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
This office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on April 2, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-11 have been amended. No claims have been newly added/cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 10-11 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on April 2, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on April 2, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been made in view of newly cited art Oda et al. (US20220339779A1).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites (as amended) “…the attribute information includes information indicating whether an owner of at least one of the two or more search targets has insurance, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to the information indicating whether the owner of the two or more search targets has insurance”. The “owner of the two or more search targets” lacks sufficient antecedent basis as the earlier recited owner owns at least one of the two or more search targets. According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with rest of the claim, the limitation will be treated as the owner of at least one of the two or more search targets.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US20200331607A1; hereinafter Yamada) in view of Oda et al. (US20220339779A1, foreign priority to April 21, 2021; hereinafter Oda).
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 two or more mobile objects in which 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; Examiner notes that drone 20 may represent a plurality of drones as described in Paragraph 0028, “Drone management system 1 includes network 2, server device 10, drones 20-1, 20-2, . . . (when not distinguished from each other, referred to as “drone 20”), and retrieval drone 30”);
specifying one or more attributes associated with two or more search targets, which are the two or more mobile objects that 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”).
While Yamada further discloses controlling, based on the priority, a motion of a collecting machine that is configured to collect the two or more search targets (Paragraphs 0072-0074, “Retrieval procedure determination unit 105 generates retrieval procedure information…for the drone 20 for which detection related to cessation of flight has been performed…upon receiving retrieval procedure information in which retrieval drone 30 is designated as a retriever, sends notification data to retrieval drone 30 to notify retrieval drone 30 of a retrieval time, a landing site, and a return site as indicated by the retrieval procedure information”), Yamada does not explicitly recite: calculating a priority of a search among the two or more search targets according to the one or more attributes associated with the two or more search targets based on a predetermined rule defined in advance.
Nevertheless, Oda teaches setting a priority of recovery between a plurality of mobile robots (see at least Abstract) comprising:
calculating a priority of a search among the two or more search targets according to the one or more attributes associated with the two or more search targets based on a predetermined rule defined in advance (Paragraph 0043, “When the determination unit 330 determines that two or more of the mobile robots 100_1 to 100_n are in the recovery requiring state…the priority determination unit 340 determines the recovery priorities of the mobile robot 100_i, 100_j based on the transported object, a purpose of movement, the position information and the like of each of the mobile robots 100_i, 100_j”).
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 the features for setting a priority for 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 determining a priority order between two or more robots, as taught by Oda, for the benefit of reducing delays to more urgent deliveries (e.g. medicine) (Oda, Paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada as currently modified teaches claim 1. Yamada further discloses:
the attribute information includes information indicating a load of at least one of the two or more search targets (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”).
While Yamada further discloses determining priority based on the payload information of drone 20 (Paragraphs 0125-0128), Yamada does not explicitly recite: the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to information indicating a load of the two or more search targets.
Nevertheless, Oda further teaches:
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to information indicating a load of the two or more search targets (Paragraph 0043, “When the determination unit 330 determines that two or more of the mobile robots 100_1 to 100_n are in the recovery requiring state…the priority determination unit 340 determines the recovery priorities of the mobile robot 100_i, 100_j based on the transported object, a purpose of movement, the position information and the like of each of the mobile robots 100_i, 100_j”).
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 the features for setting a priority for 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 determining a priority order between two or more robots, as taught by Oda, for the benefit of reducing delays to more urgent deliveries (Oda, Paragraphs 0004-0005).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Oda and Yamada et al. (US20210350717A1; hereinafter Yamada 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Yamada further discloses the attribute information includes position information when the two or more search targets transmit 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); Examiner notes that drone 20 may represent a plurality of drones as described in Paragraph 0028, “…drones 20-1, 20-2…(when not distinguished from each other, referred to as “drone 20”)”), 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 further 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 Oda and DeJana et al. (US20130103823A1; hereinafter DeJana).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada as currently modified teaches claim 1. Yamada does not explicitly disclose: the attribute information includes information indicating whether an owner of at least one of the two or more search targets has insurance, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to the information indicating whether the owner of the two or more search targets 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 at least one of the two or more search targets has insurance, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform: calculating the priority according to the information indicating whether the owner of the two or more search targets 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”); See section 35 U.S.C. 112(b) further above for interpretation).
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 Oda and Ito et al. (WO2019181917A1, citations refer to English translation attached by examiner; hereinafter Ito).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada as currently modified teaches 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 at least one of the two or more search targets, 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 at least one of the two or more search targets (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 Oda, Ito, and High et al. (US20170236428A1; hereinafter High).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada as currently modified teaches 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 Oda and Glatfelter et al. (US20200349664A1; hereinafter Glatfelter).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada as currently modified teaches 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 at least one of the two or more search targets based on: position information when the two or more search targets search target 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, Glatfelter 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 at least one of the two or more search targets based on: position information when the two or more search targets transmitted the abnormality notification information, and information regarding a terrain corresponding to the position information (Paragraphs 0071-0072 describe using latest position information to determine a search grid for two or more targets, (“During the search, a definite location and time of the person is obtained (block 206). This can include various manners, including but not limited to being obtained from a data source 30 through the IP network 40 (e.g., a cell phone record indicating the time and location)…This new information is used to calculate updated search grids based on this time and location (block 208)…“The methods and devices are also applicable for search for two or more missing persons or entities”); Paragraph 0043 also describes using terrain information corresponding to position information (“Information from the mobile communication network 41 can provide location history of the missing person's mobile equipment…This information can be…information that is gathered after the person is reported as missing (e.g., terrain data obtained by unmanned autonomous vehicles). These scenarios are then used to focus the search efforts of the search entities 90”)).
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 using position information (Paragraph 0063, “…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)”) to include features for setting a search range for two or more entities, as taught by Glatfelter, for the benefit of focusing searches to a small area (Glatfelter, Paragraph 0068).
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 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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 5:30 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
Prosecution Insights