least paragraph [0002] “determining a priority of a first UAV and a second UAV for using a docking terminal of the charging station based on an available power level of each of the first and second UAVs. The first UAV may be instructed to undock from the docking terminal in response to determining that the second UAV has a higher priority.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0003] “docking terminal may include determining the priority of the first and second UAVs for using the docking terminal by weighing the available power level and the UAV ranking of each of the first and second UAVs. ”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0072] “Mission power parameters may include details regarding power requirements of one or more missions. The power requirements may further include route parameters, reserve power thresholds, payload encumbrances, temporal parameters, and mission priorities.”).
determine a charging facility to be used by the first unmanned flying object based on the cruisable range and the first priority, the cruisable range being calculated by a calculator based on the acquired information; (See at least paragraph [0042] “the processor may determine the UAV that has the highest priority based on the determined available power levels and the determined ranks.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0042] “When multiple UAVs are being assessed, the processor may transmit (e.g., using the one or more transceivers and the platform antenna) at least two different types of messages in response to the priority determination in block 234, namely a Go-for-docking message in block 236 to the UAV with the highest priority and one or more request rejections in block 280 to any other UAVs.”). Still further, (See at least paragraph [0067] “the UAV may autonomously identify one or more charging stations, docking terminals, and/or safe landing sites, such as the first available docking terminal or safe landing site that is not far from the original course to a destination.”).Further, (See at least paragraph [0065] “In response to determining that the available power level of the onboard battery is sufficient to reach another docking terminal (i.e., determination block 355=“Yes”), the processor may direct the UAV to undock and head to the other docking terminal in block 360.”).Still further, (See at least paragraph [0084] “When selecting from multiple available charging stations and/or docking terminals, the processor 460 of the UAV 400 may select a preferred charging station and/or docking terminal based on various factors, such as (but not limited to) which one best meets the current mission power parameters of the UAV 400 based on its location.”).
predict, in a case where a charging facility assigned to the first unmanned flying object is occupied by a second unmanned flying object having a second priority that is lower than the first priority of the first unmanned flying object, (See at least paragraph [0042] “the processor may determine the UAV that has the highest priority based on the determined available power levels and the determined ranks. In determining the UAV with the highest priority, the processor may determine priorities of the multiple UAVs with pending docking requests”).
a storage amount of the second unmanned flying object (See at least paragraph [0025] “The UAV may periodically or continuously monitor onboard available power levels and determine whether the UAV has enough power to reach its destination in accordance with mission power parameters.”).
Krishnamoorthy fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the first priority is set as a higher priority for an emergency use than for a normal use; (See [Col. 4. Lines 4-14] “The route for the UAV 105 can be calculated by the central control 150 and can be, for example, the most direct path, the path with the most favorable atmospheric conditions (e.g., without headwinds), or the path that moves the UAV 105 from docking station to docking station without exceeding the UAV's 105 range. In some examples, the central control 150 can adjust the UAVs' 105 routes dynamically based on, for example, the package weight and/or size, changes in weather (e.g., increased headwinds), package priority, or traffic from other UAVs 105 or other air traffic.”). Further, (See [Col. 11. Lines 25-55] “It is inevitable that UAVs with have electronic or mechanical failures in service. As a result, as shown in FIGS. 10A and 10B, in some examples the system can also include a method 1000 for rerouting UAVs to account for mechanical, electrical, or other technical issues. In some examples, the UAV can comprise an on-board diagnostic system comprising a plurality of error codes. These codes can refer to, for example, battery and motor overheating, low battery charge or fuel level, low motor RPM, and higher than normal power settings (e.g., the current from the battery is higher than normal for the current load and conditions). Regardless of the problem, a first UAV can send an error code to the central control, as shown at 1005. Upon receiving the error code, the central control can (1) determine the current location of the first UAV, as shown at 1010 and (2) determine a first docking station for the first UAV, as shown at 1015. Of course, in some cases, the first docking station will be chosen because it is the closest docking station. In other cases, the closest docking station may be occupied, for example, and the first docking station can be the closest available docking station. In still other cases, such as when the stricken UAV cannot fly to a farther docking station, the central control can send a flight plan to a UAV that is occupying the closest docking station moving it to another docking station. After determining the appropriate docking station, the central control can generate an “emergency” flight plan for the first UAV from the UAV's current location to the first docking station, as shown at 1020.”).
at a scheduled time when the first unmanned flying object is expected to arrive at the charging facility; (See [Col. 11. Lines 36-53] “Regardless of the problem, a first UAV can send an error code to the central control, as shown at 1005. Upon receiving the error code, the central control can (1) determine the current location of the first UAV, as shown at 1010 and (2) determine a first docking station for the first UAV, as shown at 1015. Of course, in some cases, the first docking station will be chosen because it is the closest docking station. In other cases, the closest docking station may be occupied, for example, and the first docking station can be the closest available docking station. In still other cases, such as when the stricken UAV cannot fly to a farther docking station, the central control can send a flight plan to a UAV that is occupying the closest docking station moving it to another docking station. After determining the appropriate docking station, the central control can generate an “emergency” flight plan for the first UAV from the UAV's current location to the first docking station, as shown at 1020.”).
and instruct, in response to predicting that the predicted storage amount is sufficient for the second unmanned flying object to reach its destination, the second unmanned flying object to depart from the charging facility at or before the scheduled time. (See [Col. 11. Lines 36-53] “Regardless of the problem, a first UAV can send an error code to the central control, as shown at 1005. Upon receiving the error code, the central control can (1) determine the current location of the first UAV, as shown at 1010 and (2) determine a first docking station for the first UAV, as shown at 1015. Of course, in some cases, the first docking station will be chosen because it is the closest docking station. In other cases, the closest docking station may be occupied, for example, and the first docking station can be the closest available docking station. In still other cases, such as when the stricken UAV cannot fly to a farther docking station, the central control can send a flight plan to a UAV that is occupying the closest docking station moving it to another docking station. After determining the appropriate docking station, the central control can generate an “emergency” flight plan for the first UAV from the UAV's current location to the first docking station, as shown at 1020.”).
X as modified by X, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, route planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Earl to incorporate the teachings of Wai and Yi such that the “external environmental data” of Earl may include “heat map” of Wai and the “overlaid routes” of Yi because incorporating the heat map with overlaid routes will aid in detecting the best possible pickup location.
Regarding claim 2, and commensurate claims 7, and 12, Krishnamoorthy as modified by Gentry discloses the featured claims of claim 1 an further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer program to set the priority more highly in a case where a storage amount of the unmanned flying object indicated by the acquired information is less than a predetermined value. (See at least paragraph [0003] [0042] “ the processor may determine the UAV that has the highest priority based on the determined available power levels and the determined ranks. In determining the UAV with the highest priority, the processor may determine priorities of the multiple UAVs with pending docking requests. The priority determination in block 234 may be a weighted priority, with available power level having more influence than rank, with rank having more influence than available power level, or with both power level and rank having equal weighting. In addition, other factors such as how long a UAV has been waiting may influence that UAVs rank. Alternatively, the priority determination in block 234 may be based on one or more thresholds. For example, if an available power level is below a predetermined low threshold, the available power may be weighted more heavily than the UAV ranking Also, if an available power level is below a predetermined critical threshold, the ranking may be given no weighting when determining the charging order or priority for the charging station. As a further alternative, if either UAV has a ranking above a certain predetermined ranking, the available power level may be given no weighting when determining the charging order or priority. According to various embodiments, UAV ranks may be determined in any suitable manner and/or be based on any suitable criteria (e.g., based on a higher landing fee or subscription fee, higher valued payload, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 3, and commensurate claims 8, and 13, Krishnamoorthy as modified by Gentry discloses the featured claims of claim 1 an further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer program to set the priority based on a date and time on which the unmanned flying object starts a work and a current date and time. (See at least paragraph [0072] “Mission power parameters may include details regarding power requirements of one or more missions. The power requirements may further include route parameters, reserve power thresholds, payload encumbrances, temporal parameters, and mission priorities. The UAV 400 may compare such power requirements to current onboard power levels in order to determine whether the UAV 400 has sufficient onboard power to safely complete all missions or select missions. Temporal parameters may include mission timing, deadlines, time-of-day, date, or other information associated with time. In addition, since mission power parameters may change, the UAV 400 may be provided with updates to mission power parameters from time to time.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [] “”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0042] “The priority determination in block 234 may be a weighted priority, with available power level having more influence than rank, with rank having more influence than available power level, or with both power level and rank having equal weighting.”).
Regarding claim 4, and commensurate claims 9, and 14, Krishnamoorthy as modified by Gentry discloses featured claims of claim 1 an further teaches , wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a charging facility on a planned flight path of the unmanned flying object among available charging facilities as the charging facility to be used by the unmanned flying object. (See at least paragraph [0067] “the UAV may autonomously identify one or more charging stations, docking terminals, and/or safe landing sites, such as the first available docking terminal or safe landing site that is not far from the original course to a destination. Thus, the UAV may perform a real-time site survey in order to assess a site and determine whether that site is suitable for charging and/or waiting. In various embodiments, the UAV may transmit information determined from the real-time site survey and/or otherwise received/collected to the server for updating. The information transmitted to the server may become inaccurate (i.e., decay) over time and thus may be associated by the UAV and/or the server with a time, such as when the information was received and/or collected.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0084] “When selecting from multiple available charging stations and/or docking terminals, the processor 460 of the UAV 400 may select a preferred charging station and/or docking terminal based on various factors, such as (but not limited to) which one best meets the current mission power parameters of the UAV 400 based on its location. ”).
Regarding claim 5, and commensurate claims 10, and 15, Krishnamoorthy as modified by Gentry discloses the featured claims of claim 1 an further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer program to set mutually different priorities for each of a plurality of unmanned flying objects, the plurality of unmanned flying objects including the first unmanned flying object and the second unmanned flying object. (See at least paragraph [0002] [0015] [0042]“receiving docking requests from two or more UAVs. Various embodiments may include determining a priority of a first UAV and a second UAV for using a docking terminal of the charging station based on an available power level of each of the first and second UAVs. The first UAV may be instructed to undock from the docking terminal in response to determining that the second UAV has a higher priority.”).
Regarding claim 16, Krishnamoorthy as modified by Gentry discloses the featured claims of claim 1 an further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer program to: determine, in response to predicting that the predicted storage amount is not sufficient for the second unmanned flying object to reach its destination, a next charging facility for the second unmanned flying object. (See at least paragraph [0064-0065] “ In response to determining that the available power level of the onboard battery is not sufficient to reach the destination of the UAV (i.e., determination block 345=“No”), the processor may determine whether the available power level of the onboard batter is sufficient to reach another docking terminal in determination block 355.In response to determining that the available power level of the onboard battery is sufficient to reach another docking terminal (i.e., determination block 355=“Yes”), the processor may direct the UAV to undock and head to the other docking terminal in block 360.“).
Regarding claim 17, Krishnamoorthy as modified by Gentry discloses the featured claims of claim 1 an further teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer program to: set a first partial priority based on the use of the first unmanned flying object; (See at least paragraph [0072] “Mission power parameters may include details regarding power requirements of one or more missions. The power requirements may further include route parameters, reserve power thresholds, payload encumbrances, temporal parameters, and mission priorities. The UAV 400 may compare such power requirements to current onboard power levels in order to determine whether the UAV 400 has sufficient onboard power to safely complete all missions or select missions. Temporal parameters may include mission timing, deadlines, time-of-day, date, or other information associated with time. In addition, since mission power parameters may change, the UAV 400 may be provided with updates to mission power parameters from time to time.”).
set a second partial priority based on a date and time on which the first unmanned flying object starts the work; (See at least paragraph [0072] “Temporal parameters may include mission timing, deadlines, time-of-day, date, or other information associated with time. In addition, since mission power parameters may change, the UAV 400 may be provided with updates to mission power parameters from time to time.”).
calculate the first priority by applying a predetermined weight to each of the first partial priority and the second partial priority; and aggregate the weighted first partial priority and the weighted second partial priority (See at least paragraph [0042] “In block 234, the processor may determine the UAV that has the highest priority based on the determined available power levels and the determined ranks. In determining the UAV with the highest priority, the processor may determine priorities of the multiple UAVs with pending docking requests. The priority determination in block 234 may be a weighted priority, with available power level having more influence than rank, with rank having more influence than available power level, or with both power level and rank having equal weighting”).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights