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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 (which contains substantially similar subject matter as independent claims 10/11) recites:
A search assistance device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform:
acquiring abnormality notification information transmitted from a mobile object in which an abnormality has occurred among a plurality of mobile objects;
specifying an attribute of a search target, which is a mobile object that has transmitted the abnormality notification information, based on attribute information related to attributes of mobile objects stored in a storage; and
calculating a priority of a search according to the attribute of the search target based on a predetermined rule defined in advance.
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting
“memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” (from claim 11), nothing in the claim elements preclude the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of claims 1, 10, and 11 under the broadest reasonable interpretation may encompass a user priotizing searches for drones that fell into urban areas (versus non-urban areas, such as mountains, seas, etc.) due to the higher probability of causing accidents. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…”, the examiner submits that these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a general processor performing a generic computer function) such that the elements are considered mere generic computer components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the additional limitation of “acquiring abnormality notification information transmitted from a mobile object in which an abnormality has occurred among a plurality of mobile objects”, the examiner submits that gathering information has been previously indicated by the office as insufficient for showing an improvement of technology (MPEP § 2106.05(A)(II)(iii) “TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than generic sensors or processing devices.
Regarding the additional limitation of “acquiring abnormality notification information transmitted from a mobile object in which an abnormality has occurred among a plurality of mobile objects”, this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because receiving data over a network (e.g. acquiring abnormality notification information) is a recognized element considered to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 11 are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the 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:
Claims 2, 3, and 4 further describe the attribute information used to determine search prioritization (e.g. location where the drone fell, type of load being transported, insurance information, etc.), which is directed to the previously discussed mental process (“calculating a priority of a search according to the attribute” from independent claims 1, 10, and 11).
Claim 5, as currently claimed, is directed towards requesting and receiving data (e.g. acquiring captured imagery from another drone) and is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 6 describes giving value data, which is considered an additional mental process under broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g. the user makes note of which drone provider to compensate).
Claim 7 describes determining a search range, which is considered an additional mental process under broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g. the user determining an appropriate range to search for a fallen drone).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (US20200331607A1; hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Yamada discloses a search assistance device (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0028 describe a server device 10 for facilitating drone recovery) comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform (Paragraph 0032, “FIG. 2 shows a hardware configuration of server device 10, which is a computer including processor 11, memory 12”; Paragraph 0035, “Memory 12 is a computer-readable recording medium… can store the programs (program codes), the software modules, and the data”):
acquiring abnormality notification information transmitted from a mobile object in which an abnormality has occurred among a plurality of mobile objects (Figure 7 and Paragraphs 0085-0086 describe a drone 20 that has detected an abnormality (Step 21: “drone 20 has detected an abnormality”), and upon requiring emergency landing, transmits notification information to server device 10 (Step 24: “the drone 20 sends emergency landing information indicating an emergency landing location to server device 10”) which is reasonably indicative of abnormality notification information);
specifying an attribute of a search target, which is a mobile object that has transmitted the abnormality notification information, based on attribute information related to attributes of mobile objects stored in a storage (Paragraph 0123 describes server device 10 identifying various attributes associated with drone 20, including the value (e.g. price, time-sensitivity, etc.) of its payload (“After drone 20 ceases its flight, a retrieval procedure may be determined based on an attribute of an object transported by the drone 20. In the present embodiment, situation information acquisition unit 104, upon detecting that drone 20 for which detection related to cessation of flight has been performed holds an object to be transported, acquires information (attribute information) indicating an attribute of the object, as situation information”);
calculating a priority of a search according to the attribute of the search target based on a predetermined rule defined in advance (Paragraphs 0125-0128 describe changing the retrieval procedure based on the attributes associated with drone 20 (“Specifically, upon detecting that the acquired situation information (attribute information) indicates a predetermined attribute, retrieval procedure determination unit 105 determines a procedure in which retrieval is performed using retrieval drone 30”); Examiner notes that changing the retrieval procedure based on urgency for recovering the payload (e.g. If the payload is time-sensitive, a retrieval drone 30, which is faster than other retrieval methods, is sent to retrieve drone 20) is reasonably indicative of determining priority of search and retrieval).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada discloses claim 1. Yamada further discloses:
the attribute information includes information indicating a load of the search target (Paragraph 0123 describes attributes associated with drone 20 as including the value (e.g. price, time-sensitivity, etc.) of its payload (“After drone 20 ceases its flight, a retrieval procedure may be determined based on an attribute of an object transported by the drone 20”), and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to information indicating a load of the search target (Paragraphs 0125-0128 describe determining priority based on the payload information of drone 20 (e.g. If the payload is time-sensitive, a retrieval drone 30, which is faster than other retrieval methods, is sent to retrieve drone 20)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Yamada et al. (US20210350717A1; hereinafter Yamada 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada discloses claim 1. While Yamada further discloses the attribute information includes position information when the search target transmits the abnormality notification information (Paragraph 0063, “Flight cessation detection unit 103, upon detecting that a position indicated by the sensor information is not a departure site or a destination site indicated by the flight plan, detects that the drone 20 that has sent the sensor information has ceased flying at an unexpected location (the position indicated by the sensor information)), Yamada does not explicitly recite: the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to the position information.
Nevertheless, Yamada 2 teaches features for setting prioritization among a plurality of drones (see at least Abstract) comprising:
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to the position information (Paragraphs 0151-0154 describes changing priority based on position information of a drone (“…flight information acquisition unit 102 acquires ground information, which is information indicating the population density of the ground in the vicinity of drone 20 in flight…Flight status processing unit 112 increases the priority as the population density indicated by the ground information acquired regarding drone 20 for which a possibility of crashing is indicated by the acquired flight status increases”)).
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 Yamada invention to expand features for determining position information (Paragraph 0063) and setting a priority of retrieval (Paragraph 0091, “the retrieval procedures that differ in retrieval time may refer to retrieval procedures that differ in a retrieval time taken dependent on a priority of retrieval”) to include features that allow prioritization based on position information, as taught by Yamada 2, for the benefit of prioritizing drones that are attributed with higher risk (Yamada 2, Paragraphs 0151-0154).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of DeJana et al. (US20130103823A1; hereinafter DeJana).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada discloses claim 1. Yamada does not explicitly disclose: the attribute information includes information indicating whether an owner of the search target has insurance, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to whether the owner of the search target has insurance.
Nevertheless, DeJana teaches features setting recovery prioritization (see at least Paragraph 0001) comprising:
the attribute information includes information indicating whether an owner of the search target has insurance, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to whether the owner of the search target has insurance (Paragraph 0087 describes features for adjusting prioritization based on whether an owner of an item (e.g. cloud resources associated with the user) has insurance for such an item (“Higher priority for those resources belonging to customers with backup/recovery insurance”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Yamada invention to expand features for setting a priority of retrieval (Paragraph 0091, “the retrieval procedures that differ in retrieval time may refer to retrieval procedures that differ in a retrieval time taken dependent on a priority of retrieval”) to include features that allow the prioritization to be based on whether an item is insured, as taught by DeJana. This is because DeJana is reasonably pertinent to the same problem of changing a priority order based on insurance status of an item/resource and would allow the well-known benefit of calculating a priority order based on customary factors.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Ito et al. (WO2019181917A1, citations refer to English translation attached by examiner; hereinafter Ito).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada discloses claim 1. Yamada does not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: transmitting a capturing request to a mobile object present within a predetermined distance from the search target, and acquiring captured data generated in response to the capturing request from a mobile object present within the predetermined distance.
Nevertheless, Ito teaches features for a server requesting a drone to perform a search (see at least Paragraph 0010, “a searching mobile object that responds to a search request regarding the surrounding environment is assigned from among the mobile objects”; Paragraph 0022, “The mobile objects 26 include a plurality of drones 32”) comprising:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: transmitting a capturing request to a mobile object present within a predetermined distance from the search target (Paragraph 0078 describes the search request only being sent to a drone within a predetermined distance (e.g. within range of the requested search area) of the search target (“…if the range to be the search target area Rsrh is a range that cannot be searched by either the drone 32 or the vehicle 34, the service server 22 may notify the customer terminal 20 that the range cannot be searched”) and
acquiring captured data generated in response to the capturing request from a mobile object present within the predetermined distance (Paragraph 0073 describes the service server 22 as acquiring captured data (e.g. images, location etc.) from the drone that performs the search (“In the search control, the searching mobile object 26srh transmits search information Isrh to the service server 22… the search information Isrh includes image information image1 and image2 acquired by the cameras 150 and 180”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Yamada invention to expand features for requesting another drone to retrieve a search target (Paragraph 0030) to include features for requesting search assistance before retrieval, as taught by Ito, for the benefit of improving understanding of the surrounding environment of the search target (Ito, Paragraph 0009).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Ito and High et al. (US20170236428A1; hereinafter High).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada as currently modified discloses claim 5. Yamada does not explicitly disclose: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: giving value data to an owner of a mobile object present within the predetermined distance when acquiring the captured data.
Nevertheless, High teaches features for renting unmanned aerial systems within a predetermined distance to perform requested tasks (Paragraph 0048, “Some embodiments enable customers to have a UAS allocated and/or to temporarily rent a UAS to perform a task from a UAS provider, which may be a company, collection of companies, individual, collection of individuals, or the like. In some instances, the available UASs may be limited to a threshold distance within an area where the task is to be performed”; Paragraph 0050, “Numerous different tasks can be performed through the allocation of the UASs. For example, the UASs may be allocated to perform aerial imagery…”) comprising:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: giving value data to an owner of a mobile object present within the predetermined distance when acquiring the captured data (Paragraph 0053 describes compensation to the drone provider (e.g. owner of the allocated/rented drone) upon completing the task (“ In some embodiments, the allocation control circuit 102 and/or a bill system automatically bills and/or charges the customer for the service about to be performed, and/or upon completion of the task (e.g., in response to a notification from the UAS provider)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Yamada invention to expand features for requesting another drone to retrieve a search target (Paragraph 0030) to include features for providing compensation, as taught by High, for the benefit of allowing tasks to be requested from drones associated with other companies/owners (High, Paragraph 0048).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Singla et al. (US20180336788A1; hereinafter Singla).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada discloses claim 1. Yamada does not explicitly disclose: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: determining a search range of the search target based on position information when the search target has transmitted the abnormality notification information and information regarding a terrain corresponding to the position information (Examiner notes that determining a search range based on position information is being interpreted as determining a search range based on latest position information of the search target, which is consistent with Paragraph 0079 of the instant specification (“…That is, the determination unit 160 sets a range including the latest position information of the search target as the search range”)).
Nevertheless, Singla teaches features for determining a search range (“SAR Pattern”) based on contextual information (see at least Abstract) comprising:
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform: determining a search range of the search target based on position information when the search target has transmitted the abnormality notification information and information regarding a terrain corresponding to the position information (Paragraph 0028 describes determining a search range based on mission information and terrain information (“The SARPS is further configured to generate a customized SAR pattern using the obtained mission information, the weather information, the terrain information, and the flight traffic information”); Paragraph 0021 describes the mission information as including a last known position of the search target (“The mission information 22 includes, but is not limited to, a last known location of the SAR target”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Yamada invention to expand features for determining position information (Paragraph 0063) and retrieving a fallen drone (Paragraph 0067) to include features for setting a search range, as taught by Singla, for the benefit of searching and retrieving missing vehicles (Singla, Paragraphs 0002 and 0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669